New FFP is squad cost/revenue <= 70% right?
If the numbers are to be believed, 187/303 = 61%, what am I missing here? Exceptional items are not counted as revenue, how are they accounted for in FFP?
IIRC it starts at like 90% and ladders down to 70% over time
That graphic above is from our official books for 21-22, wages are reported in an aggregate bucket. I believe for FFP exceptionals are factored as revenue (e.g. plusvalenza), so Chelsea/Inter/etc will need to get a serious amount of plusvalenza over the next few years to sustain
Our wages + amortisation for 21-22 is 342mil {218m wages, 125m amortisation}, not sure where the 187 number comes from. I cant comment on where Pier's numbers from come. Capology for 21-22 says wages of 156m gross, so 60m to cover Conte, directors, staff, youth, etc sounds probably about right. I dont know if FFP calculation is squad wages or total wages, though.
For 21-22, by my (Rough!) calculations we were amort+wages = 77% of revenue, but that's because of a huge plusvalenza. Without the plusvalenza we would have been 102%.
Thinking outloud, maybe that amortisation figure includes any buildings we own, training grounds, stuff like that? I'm not sure, just speculating as to why 342m vs 187m. I think 60m of the discrepency can be down to wages for directors, etc, so we're still 100m difference between what the books say vs what the spreadsheet says
Looking at the latest figure from pier for 23-24, though, to be honest, I kind of "cant believe" our amortisation cost is down to 50mil a year, which is the implication there. But I know he's done a good, and diligent, job with the numbers so I dunno why we have a discrepency.
In Pier's numbers, the annual amortisation cost is annual cost - wages gross, so 19/20 = 57mil, 20/21 = 81mil, 21/22 = 50mil, 22/23 = 58mil, 23/24 = 49mil.
In contrast, in our official books, 19-20 we have booked 96mil amortisation, 21-22 is 125mil amortisation.
I believe the numbers I use are in line with Swiss Ramble, e.g.