Burnley under embargo

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Every owner we have or potentially could have had have is either skint or dodgy 😂😂
 
The directors haven't submitted the accounts. They say, probably truthfully, that it's because they changed auditors in November and the new ones haven't had time to finish.

What they don't say is why they changed auditors so late. I would guess it's because they fell out with the old auditors, and further guess that it's to do with the £150m or so debtor in the accounts, owed to Burnley FC by the owners. The owners don't have £150m or anything like, so perhaps the auditors wanted to reduce the value of the loan which would make a huge hole in the balance sheet.
 
Embargo when there is no active transfer window, yet we were under an embargo during an active transfer window. Go figure
 
Lmaobob said:
Embargo when there is no active transfer window, yet we were under an embargo during an active transfer window. Go figure
Click to expand...
The rule that Burnley have broken is the rule that they must submit accounts by 1st March 2023. As at January 2023, no rules had been broken.

There's no question of breaching FFP rules or being unable to pay debts.
 
dsr-burnley said:
There's no question of breaching FFP rules or being unable to pay debts.
Click to expand...
One possibility, although remote?

Equity put in from 2019-20 to present or even 2018-19 to present?

If no equity put in the adjusted Upper Loss Limit for FFP is £15m in 3 seasons, equity takes it up to £105m in PL, £39m for a Championship regular or £22m per PL season- for Burnley £105m to last year and £88.5m to this.

To this season the £15m would be more applicable than last as Championship. Because Projected accounts go in during March for the existing season as well as the actuals for last year.
 
CityInPeace said:
One possibility, although remote?

Equity put in from 2019-20 to present or even 2018-19 to present?

If no equity put in the adjusted Upper Loss Limit for FFP is £15m in 3 seasons, equity takes it up to £105m in PL, £39m for a Championship regular or £22m per PL season- for Burnley £105m to last year and £88.5m to this.

To this season the £15m would be more applicable than last as Championship. Because Projected accounts go in during March for the existing season as well as the actuals for last year.
Click to expand...
This isn't a possibility. The owners have taken out £150m, not put money in.. They have put no money into the club, only into the previous owner's pocket. (The previous owner hadn't put anything in for several years, either.)

There is no FFP issue the club is profitable in its own right, no subsidy at all.
 
dsr-burnley said:
This isn't a possibility. The owners have taken out £150m, not put money in.. They have put no money into the club, only into the previous owner's pocket. (The previous owner hadn't put anything in for several years, either.)

There is no FFP issue the club is profitable in its own right, no subsidy at all.
Click to expand...
I’m no expert on this but surely you can’t separate the two can you? If £150m has left the club does it matter why that is, it’s still a loss isn’t it? Like I say it’s all a bit smoke and mirrors stuff to me but that would make sense to me otherwise it makes a mockery of the system if you just hide losses as money paid to the owner.
 

There's a great accountants based in S6, they should give them a call.
 
dsr-burnley said:
This isn't a possibility. The owners have taken out £150m, not put money in.. They have put no money into the club, only into the previous owner's pocket. (The previous owner hadn't put anything in for several years, either.)

There is no FFP issue the club is profitable in its own right, no subsidy at all.
Click to expand...
Yes a self funding model but does this account for the fall in income on relegation?

Said it is a remote possibility as opposed to likely but adjusted losses to this season? Then again huge player sales, how are wage drops on relegation factored in? Seems to vary by club.

Having looked deeper I had forgotten to add back £20m of Covid losses over the 2 years so yes I struggle to see an FFP issue. Seems like an administrative oversight at this point.
 
Last edited:
CityInPeace said:
Yes a self funding model but does this account for the fall in income on relegation?

Said it is a remote possibility as opposed to likely but adjusted losses to this season? Then again huge player sales, how are wage drops on relegation factored in? Seems to vary by club.

Having looked deeper I had forgotten to add back £20m of Covid losses over the 2 years so yes I struggle to see an FFP issue. Seems like an administrative oversight at this point.
Click to expand...
The problem at present is with last year's accounts, which still had PL income, so no ffp problem there. Not this year, anyway.

Wages aren't a big problem because we only have 7 players left on PL contracts. The others have all left or been sold.
 
dsr-burnley said:
The problem at present is with last year's accounts, which still had PL income, so no ffp problem there. Not this year, anyway.

Wages aren't a big problem because we only have 7 players left on PL contracts. The others have all left or been sold.
Click to expand...
Embargo site also says P&S rule 2.1.3

Which is the estimated for this season.

I agree though, can't see how the P&S lower limit is an issue.

Screenshot_20230313-101508_Chrome.jpg
 
They will deduct points.
They will have learned from the errors of the Prem during the Tevez affair.
We will finish third, and the number of points deducted from Burnley will be how ever many they win the league by less one.
 
dsr-burnley said:
The rule that Burnley have broken is the rule that they must submit accounts by 1st March 2023. As at January 2023, no rules had been broken.

There's no question of breaching FFP rules or being unable to pay debts.
Click to expand...
How convenient that a November change of auditors delayed the submission of accounts (that still aren’t submitted).
That allowed four new players to be brought in in January.
Wot is Burnley hiding? We need to know.
 
Pittsburg Blade said:
How convenient that a November change of auditors delayed the submission of accounts (that still aren’t submitted).
That allowed four new players to be brought in in January.
Wot is Burnley hiding? We need to know.
Click to expand...
The accounts weren't late until 2nd March 2023. They couldn't have p[ut in an embargo in January "just in case".
 
dsr-burnley said:
The accounts weren't late until 2nd March 2023. They couldn't have p[ut in an embargo in January "just in case".
Click to expand...
Yeah, just pulling your leg dsr.
I’m sure everything is perfectly above board and nothing untoward will be revealed when the accounts are (finally) submitted.
 
Just cos we got one they have to get one too. Its not fair. Its ours first.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BigBed
Beerschott received £5m boost from owners.
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
11K
Bladeloyal
Bladeloyal
Booker4
Ignore - I can't read an article by the Star!
Replies
27
Views
3K
VictoryBlade
V
Ecco1889
Hecky,Jack and Stuart McCall
Replies
4
Views
1K
Ecco1889
Ecco1889
J
Reading Embargo mentioned on ITV
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Keen Blade
Keen Blade
R
Club Statement?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
9K
Sean Thornton
Sean Thornton

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom