Burnley Verdict

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

If you look into the accounts we owe a huge sum of money on previous transfers, £230 million due within this financial year. Our turnover was £168 million last year. So even with player sales and a reduction in salaries we are carrying a huge amount of debt and liabilities. The accounts show the wage bill at £141.5 million last year.

Transfers are already accounted for.

For example, when we sold Jota, Liverpool paid a low amount up front, but for PSR purposes we include the full sale.

 

[SakosRightFoot]

Transfers are already accounted for.

For example, when we sold Jota, Liverpool paid a low amount up front, but for PSR purposes we include the full sale.

Thats selling yes, not purchasing. When you purchase the player you amortise the value over the course of the contract and in most cases agree payment terms spread out over an agreed period. So whilst we count players we sell in full immediately, we do not add on the entire cost of a purchase. Basically all the money spent on dross in recent years caught up with us. We also did a pretty shoddy job of future planning so we gave long term or bumper new contracts to people like Raul, Moutinho and Jonny which ended up having no resale value.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

Thats selling yes, not purchasing. When you purchase the player you amortise the value over the course of the contract and in most cases agree payment terms spread out over an agreed period. So whilst we count players we sell in full immediately, we do not add on the entire cost of a purchase. Basically all the money spent on dross in recent years caught up with us. We also did a pretty shoddy job of future planning so we gave long term or bumper new contracts to people like Raul, Moutinho and Jonny which ended up having no resale value.

Yes I know. But it still doesn't add up. I have the amortisation as part of the figures that allow me to confidently say we will not lose £39m (£22m for PSR) for 23/24.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

If you look into the accounts we owe a huge sum of money on previous transfers, £230 million due within this financial year. Our turnover was £168 million last year. So even with player sales and a reduction in salaries we are carrying a huge amount of debt and liabilities. The accounts show the wage bill at £141.5 million last year.

Sorry, this seems to have become another accounts thread, and I'm always here to learn, but what does this have to do with anything regarding PSR? Spend £230m and for the accounts you're exactly even. All that matters is the amortisation on those players.

Amortisation in 22/23 was £79m. We've lost predominantly Nunes (£9m) and Collins (£5) and added most of Cunha (pretty much replaces Nunes) and a few others. So I image that will remain similar.

Wages were £141m. We lost most of the high earners Adama, Mouts, Neves, Raul and others off the wage bill, probably £20m+ down overall (very roughly).

Revenue was £169m - that will increase a bit with the Cup and maybe a higher league finish (and a bit on ticket prices!)

So we're probably not a million miles from balancing the books on that. Maybe £20m over?

However on player trading we have Neves - £40m profit, Collins - £8m, Nunes £20m, Coady and Giles maybe another £7m. £75m maybe in transfer profit.

So how are Fosun via Madeley telling us we're going to make a £39m loss.

Also for pity's sake someone tell me how we scraped by last season, made a £14.6m profit in the rolling year that is being replaced, but can make a £39m loss (or £22m if you like) this season?

None of it makes sense (to me at least).

 

[SakosRightFoot]

Yes I know. But it still doesn't add up. I have the amortisation as part of the figures that allow me to confidently say we will not lose £39m (£22m for PSR) for 23/24.

You might need to show your working here.

As I said turnover last year was around £168.5 million, that was up £3million on the previous season so safe to assume there won't be a gigantic jump there. Staffing costs are around £141.5 million and we have £230 million in liabilities due this year. So by rudimentary maths not accounting for other factors we can start with around £370 million of outgoings, take off £170 mill income and around maybe £130 million player sales plus what £20 million lower staff costs and maybe an additional £10 million in broadcasting and league/commercial income, its not that hard to see where we might be close to the figure you mentioned

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

You might need to show your working here.

As I said turnover last year was around £168.5 million, that was up £3million on the previous season so safe to assume there won't be a gigantic jump there. Staffing costs are around £141.5 million and we have £230 million in liabilities due this year. So by rudimentary maths not accounting for other factors we can start with around £370 million of outgoings, take off £170 mill income and around maybe £130 million player sales plus what £20 million lower staff costs and maybe an additional £10 million in broadcasting and league/commercial income, its not that hard to see where we might be close to the figure you mentioned

I'm the same as SYHO so won't repeat his post.

I have the amortisation at around £70m this year.

 

[SakosRightFoot]

Sorry, this seems to have become another accounts thread, and I'm always here to learn, but what does this have to do with anything regarding PSR? Spend £230m and for the accounts you're exactly even. All that matters is the amortisation on those players.

Amortisation in 22/23 was £79m. We've lost predominantly Nunes (£9m) and Collins (£5) and added most of Cunha (pretty much replaces Nunes) and a few others. So I image that will remain similar.

Wages were £141m. We lost most of the high earners Adama, Mouts, Neves, Raul and others off the wage bill, probably £20m+ down overall (very roughly).

Revenue was £169m - that will increase a bit with the Cup and maybe a higher league finish (and a bit on ticket prices!)

So we're probably not a million miles from balancing the books on that. Maybe £20m over?

However on player trading we have Neves - £40m profit, Collins - £8m, Nunes £20m, Coady and Giles maybe another £7m. £75m maybe in transfer profit.

So how are Fosun via Madeley telling us we're going to make a £39m loss.

Also for pity's sake someone tell me how we scraped by last season, made a £14.6m profit in the rolling year that is being replaced, but can make a £39m loss (or £22m if you like) this season?

None of it makes sense (to me at least).

The bit we don't know about is the profits on the player trading. £52 million of our liabilities were for add ons to transfers and we also had £28 million of bonuses to current staff, presumably lopetegui had a hefty survival clause?

We are presuming we made clear profit on the sales of neves and nunes, not accounting for sell on clauses and agents takes etc.

It's a complicated web these accounts, I don't really see much reason for them to lie about it

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The bit we don't know about is the profits on the player trading. £52 million of our liabilities were for add ons to transfers and we also had £28 million of bonuses to current staff, presumably lopetegui had a hefty survival clause?

We are presuming we made clear profit on the sales of neves and nunes, not accounting for sell on clauses and agents takes etc.

It's a complicated web these accounts, I don't really see much reason for them to lie about it

Those are very good points thanks, and I agree even when it's all published it's impossible to tell how close things as you can't know what the allowances are. However the thing that still baffles me is
20/21 +18.4m
21/22 -46.1m
22/23 -67.2m
So we lost £95m but some of that was covered by allowed spending. So we weren't actually that close to a breach, despite what we were told.

Now apparently
22/23 -39m
Which gives us a 3 year total of -£152m, but apparently that will be OK, which must mean we've got £47m of allowances, (which seems a lot, but then we are told it's £17m this year). But that means it must have been £30m for the previous two years which means we were £40m in the clear last year.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Frank Lincoln]

For those saying Wolves should beat Burnley, all the teams around us drew as well, and two of them, Brighton and Newcastle United were playing teams around the relegation zone.

My point is that just because we are playing teams much lower in the table, we have no god given right to win them games.

 

[SakosRightFoot]

Those are very good points thanks, and I agree even when it's all published it's impossible to tell how close things as you can't know what the allowances are. However the thing that still baffles me is
20/21 +18.4m
21/22 -46.1m
22/23 -67.2m
So we lost £95m but some of that was covered by allowed spending. So we weren't actually that close to a breach, despite what we were told.

Now apparently
22/23 -39m
Which gives us a 3 year total of -£152m, but apparently that will be OK, which must mean we've got £47m of allowances, (which seems a lot, but then we are told it's £17m this year). But that means it must have been £30m for the previous two years which means we were £40m in the clear last year.

Does that make any sense?

Might have been on a different thread but someone pointed out I think most of us misconstrued the 'close to ffp' thing as last season as opposed to this. Ie we were always ok for last year but we knew what our likely losses would be last year and taking off that £18 million profit meant we needed a healthy profit this year.

Sure I read somewhere the clubs have to make projections to the Premier League not just for the current season they're in but also the upcoming one, so they're working a year or so ahead whereas we're always looking a year or so back because thats the only figures we have.

I'm just guessing, but perhaps the £39 million figure is pre player sale profits. Which if you think about it would make sense if we are on course to be under the £105 million limit this season, we must be making a profit somewhere

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Might have been on a different thread but someone pointed out I think most of us misconstrued the 'close to ffp' thing as last season as opposed to this. Ie we were always ok for last year but we knew what our likely losses would be last year and taking off that £18 million profit meant we needed a healthy profit this year.

Sure I read somewhere the clubs have to make projections to the Premier League not just for the current season they're in but also the upcoming one, so they're working a year or so ahead whereas we're always looking a year or so back because thats the only figures we have.

I'm just guessing, but perhaps the £39 million figure is pre player sale profits. Which if you think about it would make sense if we are on course to be under the £105 million limit this season, we must be making a profit somewhere

Thanks, that's a very good point. I even went back and re-read the famous letter and Jeff as ever is very careful with his words. That makes sense the way you say it, basically we were miles under in 22/23 and all the worries were about this season (added onto the previous two losses). Nobody seemed to feel the need to tell us that we were actually £40m clear 21-23.

I think it is a £39m loss though after player trading as they (don't ask me how) are claiming £17m of allowed spending, so as I said assume that's similar previously that would leave us close to £105m. However we won't lose £39m, because the Cup run and finishing maybe 12th will generate about £14m more on the merit payment than the 17th they seem to have worked on.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Thanks, that's a very good point. I even went back and re-read the famous letter and Jeff as ever is very careful with his words. That makes sense the way you say it, basically we we're miles under in 22/23 and all the worries were about this season (added onto the previous two losses). Nobody seemed to feel the need to tell us that we were actually £40m clear 21-23.

I think it is a £39m loss though after player trading as they (don't ask me how) are claiming £17m of allowed spending, so as I said assume that's similar previously that would leave us close to £105m. However we won't lose £39m, because the Cup run and finishing maybe 12th will generate about £14m more on the merit payment than the 17th they seem to have worked on.

Yes, I think that’s the key take away, and why we struggled to make sense of the club’s concerns about FFP last summer. Of course we will know for sure this time next year when the 23/24 accounts are published and we can work out how close we were, and would have been, had we finished lower.

I was thinking about it earlier, and for transparency, clubs should be forced to publish their PSR calculations after they’ve been reviewed and signed off by the league.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Yes, I think that’s the key take away, and why we struggled to make sense of the club’s concerns about FFP last summer. Of course we will know for sure this time next year when the 23/24 accounts are published and we can work out how close we were, and would have been, had we finished lower.

I was thinking about it earlier, and for transparency, clubs should be forced to publish their PSR calculations after they’ve been reviewed and signed off by the league.

Yes, although I don't think we will ever know. As far as I can tell there's not enough detail in the published accounts to work out what is not counting for PSR. The £39m but only £22m for PSR is the first I can remember of us giving any idea of that figure. The Academy was supposed to be costing £5m a year a long time ago, so I guess it might account for about half that difference?

 

[Hot Fuss]

Right ****ing pain getting in the ground.

Sarabia was ****e.

For everyone wondering why RAN hasn’t been played further forward before last night, Hugo’s performance was your answer.

Still a decent point, and could have nicked it.
If we get 50 points it’s been a terrific season.

 

[SakosRightFoot]

Yes, although I don't think we will ever know. As far as I can tell there's not enough detail in the published accounts to work out what is not counting for PSR. The £39m but only £22m for PSR is the first I can remember of us giving any idea of that figure. The Academy was supposed to be costing £5m a year a long time ago, so I guess it might account for about half that difference?

If you drive past the training ground they’ve put an extra pitch out the front which was probably costly and there’s probably a fair bit that goes into both Kidderminster and Telford for the women’s games etc not huge amounts admittedly but it’s all psr deductible isn’t it

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

It put us over on losses but PSR isn't what you lose. There are allowable deductions for various factors.

According to Steve Madeley, who got the info from Wolves, and it's the same info provided to Liam Keen as he has the same figures, the allowable deductions in 23/24 come to £17m.

You can also work out from his calculations that the two years prior come to £80m losses for PSR. So the £113m is actually £80m towards the £105m limit.

They are claiming we're close to breaching PSR because in 2023/24 we're forecasting to LOSE £39m, which is £22m for PSR.

Yes, this year, our 'forecasts' claim that we are going to lose that much money.

Do you think that is possible? After selling Neves, after reducing the wage bill to the extent we did. Do you actually believe that? If you do, fair enough. I can't fathom one bit how it's at all possible that a club could do what we did and still announce losses of £39m (£22m for PSR).

I cant see any way we will lose almost £40 mil this season
Im no accountant but i would say more like a £20 mil profit with the player sales etc
I know we lose money every week but not to that extent
I have no idea how PSR works differently to FFP for allowable deductions,but as i see it we were always under the limit last year and the sales were to cover potential losses this year,which we did
So if we still over the limit theres something drastically wrong

 

[SuperGran]

 

[JonahWolf]

Doc in the box has scored goals for the team before. It's not totally insane to think maybe he can sneak one off a bit of chaos from a set piece or something.

He was also pretty fresh.

He did also make 2 pretty much perfect back post headers back across the danger area at set pieces, which was probably a big part of his brief.
Far more successful in that than anything else, but can’t knock that bit.

 

[Greeno]

No more flawed than any of those other stats you list. For example, Adama was sometimes top of the succesful dribbles chart for all of Europes top leagues. Wouldn't have been in the top 50 most valued attackers though. And I've heard coaches say that "most tackles" for a defender is not a good stat, because the best defenders can neutralise opponents by good positioning and so on. Pass % and possession tend to be wastes of time, literally.

You could say that results and hence position is the only stat that matters. However, there are even those who don't accept that we are the 10th best club in England, with 10 worse than us in this league! Apparently , we are so much worse run than many clubs beneath us.

It’s like “chippers are the best putters” in golf..

They put the ball closer to the hole, so they make more putts. They’re not the best putters, though (only statistically).

Stats, man… what can you trust?

 

[SoCal_Wolf]

It’s like “chippers are the best putters” in golf..

They put the ball closer to the hole, so they make more putts. They’re not the best putters, though (only statistically).

Stats, man… what can you trust?

That's why you collect more statistics - they all have their plusses and minuses. The one you reference would be average putts per hole. It doesn't take into consideration if you were on the green or not. So, you can track the average putts per hole for greens you hit in regulation (GIR). That takes out the good chippers. But, it still doesn't control for length of putts.

The latest putting statistic is strokes gained putting (SGP). It compares a player's putting performance to the field average and calculates the number of strokes gained or lost based on the distance of the putt. It provides a more comprehensive picture of a player's putting performance, accounting for the length and difficulty of the putts. Better than the other statistics, but this stat doesn't take into consideration the number of putts.

Another stat is to look at the % of putts holed out at different distances (e.g., less than 5 feet, 5-10 feet, and so on).

Stats are great tools for gaining knowledge and summarizing large amounts of data, but you have to have a nuanced understanding of what the stats are measuring and where they may fall short--none of them are perfect.

 

[Greeno]

That's why you collect more statistics - they all have their plusses and minuses. The one you reference would be average putts per hole. It doesn't take into consideration if you were on the green or not. So, you can track the average putts per hole for greens you hit in regulation (GIR). That takes out the good chippers. But, it still doesn't control for length of putts.

The latest putting statistic is strokes gained putting (SGP). It compares a player's putting performance to the field average and calculates the number of strokes gained or lost based on the distance of the putt. It provides a more comprehensive picture of a player's putting performance, accounting for the length and difficulty of the putts. Better than the other statistics, but this stat doesn't take into consideration the number of putts.

Another stat is to look at the % of putts holed out at different distances (e.g., less than 5 feet, 5-10 feet, and so on).

Stats are great tools for gaining knowledge and summarizing large amounts of data, but you have to have a nuanced understanding of what the stats are measuring and where they may fall short--none of them are perfect.

Agree entirely, but I didn’t think there would be any/many other golf nuts on here - being a Wolves forum

 

[SoCal_Wolf]

Agree entirely, but I didn’t think there would be any/many other golf nuts on here - being a Wolves forum

Golf nut and stats nerd - amazing somebody married me.

 

[QB Wolf]

It doesn't read like a criticism of the club to me, just a statement of the facts, we needed more players we couldn't afford them, all these people basking in their told you so glory, keep banging the same drum, like they were the only ones that knew, but everyone knew it's not a massive secret, why will GON get in trouble, Shi and Guo Guangchang, will be more aware of the situation and the constraints the club had in January than anyone.

Sa man of the match.

Glad Gary clarified this yesterday