UEFA's FFP rules & Sevco

G

Glasbhoy81

Well-known member
According to the UEFA website the way financial FFP works is
UEFA permits football clubs to spend no more than €5 million (£3.9 million) over what they earn in each three-year assessment period. There is, however, a new limit of 30 million euros (previously 45 million euros) if the owners of the club or a related party can cover these losses.

Now Sevco's accounts from the last financial year show loses of £23.5m , which is an increase on the previous year , when loses were £15.9m. That by my maths is £39.4m . That's just 2 years.
Was there loss the year before not around the £11m mark. Taking them to £50m loses in 3 years.
Surely this prevents them from gaining a European football licence
 
Glasbhoy81 said:
According to the UEFA website the way financial FFP works is
UEFA permits football clubs to spend no more than €5 million (£3.9 million) over what they earn in each three-year assessment period. There is, however, a new limit of 30 million euros (previously 45 million euros) if the owners of the club or a related party can cover these losses.

Now Sevco's accounts from the last financial year show loses of £23.5m , which is an increase on the previous year , when loses were £15.9m. That by my maths is £39.4m . That's just 2 years.
Was there loss the year before not around the £11m mark. Taking them to £50m loses in 3 years.
Surely this prevents them from gaining a European football licence
Click to expand...
Aye mate….but there only one problem……..they have to be reported to UEFA by the SFA……..like the masons at hampden are going to grass on their brethren 😡 and the masons on the Celtic board will just look the other way 😡😡
 
Quick C&P job from another well known blog.

For Financial Fair Play purposes, Uefa permit this loss to be adjusted due to the unique circumstances we have lived through. A quick ready reckoner of this:

While other revenue streams and costs remain consistent with the previous campaigns, gate receipts are down £17.46m (no fans spending money at games) and operating costs are down £8.8m (no fans to serve or steward at games). Subtract the former from the latter and Uefa will forgive £8.6m of the comprehensive loss, reducing the Financial Fair Play loss to £17.42m or thereabouts.

Football has returned to largely normal operations this year, so that £17.42m figure is a good proxy for Newco’s forward comprehensive loss. For a business that has never earned more than £59m in its history, the lambeg drums must be ringing the alarm! There’s so much red ink at Ibrox you’d mistake the Clyde for the Red Sea.
 
Bellshill bhoy said:
Aye mate….but there only one problem……..they have to be reported to UEFA by the SFA……..like the masons at hampden are going to grass on their brethren 😡 and the masons on the Celtic board will just look the other way 😡😡
Click to expand...
If they win the league and get given the place in the group stages of the CL, celtic need to launch legal action against the SFA.
The way of the Bunnet, no chance he would stand for that
 
Brimcbhoy said:
Quick C&P job from another well known blog.

For Financial Fair Play purposes, Uefa permit this loss to be adjusted due to the unique circumstances we have lived through. A quick ready reckoner of this:

While other revenue streams and costs remain consistent with the previous campaigns, gate receipts are down £17.46m (no fans spending money at games) and operating costs are down £8.8m (no fans to serve or steward at games). Subtract the former from the latter and Uefa will forgive £8.6m of the comprehensive loss, reducing the Financial Fair Play loss to £17.42m or thereabouts.

Football has returned to largely normal operations this year, so that £17.42m figure is a good proxy for Newco’s forward comprehensive loss. For a business that has never earned more than £59m in its history, the lambeg drums must be ringing the alarm! There’s so much red ink at Ibrox you’d mistake the Clyde for the Red Sea.
Click to expand...
One question I have about Sevco's financial report, it was stated that the gasl, "that South African businessman" had been repaid his cash, I was under the impression that the interest free loan from the Scottish government stipulated that no bonuses etc should be paid to investors /directors, does this mean that they paid king b4 they got the loan from the government and if not does it mean that they have to pay the loan back immediately. If King was repaid b4 the loan, then the SNP have to make this public, in my opinion it is misuse of public funds. HH.
 
Mancbhoy670 said:
One question I have about Sevco's financial report, it was stated that the gasl, "that South African businessman" had been repaid his cash, I was under the impression that the interest free loan from the Scottish government stipulated that no bonuses etc should be paid to investors /directors, does this mean that they paid king b4 they got the loan from the government and if not does it mean that they have to pay the loan back immediately. If King was repaid b4 the loan, then the SNP have to make this public, in my opinion it is misuse of public funds. HH.
Click to expand...

You very well may be on to something here...
 
Imatim said:
You very well may be on to something here...
Click to expand...
the accounts suggest he wants paid in october 2021

need to wait till next year to find out if he got paid


the auditor report is vague very vague and alarmingly devoid of truly meaningful information


going concern warning

but no real dialogue on the remedy being proposed

and given king was the banker of last resort in past

no mention of how they will actually propose to fill the funding gap which has grown again


it suggests that player sales are part of long term strategy but very very vague on short term

considering short term they must value assets at going concern levels

imo they are still valuing everything at overinflated values with very vague return of investment strategy

and this year they have announced it was always a 10 year plan before they got profitable

so does that mean auditors are quite happy to allow drip feeding and confetti share auctions?

no

they dont really make any opinion other than going concern warning based on the directors accounts which they feel are good accounts as long as fraud isnt involved and well detecting fraud is very difficult so we will just gie a very vague stamp of approval while washing our hands of any real details that are useful

Assuming fraud is not involved Sevco have a 25 million loss, lost their banker of last resort if im reading the accounts properly, have no actual credit facility of note, are valuing their assets at arbitrary prices which are not in line with going concern accounting

had 3 million in bank at end of august

still needed to pay king his lump in october

still need to fund working capital for season

so imo unless they have a rich benefactor not mentioned in the accounts

something doesnt add up

they needed x amount to reach season end last year

despite winning league and increased european revenues they made monster loss

they only sold 4.5 million worth of shares to fans

And the auditor has taken a back seat in pointing out how they fund the rest of season other than suggest the directors have said its ok

lol

But nuffiing to see

lets look at the new bernabeu while they have a billion debt already
 
Mancbhoy670 said:
One question I have about Sevco's financial report, it was stated that the gasl, "that South African businessman" had been repaid his cash, I was under the impression that the interest free loan from the Scottish government stipulated that no bonuses etc should be paid to investors /directors, does this mean that they paid king b4 they got the loan from the government and if not does it mean that they have to pay the loan back immediately. If King was repaid b4 the loan, then the SNP have to make this public, in my opinion it is misuse of public funds. HH.
Click to expand...
He wasn't paid a bonus. He tapped them £5m with interest because no bank would tap them the money.
 
Bellshill bhoy said:
They said “we’re not half of anything “ but their actions say we’re very much part of the old firm brand, that they so dearly cling to, wither or nor we like it, the Huns are very much a part of the board’s business plans 😡
Click to expand...
I don't see how. 4 games against them is not going to bring in much money.
You could point to the TV deal but I personally think that's a moot point and my reasons for that are :-
the money for the sky deal is nothing, a couple of million a year. If we scrap the sky deal and only sell highlights to bbc, we could make a fortune from virtual season tickets.
If you do the maths on the virtual season tickets it's quite eye opening.
Just for instance, we sell virtual season books for £200 and we sell the same amount of virtual ST as normal ST that would be 54000 x £200. That's £10.8m.
I am confident we could sell double that.
There is absolutely no way we need to attach ourselves to sevco
 
Mancbhoy670 said:
One question I have about Sevco's financial report, it was stated that the gasl, "that South African businessman" had been repaid his cash, I was under the impression that the interest free loan from the Scottish government stipulated that no bonuses etc should be paid to investors /directors, does this mean that they paid king b4 they got the loan from the government and if not does it mean that they have to pay the loan back immediately. If King was repaid b4 the loan, then the SNP have to make this public, in my opinion it is misuse of public funds. HH.
Click to expand...
Very good point mb.
 
Tarzan Trump said:
the accounts suggest he wants paid in october 2021

need to wait till next year to find out if he got paid


the auditor report is vague very vague and alarmingly devoid of truly meaningful information


going concern warning

but no real dialogue on the remedy being proposed

and given king was the banker of last resort in past

no mention of how they will actually propose to fill the funding gap which has grown again


it suggests that player sales are part of long term strategy but very very vague on short term

considering short term they must value assets at going concern levels

imo they are still valuing everything at overinflated values with very vague return of investment strategy

and this year they have announced it was always a 10 year plan before they got profitable

so does that mean auditors are quite happy to allow drip feeding and confetti share auctions?

no

they dont really make any opinion other than going concern warning based on the directors accounts which they feel are good accounts as long as fraud isnt involved and well detecting fraud is very difficult so we will just gie a very vague stamp of approval while washing our hands of any real details that are useful

Assuming fraud is not involved Sevco have a 25 million loss, lost their banker of last resort if im reading the accounts properly, have no actual credit facility of note, are valuing their assets at arbitrary prices which are not in line with going concern accounting

had 3 million in bank at end of august

still needed to pay king his lump in october

still need to fund working capital for season

so imo unless they have a rich benefactor not mentioned in the accounts

something doesnt add up

they needed x amount to reach season end last year

despite winning league and increased european revenues they made monster loss

they only sold 4.5 million worth of shares to fans

And the auditor has taken a back seat in pointing out how they fund the rest of season other than suggest the directors have said its ok

lol

But nuffiing to see

lets look at the new bernabeu while they have a billion debt already
Click to expand...
I would have thought bad audits can have auditors struck off. I'm sure I read of a high profile case of auditors being sanctioned recently.
 
Tarzan Trump said:
the accounts suggest he wants paid in october 2021

need to wait till next year to find out if he got paid


the auditor report is vague very vague and alarmingly devoid of truly meaningful information


going concern warning

but no real dialogue on the remedy being proposed

and given king was the banker of last resort in past

no mention of how they will actually propose to fill the funding gap which has grown again


it suggests that player sales are part of long term strategy but very very vague on short term

considering short term they must value assets at going concern levels

imo they are still valuing everything at overinflated values with very vague return of investment strategy

and this year they have announced it was always a 10 year plan before they got profitable

so does that mean auditors are quite happy to allow drip feeding and confetti share auctions?

no

they dont really make any opinion other than going concern warning based on the directors accounts which they feel are good accounts as long as fraud isnt involved and well detecting fraud is very difficult so we will just gie a very vague stamp of approval while washing our hands of any real details that are useful

Assuming fraud is not involved Sevco have a 25 million loss, lost their banker of last resort if im reading the accounts properly, have no actual credit facility of note, are valuing their assets at arbitrary prices which are not in line with going concern accounting

had 3 million in bank at end of august

still needed to pay king his lump in october

still need to fund working capital for season

so imo unless they have a rich benefactor not mentioned in the accounts

something doesnt add up

they needed x amount to reach season end last year

despite winning league and increased european revenues they made monster loss

they only sold 4.5 million worth of shares to fans

And the auditor has taken a back seat in pointing out how they fund the rest of season other than suggest the directors have said its ok

lol

But nuffiing to see

lets look at the new bernabeu while they have a billion debt already
Click to expand...
TET king was paid in October
5 million plus £863k in interest
 
Mancbhoy670 said:
One question I have about Sevco's financial report, it was stated that the gasl, "that South African businessman" had been repaid his cash, I was under the impression that the interest free loan from the Scottish government stipulated that no bonuses etc should be paid to investors /directors, does this mean that they paid king b4 they got the loan from the government and if not does it mean that they have to pay the loan back immediately. If King was repaid b4 the loan, then the SNP have to make this public, in my opinion it is misuse of public funds. HH.
Click to expand...
It might just have been directors and then that’s covered cos he resigned
 
_Neil_ said:
I would have thought bad audits can have auditors struck off. I'm sure I read of a high profile case of auditors being sanctioned recently.
Click to expand...
Grey area
Auditors offer an opinion on the accounts prepared by the club
In this case the club have prepared the accounts on the going concern basis which means they have concerns about the clubs ability to trade in the future
The auditors have recognised that and have given an unqualified opinion, meaning they have no matters of disagreement with club

dodgy audits are eg Enron and interserve where the accounts did not reflect the actual financial position and the companies went under

even then the auditor got a boot in the balls a a fine and offered up a sacrificial lamb
 
Glasbhoy81 said:
According to the UEFA website the way financial FFP works is
UEFA permits football clubs to spend no more than €5 million (£3.9 million) over what they earn in each three-year assessment period. There is, however, a new limit of 30 million euros (previously 45 million euros) if the owners of the club or a related party can cover these losses.

Now Sevco's accounts from the last financial year show loses of £23.5m , which is an increase on the previous year , when loses were £15.9m. That by my maths is £39.4m . That's just 2 years.
Was there loss the year before not around the £11m mark. Taking them to £50m loses in 3 years.
Surely this prevents them from gaining a European football licence
Click to expand...
IMG-20211106-WA0008.jpg
 
Smelltheglove said:
Grey area
Auditors offer an opinion on the accounts prepared by the club
In this case the club have prepared the accounts on the going concern basis which means they have concerns about the clubs ability to trade in the future
The auditors have recognised that and have given an unqualified opinion, meaning they have no matters of disagreement with club

dodgy audits are eg Enron and interserve where the accounts did not reflect the actual financial position and the companies went under

even then the auditor got a boot in the balls a a fine and offered up a sacrificial lamb
Click to expand...
Stg I’m sure I read somewhere that there was disagreement between the auditors and the club about how certain items would show on their accounts and it took a while to resolve was what I read into in to it.
but obviously they’ve come to some agreement in the end.
 
Smelltheglove said:
TET king was paid in October
5 million plus £863k in interest
Click to expand...
thats past the point of accounts

he may well have been paid, i have no idea


but you would need to believe the reading between the lines to be certain of that from accounts that dont include that time frame.

unless he was paid before that date it will only be certain in next set of accounts

but from where?

the cash balance was not enough to cover his demand

so is it a sevco cheque he got paid made in the rubber tree kingdom that has been paid now even though you might need to wait a bit for it to be concomitantly viable to a man who has folded like a pack of cards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 298 (members: 17, guests: 281)

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top