Transfer embargo

[claret54]

So the club are telling lies?

Unfortunately that seems that it might to be the case. Certainly they are not being clear on why they changed auditors.
To say that it is 'to improve the club and move forward Burnley Football Club' is hard to believe. What do Auditors do. They audit the accounts. That means they check them. They don't produce the accounts. So how can they move the club forward. Much better for the club to tell as why they actually changed Auditors.

The late filing of accounts is clearly a serious error by the Board of Directors which is why all fans should be concerned

A great pity that one of Burnley's most successful seasons ever (for which the directors are also responsible) is in danger of being tainted by financial matters.

Like others I am hoping that it will be sorted within the next month.

[Clive 1960]

Just heard the news which isn't good on the club the club say it will be resolved in the next month I really hope so.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

No, I was making the point that if it wasn’t a big deal then the club wouldn’t have felt the need to release a statement.

And if you think that they’ve done so to ‘improve their communication’ then you’re being naive in the extreme.

If they'd said nothing I'd be willing to bet some on here would complain about the lack of communication from the club, including you.

[clarethomer]

Rightly or wrongly, usually privately, other clubs often apply pressure to the PL/ EFL over disciplinary and FFP matters. As Manchester City could testify.

Imagination running wild again.

Let's wait for the club to file their audited accounts shall we before we get into the fantasy of lawyers and legal action.

Given what we have spent/sold, I doubt that we are anywhere in the realms of any club being able to throw FFP legal challenges.

There is nothing to suggest that we won't have the embargo lifted once we file our audited accounts. Just like Sheff Utd won't have anything done further to them once they have repaid their transfer fees that they owe.

[Andreshotboots]

Horse botherers reckon a team who have any financial "issues" need demoting out of the EFL and sent to the National League at best.

Weren't they under an embargo last year?

They were indeed, at least we've bent the rules and got promotion

[Rileybobs]

If they'd said nothing I'd be willing to bet some on here would complain about the lack of communication from the club, including you.

You’re going off on a tangent now, I haven’t said the club should not have made the statement. My argument was that them making the statement is proof that this is a ‘big deal’. My other point is that their statement isn’t an attempt to improve communication with the fans as you believe, but in their own interests as a way of controlling the narrative.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The Premier League have more or less the same rules
https://resources.premierleague.com/pre ... _18.07.pdf
- Premier League Handbook 2022/23 Clubs Finance and Governance, Section E Clubs - Finance starting from Submission of Club Accounts E.3. on page 123 (66 pdf).

the EFL rules were aligned to Premier League rules so that they would apply across promotion to or relegation from the Premier League. This alignment came about after the farce of QPR, Leicester and Bournemouth not having EFL sanctions applied by the Premier League.

-

Thanks for that, I agree, but I was referring to the guaranteed income that will result after promotion which would seem to guarantee in my mind the club remaining a going concern (all other things staying equal). Just in case there was auditor doubt over that due to the issues that you and others spend time patiently explaining on this board.

Not quite a contingent asset under FRS102 but it is guaranteed income nonetheless as soon as we clinch promotion.

[Paul Waine]

I'm on holiday in Spain. Temperature well above 20c. I've been out for dinner. A friend kindly sent me link to club's announcement. I've now read all the way through these 7 pages. I'm tired, so no thoughts from me tonight.

UTC

[aggi]

Unfortunately that seems that it might to be the case. Certainly they are not being clear on why they changed auditors.
To say that it is 'to improve the club and move forward Burnley Football Club' is hard to believe. What do Auditors do. They audit the accounts. That means they check them. They don't produce the accounts. So how can they move the club forward. Much better for the club to tell as why they actually changed Auditors.

The late filing of accounts is clearly a serious error by the Board of Directors which is why all fans should be concerned

A great pity that one of Burnley's most successful seasons ever (for which the directors are also responsible) is in danger of being tainted by financial matters.

Like others I am hoping that it will be sorted within the next month.

You're over-simplifying there. At that level auditors do quite a bit more than just audit the accounts (as can be seen from the fact that only about half of the fee paid to the auditors was for the audit).

[Swizzlestick]

I'm on holiday in Spain. Temperature well above 20c. I've been out for dinner. A friend kindly sent me link to club's announcement. I've now read all the way through these 7 pages. I'm tired, so no thoughts from me tonight.

UTC

Tiempos emocionantes!

[Chester Perry]

Thanks for that, I agree, but I was referring to the guaranteed income that will result after promotion which would seem to guarantee in my mind the club remaining a going concern (all other things staying equal). Just in case there was auditor doubt over that due to the issues that you and others spend time patiently explaining on this board.

Not quite a contingent asset under FRS102 but it is guaranteed income nonetheless as soon as we clinch promotion.

Ah ok

not worried (not sure I have ever been worried) about the going concern element in the short to medium term under this ownership given the need to keep generating surplus cash to meet their commitments - and even then the worst of that appears to have passed. Similarly there are no issues with Profit and Sustainability rules (FFP) though the next iteration may prove a little more daunting if they follow the UEFA model as I expect them to.

From what we know the club has
- no external debt other than transfer fees and the high potential for conditional fee/bonus payments on promotion and as you say the rewards of promotion will cover that.
- probably generated operational profits this season and certainly last season,
- potential challenges on cashflow following the debt payoff, but a factoring of Premier League monies once promotion is confirmed would help with that

I have a theory about where the money came from to pay off the debt and how it benefits the ownership group while at the same time offering them flexibility particularly in factoring to assist with cashflow, but it needs a bit more research as to whether it is actually possible so I will keep it off the board for now.

[claret54]

You're over-simplifying there. At that level auditors do quite a bit more than just audit the accounts (as can be seen from the fact that only about half of the fee paid to the auditors was for the audit).

The situation here is that Burnley FC have not produced audited accounts on time. Nothing to do with other services that the Audit company might provide. These other services can be obtained from many companies. There is no need to change auditors to obtain them. So in my mind still an issue about saying the change of auditors was to move the football club forward.

[Vegas Claret]

the amount of people scrambling to find something wrong is astounding

[Pidgeon]

“ we hope our submission will be made next month”
Hardly sounds that convincing.
It’s really sad that this has tarnished our season. What was Vinnie saying about clubs needing to be careful about casting stones!!

[Pidgeon]

Oops double post!

[123EasyasBFC]

“ we hope our submission will be made next month”
Hardly sounds that convincing.
It’s really sad that this has tarnished our season. What was Vinnie saying about clubs needing to be careful about casting stones!!

That’s reading way to much into the statement, if they were to say ‘we guarantee this will be resolved next month’ and then it wasn’t then people would he so quick to jump on their backs.

[pushpinpussy]

7 pages of nonsense from people who think they know more about the club than the directors and owners. Stop worrying and spouting rubbish and trust them.

[Nori1958]

Nori - it's pretty clear that you don't understand the seriousness of the financial situation.

And you do ?

[Big Vinny K]

Do you believe that it will be all signed off in a month?...if so any other dig at the owners is unjustified

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
First you ask whether I think the club is lying and now you are asking whether I believe them ?
And then you say if I do believe them any criticism is unjustified

So….I have no idea whether they are lying about the content of the accounts or them being ready in a month. I don’t believe they are lying and I have not criticised them over either of these.

I also don’t believe they are lying in saying that they are late in filing their accounts - that’s a factual statement. They are several months late. And yes being several months late, breaching the rules of the league and being given a transfer embargo in my view justifies criticism for the owners.

If it was the trivial issue you are seem to think it is the club would not have issued a statement or we would be contesting the transfer embargo.

[Tall Paul]

I also don’t believe they are lying in saying that they are late in filing their accounts - that’s a factual statement. They are several months late. And yes being several months late, breaching the rules of the league and being given a transfer embargo in my view justifies criticism for the owners.

Where do you get the idea from that they're months late? The EFL's deadline is 1st March.

[Cooclaret]

the club has said it will be resolved next month so unless folk are picking and choosing what they want to believe then surely we take the clubs statement as factual at this point

Woah, don’t derail the hysteria and chaos being manifested by the usuals with common sense and rational thinking.

Worry about something, when there’s something to worry about.

So many on this board have open agendas against Pace, and thrive from whipping up the board into a feeding frenzy to feed themselves.

Business is business, BFC isn’t your business.

That’s the juxtaposition of sport and being a fan, we all feel we should have a say about the business, when it’s not ours to comment about.

[arise_sir_charge]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
First you ask whether I think the club is lying and now you are asking whether I believe them ?
And then you say if I do believe them any criticism is unjustified

So….I have no idea whether they are lying about the content of the accounts or them being ready in a month. I don’t believe they are lying and I have not criticised them over either of these.

I also don’t believe they are lying in saying that they are late in filing their accounts - that’s a factual statement. They are several months late. And yes being several months late, breaching the rules of the league and being given a transfer embargo in my view justifies criticism for the owners.

If it was the trivial issue you are seem to think it is the club would not have issued a statement or we would be contesting the transfer embargo.

Why would we contest it when we readily admit we’ve breached the rule/obligation?

Issuing a statement about it doesn’t make it any more of an issue than if we hadn’t issued a statement, it doesn’t make the breach any more or less serious, it’s simply a way of communicating and ensuring fans are kept informed about something that could easily (and has in this thread regardless of the statement) cause panic amongst fans.

At the end of the day we are part of the EFL and subject to their compliance rules. We have failed to comply with one of those and been issued the punishment as set within their rules. It’s disappointing but at this moment in time there is nothing more to it than that.

[9thMay1987]

I suspect when the accounts are finally released the new auditors will be of the Mormon faith.

[Cooclaret]

You’re going off on a tangent now, I haven’t said the club should not have made the statement. My argument was that them making the statement is proof that this is a ‘big deal’. My other point is that their statement isn’t an attempt to improve communication with the fans as you believe, but in their own interests as a way of controlling the narrative.

I disagree. They’ve added nothing to the narrative that isn’t going to be in the national press. They’ve not offered an excuse and have given a clear trajectory of correction.

All they’ve done is communicate this to the fan base ahead of time. That’s good leadership.

[Claretforever]

Companies House says our audited accounts are not due until 30th April, and no later than 12 months after the accounting period, so 30th June? So as far as I can see it’s purely an EFL requirement for them to view our accounts for FFP purposes. The period which they wish the view is from us being in the Premier League which has different rules.

UEFA’s rules are that clubs can now lose €60m over a 3 year period, and can’t spend over 70% of their income on wages, transfer fees and agents. I’m pretty sure we didn’t do that over the previous 3 years to 30th June, or even previous lower cap of up to €35m including Covid losses. This must surely just be an administration issue as the club states?

[Lancasterclaret]

I suspect when the accounts are finally released the new auditors will be of the Mormon faith.

As long as they do the job properly then that nothing else matters

[Cooclaret]

I suspect when the accounts are finally released the new auditors will be of the Mormon faith.

Could well be a valid and understandable reason for the change.

[RVclaret]

Companies House says our audited accounts are not due until 30th April, and no later than 12 months after the accounting period, so 30th June? So as far as I can see it’s purely an EFL requirement for them to view our accounts for FFP purposes. The period which they wish the view is from us being in the Premier League which has different rules.

UEFA’s rules are that clubs can now lose €60m over a 3 year period, and can’t spend over 70% of their income on wages, transfer fees and agents. I’m pretty sure we didn’t do that over the previous 3 years to 30th June, or even previous lower cap of up to €35m including Covid losses. This must surely just be an administration issue as the club states?

Yeah, exactly… we likely recorded a profit last season, due to player sales and reduced wage bill.

[RammyClaret61]

A transfer embargo in March means what? We Cant sign anyone? I thought the transfer window didn't open till June?

3 months to sort it out.

Don’t panic Captain Mainwaring!!!

[andyh]

Taking a step back I think it is the complexity of the ownership model that is responsible.

On the surface we should have done well financially this last 12 months.

Football is not a hugely complex business as such. But our finance model is like a 3 card trick.

Accounts should be a clear reporting of what has happened. I’m not sure how they can be so late unless there are transactions which are dubious.

[Casper2]

the amount of people scrambling to find something wrong is astounding

Something is wrong

[Big Vinny K]

Where do you get the idea from that they're months late? The EFL's deadline is 1st March.

They are several months late in filing their accounts with companies house.
EFL deadline gives them plenty of leeway and we still missed that.

[aggi]

Where do you get the idea from that they're months late? The EFL's deadline is 1st March.

I'd guess he's referring to some of the other entities in the group like Calder Vale Holdings where the accounts should have been filled in October last year.

[Big Vinny K]

Why would we contest it when we readily admit we’ve breached the rule/obligation?

Issuing a statement about it doesn’t make it any more of an issue than if we hadn’t issued a statement, it doesn’t make the breach any more or less serious, it’s simply a way of communicating and ensuring fans are kept informed about something that could easily (and has in this thread regardless of the statement) cause panic amongst fans.

At the end of the day we are part of the EFL and subject to their compliance rules. We have failed to comply with one of those and been issued the punishment as set within their rules. It’s disappointing but at this moment in time there is nothing more to it than that.

Agreed.
All I am saying that we have admitted making a mistake and we have breached rules and as far as I can see the vast majority of any criticism on this thread is about this.
The difference in opinions seem to be mostly about whether the club should be justifiably open to any criticism.
Some posters think they shouldn’t and some think they should. Personally I don’t see it as a massive issue but I do think it’s disappointing and was probably avoidable.

[Andreshotboots]

We play Hull on Wednesday, I'm just concentrating on that and leaving the financial stuff to those whose job it is to sort out.

I wouldn't even begin to understand the finer points of accounting and auditing so I'll stick to the kicking a bag of wind about..

[Casper2]

We play Hull on Wednesday, I'm just concentrating on that and leaving the financial stuff to those whose job it is to sort out.

I wouldn't even begin to understand the finer points of accounting and auditing so I'll stick to the kicking a bag of wind about..

Looks like the Board haven’t got a clue about accounting either

[Tall Paul]

I'd guess he's referring to some of the other entities in the group like Calder Vale Holdings where the accounts should have been filled in October last year.

OK, but that has no relevance to this club statement or the EFL's embargo

[Tall Paul]

They are several months late in filing their accounts with companies house.
EFL deadline gives them plenty of leeway and we still missed that.

They aren't, the accounts that the EFL are interested in aren't due at Companies House until the end of April.

[claretonthecoast1882]

A day in paradise for those who don't like not having a club owner who was born with a BB postcode.

Some gold on here and I have no doubt missed some of the gems skimming through it this morning, special mention for forzagranata for his posts.

[Big Vinny K]

They aren't, the accounts that the EFL are interested in aren't due at Companies House until the end of April.

But they were due at the EFL by 1st March. It’s not like this is a common occurrence amongst other clubs.

And the accounts that are several months late are still pretty relevant to the financial structure of the club. Why the late filing of subsidiary company accounts is not an issue for EFL says more about the EFLs financial governance.

[Hipper]

I'm a bit of a simpleton.

We have a match at Hull on Wednesday and I'm looking forward to it. I'm also excited to see how we fare on Saturday at Man City.

[rincon]

surprisingly, Sheffield Utd fans are taking a far more level headed view of our embargo than we seem to be. quite funny too
https://www.s24su.com/forum/threads/bur ... rgo.94589/

[FeedTheArf]

A day in paradise for those who don't like not having a club owner who was born with a BB postcode.

Some gold on here and I have no doubt missed some of the gems skimming through it this morning, special mention for forzagranata for his posts.

Where has this obsession with linking criticism of ALK to a BB postcode come from? Garlick and John B were from BB postcodes and milked the club for everything they could get. My dislike of how the takeover happened and the leveraged buy out sits just as much at their door as it does ALK.

I literally couldn't care less where the owners are from. How they run and look after my club is the only thing I care about.

And before some bright spark chirps up to say it's their business, we fans don't need to know - we do. It might be their club as far as Companies House is concerned, but it was our club before ALK and it'll be ours long after they've made their money and moved on.

[Foshiznik]

I know for many more in the know than me say that it is nothing to worry about but as a corporate financials layman who just wants to see the club i love doing well on and off the pitch and hearing the horror stories of similar takeovers such as Sunderland and Portsmouth, i don't think it's unreasonable for some of us less in the know to have some concerns when any news like this comes out. It may be nothing, but it's also not fair to be abusive to those of us a little worried.

[gawthorpe_view]

Tiempos emocionantes!

[Big Vinny K]

Companies House says our audited accounts are not due until 30th April, and no later than 12 months after the accounting period, so 30th June? So as far as I can see it’s purely an EFL requirement for them to view our accounts for FFP purposes. The period which they wish the view is from us being in the Premier League which has different rules.

UEFA’s rules are that clubs can now lose €60m over a 3 year period, and can’t spend over 70% of their income on wages, transfer fees and agents. I’m pretty sure we didn’t do that over the previous 3 years to 30th June, or even previous lower cap of up to €35m including Covid losses. This must surely just be an administration issue as the club states?

1) we knew we were in the EFL last May.

2) the club statement doesn’t anything about an administration issue - that description has emerged on this thread !

I think there is general consensus that we will not have breached financial fair play rules. Not aware of any posters who are saying we have.

[TheOriginalLongsider]

surprisingly, Sheffield Utd fans are taking a far more level headed view of our embargo than we seem to be. quite funny too
https://www.s24su.com/forum/threads/bur ... rgo.94589/

“ Their embargo isn’t as good as ours. We had one first & it’s a superior one. Burnley’s embargo is ****.”.

[Claretforever]

1) we knew we were in the EFL last May.

2) the club statement doesn’t anything about an administration issue - that description has emerged on this thread !

I think there is general consensus that we will not have breached financial fair play rules. Not aware of any posters who are saying we have.

We knew we were in the EFL, though weren’t officially an EFL club until the annual meeting in June. That covers around 3 weeks of the 156 weeks FFP review so the vast majority isn’t related to time in the EFL is my point.

Regarding administration, by that I mean the simple process of running the business, meeting deadlines etc. I have not seen anybody mention us actually going into Administration if that’s what you mean? I haven’t read the whole 7 pages on this thread though.

[Nori1958]

We knew we were in the EFL, though weren’t officially an EFL club until the annual meeting in June. That covers around 3 weeks of the 156 weeks FFP review so the vast majority isn’t related to time in the EFL is my point.

Regarding administration, by that I mean the simple process of running the business, meeting deadlines etc. I have not seen anybody mention us actually going into Administration if that’s what you mean? I haven’t read the whole 7 pages on this thread though.

If someone had just put...an admin error....it would have stopped those who find it hard to understand from having a melt down about the club going bust.

[aggi]

OK, but that has no relevance to this club statement or the EFL's embargo

We don't know. This EFL rule makes it clear that group accounts should also be provided (and filed on time):

16.3 Each Club shall submit their Annual Accounts (and those of any Group of which it is a member) to the registrar of companies (appointed in accordance with section 1060 of the 2006 Act) in accordance with the time limits prescribed by the 2006 Act.

So it may be that those accounts have no relevance or it may be that this has contributed. Again, we don't know.