Good debate this gents, even if the subject matter is a little ‘dry’, it’s really important to our very future.
Can I add further comment to Wassy’s post which was-
“even if it is acceptable to include Brennan’s sale in our accounts that's not what decides P&S, its the separate calcs and allowances like infrastracture. Our accounts will show a much higher loss than we're included for P&S. These rules have already been determined, so whether we legally include it in our accounts or not, if it's not allowable in those rules they can just add it back in.”
It is indeed correct that our P&S numbers will differ from our annual accounts; however, this is mainly in relation to removing items of expenditure from the P&S calculation rather than removing football income or profit from the figures (the sale of a player to a third party club clearly differs from sponsorship income which can be manipulated and is one of the charges against Man City). If it is allowable under accounting rules then the PL can’t unilaterally decide to reject it. It forms part of the base figures and outside of subsequent interpretation for P&S, which is effectively an internal exercise within the league and it is this which the PL can influence.
This leads on to a possible second point that the PL have ‘moved the goalposts’ on what expenses they allow to be deducted as part of the P&S calculation. Forest have hinted at it, Everton have shouted it from the rooftops. Piecing together the sound bites, I’’d bet Forest (although close to the limit) were just inside it but for some subsequent PL adjustments. It would explain Randall’s earlier public confidence if the changes were made thereafter. I’d also be willing to guess some of these changes affect only us eg promotion bonuses. If that’s true, it’s not difficult to see how some may suggest that the charges against us are politically motivated and discriminatory (to offer up a sacrificial lamb whilst not affecting the status quo of the cartel clubs).
I’d love to hear if anyone has any knowledge of how true this might be? (Sniff?)
Can I add further comment to Wassy’s post which was-
“even if it is acceptable to include Brennan’s sale in our accounts that's not what decides P&S, its the separate calcs and allowances like infrastracture. Our accounts will show a much higher loss than we're included for P&S. These rules have already been determined, so whether we legally include it in our accounts or not, if it's not allowable in those rules they can just add it back in.”
It is indeed correct that our P&S numbers will differ from our annual accounts; however, this is mainly in relation to removing items of expenditure from the P&S calculation rather than removing football income or profit from the figures (the sale of a player to a third party club clearly differs from sponsorship income which can be manipulated and is one of the charges against Man City). If it is allowable under accounting rules then the PL can’t unilaterally decide to reject it. It forms part of the base figures and outside of subsequent interpretation for P&S, which is effectively an internal exercise within the league and it is this which the PL can influence.
This leads on to a possible second point that the PL have ‘moved the goalposts’ on what expenses they allow to be deducted as part of the P&S calculation. Forest have hinted at it, Everton have shouted it from the rooftops. Piecing together the sound bites, I’’d bet Forest (although close to the limit) were just inside it but for some subsequent PL adjustments. It would explain Randall’s earlier public confidence if the changes were made thereafter. I’d also be willing to guess some of these changes affect only us eg promotion bonuses. If that’s true, it’s not difficult to see how some may suggest that the charges against us are politically motivated and discriminatory (to offer up a sacrificial lamb whilst not affecting the status quo of the cartel clubs).
I’d love to hear if anyone has any knowledge of how true this might be? (Sniff?)