We are keeping to the 65% of turnover this season. Plenty of income from advertisements, bar, gear sponsors, monthly draw and income from season tickets etc.
Printable View
We are keeping to the 65% of turnover this season. Plenty of income from advertisements, bar, gear sponsors, monthly draw and income from season tickets etc.
I believe "Director Loans" can be included in the Turnover number.
It depends on how the money he's put into the club is treated in the accounts. If it's shown as a loan it shouldn't really be treated as turnover as its a loan. A non refundable investment would be treated differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I'd be surprised if a successful businessman like Kelleher would treat the money he's put into the club as anything other than a loan, even if he thinks its unlikely to be repaid.
Once it's shown as a loan he can potentially be repaid down the line if the club is ever able to pay it back, say if Pats get a huge transfer fee, get big money from UEFA etc.
You mean in the FAI regulations?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
That will make it a lot easier for clubs to comply with the 65% rule but defeats the purpose really.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pablo
That doesn't make any sense. The more you spend, the more you can spend on wages?Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard
Only one way to find out..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Have you any basis for that? It's not turnover, therefore it's not turnover. Quite simple really.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Great idea if it happens. Clubs clearly need to be forced to cop on to themselves, by and large (some clubs don't, but most do). Pat's and Drogs are losing a million a year, so it'll be very interesting to see what happens there - seems like the clubs that'll be hit most. I'd imagine it'll get fudged though, either by the turnover loopholes or by re-defining wages.
That said, it's worth remembering that Revenue are keeping a close eye on the league since the craic with Shels, so it mightn't be as easy to hide wages as you'd think.
I thought i read it somewhere but no proof. Its simple if you are not the FAI. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I woudln't be surprised by auditors doing that. I know it goes on in other fields of public life so why not football? Yes, it would be a very stupid thing to do.......if you're caught. Any person willing to take that risk would be smart enough to cover themselves. That said I hope no el club does it, I'm merely saying it is possibe to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by paudie
Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
One word ENRON
:D Forgot about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by endabob1
Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
An auditor would have to bear in mind that the EL club accounts he signs off on WILL be examined by an independent body, ie the licencing committee.
With most accounts there is a good chance that they will never be checked by an independent person so an auditor might be prepared to sign when he's not 100% happy with them.
the € 1 million is turnover and the €50,000 is profit. therefore the €1m figure is used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
however if a bar is only making a profit margin of 5% the bar manager would be fired well before the year was over ;)
this season (2007) it is only a recommendation. next season (2008) supposidely it will be enforced. therefore any clubs who do not meet it will face sanctions at the end of 2008 or else the beginning of 2009 season - presumably when they look for their licenseQuote:
Originally Posted by passerrby
looks like it will be hard to police but it needs to be done...
I spoke with St Pats Club Licensing Officer about this. Apparently the wording is "turnover". He said he'd been on to the FAI Licensing people to highlight the potential problems with the wording and he believes they will provide a full definition of what can and can't be included when the 2008 Licensing manual is issued, some time in the next couple of months. His guess is that it will be changed to "net income" i.e. turnover less direct costs (50c in the programme example and €50K in the bar example). He also suggested that directors loans won't be included but issue of shares would.
At the moment there's nothing to stop Garreth Kelleher "sponsoring" St Pats for €10m and then charging €3.5m in "director's fees" if he wanted to spend €6.5m on player wages.
The principle behind what defines the measure (turnover, income or whatever they decide it to be) is that it should exclude monies which can be taken out of the company by a benefactor/director at short notice, which would have the effect of trigger a breach in the 65% limit.
Detailed definitions are required on this and I have zero confidence in the FAI being able to administer it and the clubs being able to comply with it (either on competence or willingness grounds).
It will take at least 2 years to implement properly.
have to agree the concept is great the implmentation could become another fiascoQuote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
It's been on the way for that long. There's no excuse bar incompetence (which isn't really an excuse) to get it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
They won't though, not a hope.
That sounds reasonable enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stato
I've been following this league for too long to trust the FAI but they seem to be cleaning up their act a bit recently. We'll just have to wait and see if they do this right.
The fact that it's due to be in next year and the FAI still haven't issued what constitutes turnover, and it appears likely it isn't even going to be based on turnover, isn't an issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galway Harps
In all fairness the FAI dont define what turnover is! Dear Oh Dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Standard accounting practice does.
Well the FAI have left enough wriggle room to suggest that it might not be the straight turnover figure, but now they're saying it might be net income rather than turnover anyway!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo
Well thats a different arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Most Clubs are working off the fact that its straight turnover. Which is the way it should be. No more Shelbournes.
What are you basing that statement on Pablo? The only club I know a bit about were seeking clarification on the matter, and clubs who are currently spending more than 65% of turnover on wages (all of them I presume) will not wish to have that curtailed. If they think they'll get away with spending 65% of net income, they will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo
All clubs that have asked the FAi for clarification and received no response can quite legitimately claim they are doing nothing wrong by spending 65% of income.
Most of us (fans) agree its a good thing and I'm sure in time the clubs will agree, but as ****ing usual the implemention of this by the FAi has been a shambles
Actually, standard accounting practice does not provide comprehensive definitions on what constitutes turnover, it just provides genaral guidance, hence some of the major accounting scandals over the years (e.g. Enron).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo
If it's simply "turnover" what's to stop directors of a club "sponsoring" the club for, say, €100,000 and then have the club "sponsor" them for the same amount? "Turnover" for the club would be €100,000 under standard accounting rules and the club could thereby spend €65,000 on player costs that it doesn't actually have.
It's for that reason that the FAI have to define what they will allow to be included as "turnover" in their 65% formula.
According to our chairman in a fans forum last season we are working under 65% of turnover from this year. It wont hit us as hard next year, and it also give time to increase turnover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I'm not sure why people think its a shambles. Its quite straighforward.
:rolleyes: Which is why this thread is so long and the FAI can't answer questions put to them by the clubQuote:
Originally Posted by Pablo