2 million cash pumped into the business in return for shares. Reported at companies house.

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by Mounts Kipper

14 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Not talking about transfer budgets. How are Preston turning over so much more than us that they can afford to spend 6M on a player, but us doing the same would break SCR rules?

Question of volume more than vastly different revenue assumptions for 26/27 at a guess.

They probably only need a couple of players, we need 10/11. If we only needed 2/3 we could probably spend £6m on a player.

Just now, DLH said:

Question of volume more than vastly different revenue assumptions for 26/27 at a guess.

They probably only need a couple of players, we need 10/11. If we only needed 2/3 we could probably spend £6m on a player.

What does any of that have to do with SCR?

16 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Not talking about transfer budgets. How are Preston turning over so much more than us that they can afford to spend 6M on a player, but us doing the same would break SCR rules?

I think they have a rich owner who's pumping money in and you're allowed to do that up to the £33m loss over 3 years or something. And we don't have people willing to throw that much at it. How that ties in with the 85% of budget on squad I couldn't understand.

I listened to a championship podcast that tried to explain it and I'm none the wiser.

I don't think anyone's suggesting us spending that kind of money would breach the SCR

39 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Not talking about transfer budgets. How are Preston turning over so much more than us that they can afford to spend 6M on a player, but us doing the same would break SCR rules?

Without checking, they're not turning over more than us.

Edited July 13Jul 13 by jmjhb

9 minutes ago, Cheese said:

What does any of that have to do with SCR?

Its the limit it puts on you in terms of spending. I wouldn't be surprised if us and Preston have similar amounts to spend this year under SCR (If Sharon is to be believed then the backers know the need to put money in, so I wouldn't be surprised to see at least £11m in this year at some point) but they have less to do with what they can spend, so they can afford the big ticket signings.

12 minutes ago, Stig said:

I think they have a rich owner who's pumping money in and you're allowed to do that up to the £33m loss over 3 years or something. And we don't have people willing to throw that much at it. How that ties in with the 85% of budget on squad I couldn't understand.

I listened to a championship podcast that tried to explain it and I'm none the wiser.

For the sake of argument assume us and Preston will have similar revenues (bigger crowds for us vs longer championship stay so better sponsorship for preston). Say we both have £30 million revenue, plus owners put in £11m. We both have the same budget to spend under SCR for the year £41m x 85% = £34.85m. They'll probably spend more on wages than we do, we need to build a team.

5 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

They're not turning over more than us.

Exactly.

3 hours ago, Ani said:

?? This was a joke and I was agreeing with you on the thread.

shit day, forget it pal alls good

3 hours ago, jmjhb said:

Then it becomes an issue of cash flow.

That is how i understand it. We rightly have to try and fund the club unless we have backers who do not mind losing money each year like most of the present day Championship......Some clubs can afford to lose 20-50m a season we certainly cannot as Sluffy pointed out, but these new rules are based on turnover and not losses

4 hours ago, Cheese said:

Explain how Preston can spend £6M on 1 player, but we can't without breaking the same rules.

Who said anything about we couldn't without breaking the same rules?

Certainly wasn't me...

4 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Fwiw I reckon we could buy a £6m this season if we wanted to (I reckon we have something like £12m in the pot at the moment (see my post -Transfer Gossip page 1928) but it is unlikely that we will because the logic goes something like this...

As I've said already, I've given you a full answer to your question.

Not my problem if you haven't bothered to read what I've posted, is it?

31 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

That is how i understand it. We rightly have to try and fund the club unless we have backers who do not mind losing money each year like most of the present day Championship......Some clubs can afford to lose 20-50m a season we certainly cannot as Sluffy pointed out, but these new rules are based on turnover and not losses

But losses have to be covered first, as if we can't pay the bills the club ends up in Administration (which means all who bought shares in FV have lost all they invested and ownership of the club automatically transfers from FV to the Administrators.

AFTER provision has been made to pay the expected trading losses for year1, then anything else left in the 'pot' plus any new investment put into the club (and maybe income from a sale of a player or two can be used for SCR (bearing in mind to leave enough in the pot to cover projected trading losses in year 2 and 3 taking into account future new investment and hoped for transfer sales).

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

But losses have to be covered first, as if we can't pay the bills the club ends up in Administration (which means all who bought shares in FV have lost all they invested and ownership of the club automatically transfers from FV to the Administrators.

AFTER provision has been made to pay the expected trading losses for year1, then anything else left in the 'pot' plus any new investment put into the club (and maybe income from a sale of a player or two can be used for SCR (bearing in mind to leave enough in the pot to cover projected trading losses in year 2 and 3 taking into account future new investment and hoped for transfer sales).

I think you have it wrong. Any losses in year one can be paid out by the owners as long as we do not exceed 85% of our turnover on wages....Added to that the owners can put in 35m over three years above and beyond. I doubt FV will want to put in anywhere near that amount yet other owners will not baulk at that amount.

29 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

I think you have it wrong.

Oooh, fckg Hell !

10 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

I think you have it wrong. Any losses in year one can be paid out by the owners as long as we do not exceed 85% of our turnover on wages....Added to that the owners can put in 35m over three years above and beyond. I doubt FV will want to put in anywhere near that amount yet other owners will not baulk at that amount.

I don't know if you are trolling me or not, I believe you are but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and will explain things once again.

On 09/07/2026 at 14:25, Sluffy said:

I know I got shot down but my mistake wasn't that my logic was wrong it was that I applied it to the wrong table in the accounts and extrapolated the numbers from there.

It was established thanks to DLH that at the start of last season (including the £30m that for various reasons we received a little bit later) the club had £22m in the pot.

Last season's losses need to be deducted from that.

In 2023-24 we had a trading loss of £11m and in 2024-25 £13m so let's say we lost £10m that would mean there being something like £12m in the pot at the start of this season.

As far as we know nothing else has been put in the pot since the £30m and we will not be breaking even this season therefore we will have a trading loss to cover.

The trading loss has to take priority over transfer business.

Meaning that until FV puts more into the pot most if not all of that £12m is committed to fund this season's end of year trading deficit.

That doesn't mean the club has zero transfer budget, FV can simply put the money in later in the year to cover what we may well spend in this window but where the problem is, is that ongoing trading losses in future years need to be planned and budgeted for. The less money remaining in the pot at the end of each season means the greater the club has to reduce costs (or sell players) to keep within budgeted trading losses year on year.

It's a balancing act if you will,

So what I've said there is that there's something like £12m in the pot at the start of this season

FV HAS to plan for a Trading deficit this season - let us say for argument sake that it will be £10m (it might be more it might be less but the loss in 2023-24 was £11m and 2024-25 £13m, so I think a £10m loss to be a fair 'guess'.

That would mean FV have only £2m in the pot (£12m - £10m) plus a maximum of £15m investment over year 1 - so they have £17m for SCR this season - which sounds really good, doesn't it?

But there are the losses of Year 2 and 3 to be planned for (plus £4.5m that will fall due on the maturity of the bond).

Let us again just for arguments sake say the losses for year 2 will be £8m and year 3 £6m.

So if we say we have £17m to play with this year and then add to that the balance of the maximum £33m that the owners are allowed to put in being £18m (£33m - £15m) that amounts to a sum of £35m (£17m + £18m)

From that that £35m we have to deduct provision for year two losses £8m, year 3 losses £6m and the bond (including the 10% bonus payment for promotion) of £5m

That total's £19m

£35m - £19m leaves £16m

The £16m will need to cover three years of SCR AND leave some thing in the pot for the beginning of year 4.

That's not really a lot of money to play with

One other thing though to take into account is that FV will now receive something like £12m or a bit more from the EFL for being in the Championship - however I would imagine increased players wages would take a big chunk out of that - let's say two thirds, which would add another £12m to the pot.

So playing about with the numbers that would mean the £16m added to the £12m to give £28m to be spread over 4 years (3 years of SCR and leaving something in the pot for year 4, being an average of £7m per year.

That would be far less than the maximum 85% of revenue permitted under SCR

That would be what we could afford under the example I've worked through above but hopefully in year 3 at least we are starting to gain extra revenue from player sales, so it might be FV front loads the £28m - say spending £10 to £12m on SCR in year 1, with player sales in year 3 contributing more revenue to the pot in the later year

I'm obviously not ITK and playing about with numbers but I think it is a fair stab at what FV will need to be aware of and act towards.

Feel free for others to shoot me down.

1 hour ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Oooh, fckg Hell !

57 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I don't know if you are trolling me or not, I believe you are but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and will explain things once again.

So what I've said there is that there's something like £12m in the pot at the start of this season

FV HAS to plan for a Trading deficit this season - let us say for argument sake that it will be £10m (it might be more it might be less but the loss in 2023-24 was £11m and 2024-25 £13m, so I think a £10m loss to be a fair 'guess'.

That would mean FV have only £2m in the pot (£12m - £10m) plus a maximum of £15m investment over year 1 - so they have £17m for SCR this season - which sounds really good, doesn't it?

But there are the losses of Year 2 and 3 to be planned for (plus £4.5m that will fall due on the maturity of the bond).

Let us again just for arguments sake say the losses for year 2 will be £8m and year 3 £6m.

So if we say we have £17m to play with this year and then add to that the balance of the maximum £33m that the owners are allowed to put in being £18m (£33m - £15m) that amounts to a sum of £35m (£17m + £18m)

From that that £35m we have to deduct provision for year two losses £8m, year 3 losses £6m and the bond (including the 10% bonus payment for promotion) of £5m

That total's £19m

£35m - £19m leaves £16m

The £16m will need to cover three years of SCR AND leave some thing in the pot for the beginning of year 4.

That's not really a lot of money to play with

One other thing though to take into account is that FV will now receive something like £12m or a bit more from the EFL for being in the Championship - however I would imagine increased players wages would take a big chunk out of that - let's say two thirds, which would add another £12m to the pot.

So playing about with the numbers that would mean the £16m added to the £12m to give £28m to be spread over 4 years (3 years of SCR and leaving something in the pot for year 4, being an average of £7m per year.

That would be far less than the maximum 85% of revenue permitted under SCR

That would be what we could afford under the example I've worked through above but hopefully in year 3 at least we are starting to gain extra revenue from player sales, so it might be FV front loads the £28m - say spending £10 to £12m on SCR in year 1, with player sales in year 3 contributing more revenue to the pot in the later year

I'm obviously not ITK and playing about with numbers but I think it is a fair stab at what FV will need to be aware of and act towards.

Feel free for others to shoot me down.

no need for all that..... if our turnover is 20m for the coming year we can spend 17m on Fees, wages for all Employees

If we spend 25m we are well inside the total permitted ie the 33m over three years......Of course FV will have to make up the shortfall

Edited July 14Jul 14 by masi 51

6 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

no need for all that..... if our turnover is 20m for the coming year we can spend 17m on Fees, wages for all Employees

If we spend 25m we are well inside the total permitted ie the 35m over three years......Of course FV will have to make up the shortfall

They can only invest a maximum of £15M in any given season though

5 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

no need for all that..... if our turnover is 20m for the coming year we can spend 17m on Fees, wages for all Employees

If we spend 25m we are well inside the total permitted ie the 35m over three years......Of course FV will have to make up the shortfall

No.

The £33m (not £35m) isn't aggregated SPENDING over the next 3 years it is aggregated INVESTMENT over that time.

FV CANNOT make up any shortfall.

Any shortfall means that we've gone bust.

If the 'spend' as you say (which I take you to mean annual trading losses over the next 3 years) is £25m (I suggested £24m in my model above) then that would have first call on what is in the pot at the start of this season plus the maximum £33m FV can add to it.

I estimate we start the new season with £12m in the pot

So we have £45m in total (£12m + £33m) to fund us in excess of turnover for the next 3 years

£24-25m is needed during that time to cover losses leaving around £21m

£5m is needed to cover the bond when it falls due (including the 10% promotion bonus payment) leaving £16m

Some of that will be needed to have in the pot for year 4

I've factored in around about £12m net arising from additional EFL revenue for simply being in the Championship, that would give us £28m (£16m + £12m) to split over 4 years (3 years at SCR and money in the pot for year 4).

That averages out around £7m per season to build and improve a Championship squad.

Hardly megabucks is it?

37 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

They can only invest a maximum of £15M in any given season though

33m over three seasons works out at 11m per season and if we had to use the extra 4m it would mean us having only 7m the season after extra......

This is on top of our turnover for that year. So in theory if our turnover is 20m this year we can have 85% of that which is 17m plus the additional 15m extra which could take it to 32m.

That would be dependent on FV funding the extra 15m.....Like i say pocket money to the stoke city of the world

Edited July 13Jul 13 by masi 51

9 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

The book is almost the length of a Sluffy post

I know I'm a bit of a broken record when it comes to FV finances but didn't Harkin say something about it will cost the club £1m a year for Category 2 Status.

If so where is that money going to be funded from?

I don't really follow the academy, reserves or whatever the group/s are called, so don't really understand how one flows into the next and so on up to feed into the first team.

I assume the academy is for school kids and funding comes from the government - if so the academy showed a profit of £611k in the last published accounts (although I would have thought that money would have been ringfenced for the academy's use exclusively?).

But if I'm wrong about that would that money go towards the £1m for Cat 2?

If not where else can it come from other than the sum I did some days earlier on this thread where I worked out that the club had an average of just £7m per year to spend on 3 years SCR and for the Year 4 pot.

Anyone know differently?

Not sure the government will be funding our academy surely?

9 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I know I'm a bit of a broken record when it comes to FV finances but didn't Harkin say something about it will cost the club £1m a year for Category 2 Status.

If so where is that money going to be funded from?

I don't really follow the academy, reserves or whatever the group/s are called, so don't really understand how one flows into the next and so on up to feed into the first team.

I assume the academy is for school kids and funding comes from the government - if so the academy showed a profit of £611k in the last published accounts (although I would have thought that money would have been ringfenced for the academy's use exclusively?).

But if I'm wrong about that would that money go towards the £1m for Cat 2?

If not where else can it come from other than the sum I did some days earlier on this thread where I worked out that the club had an average of just £7m per year to spend on 3 years SCR and for the Year 4 pot.

Anyone know differently?

Returning pop bottles!!

12 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Returning pop bottles!!

Do we really need all 4 floodlights?

Reckon we could get decent wedge in scrap for one and save on electric too.