Leaderboard

Wael and Lyde sort of go well together though.

I don’t want ‘em coming here!!!!!

But you can't own more than one football league club? Also why would he want to buy Rovers when his own Rovers could very easily overtake them in the next year or so.

£10m seems excessive for the players wwhose contract will expire at the end of the season. Forsyth - £200k signing in 2013, so little impact when released. likely £10-15k pw. Huddlestone - £2m signing. Small P&S impact when released. c£25k pw Bennett - Academy graduate, so little P&S impact when released. Low £1,000's pw. Anya - £4m signing and a big impact on P&S when released. c£30k pw. Martin - Free transfer, so little impact when released. c£40k pw. The worst case being what ever it costs to wipe out the amortisation remaining, will be balanced out by reduced wages. This also ignores the reduction in wages over the past 2 years, estimated to be £10m lower since the 17/18 season ended. In the case of Derby (club statement), the EFL Executive was involved in all stages of the stadium sale, as well as giving approval and signing it off in writing. The EFL also gave us written approval for the use of our amortisation policy. At the moment clubs with parachute payments seem to spend that money in the hope of going up before the tap's turned off. Once one of these club's is heavily punished, I expect the attitude of relegated clubs to change. Stoke are the ones to watch as they need to offload the high earners to reduce their spend on wages. But, at the same time, they can't sell anyone without making a loss on them, and harming their P&S results in the process. It's why they've loaned so many out rather than selling them. Instead of selling them for a bit of cash, P&S actually encourages them to do otherwise... that sounds like the opposite to what P&S is supposed to achieve. See my reply to the second quote above.

West Ham sold their ground on the open market - not by a paper transaction transferring ownership to a related third party, generating profit needed to avoid a financial problem . It is their good fortune that they were able to negotiate a phenomenal deal on the Olympic Stadium which has given them a huge financial benefit, but that does not justify the actions of any other club, if that club is breaking the rules ( I accept that neither Villa, Derby or Wednesday have been found guilty of rule breaking as yet) The increase in player's value will affect the value of a football club because they are a club's assets, however, while the value of players increases I can't see how this would lead to an increase in the value of a club's stadium. Revenue has a big effect on a club's ( business's) value so if Villa stay up this season and were to be sold in the summer it's value would be much greater than if it were to be sold say in a couple of years time if you had then been relegated to the championship. I don't know the figures for Villa's worth, but lets say as a premier league club ACFC is worth £150m but as a championship club it would be worth £100m, would that also mean Villa Park value falls by a third when they are in the championship? Conversely, if Birmingham Council decided to designate the area for housing development and Villa decided to selll and build a brand new stadium elsewhere ( Unlikely I know) then it is quite possible that Villa's value as a club could go down if they were relegated to the championship while the value of VP could increase because of it's potential for housing development.

He’s doing well mate , he had heart surgery and is on the road to recovery. He’ll be wearing his Bristol City baby grow tomorrow!

Looks like excellent news!

They will be able to sell it one of their owner's other companies to raise a few bob towards ffp then!

Lyde Green land would cost a fortune and all those who have just moved in would go apeshit

Ta. Makes me wonder even more what is gonna come out, if the above is so, yet EFL still pressing ahead with their charge. As I said, it’s an all or nothing situation. You’re either innocent, egg on EFL’s face or guilty, book thrown at you.

the only solicitors they could possibly afford are the slappers from city rd,. next thing you know is they will be applying to diy sos

More Forest Green Rovers i would have thought. Shared FGR/BRFC stadium? Or better still, in true Robert Maxwell fashion a combined South Gloucester Rovers F.C?

Tory Is A Four Letter Word - King Blues.

Villa Park will be amongst those Tangible Fixed Assets in the Group Accounts! It's bound to be...unless it was owned by a different company? Upton Park, based in London- sold for £40m in 2016 or 2017. Despite being a PL side at that time- having said that people wonder whether it may have been undersold? I'm not so sure on the Tangible Assets- and this Tangible Fixed Assets includes not just Villa Park but all- all- Tangible Fixed Assets! Anything under Tangible Fixed Assets will be included in that- you are not factoring in Recoverable Value and adjustments to this here! Cannot be carried at more than the Recoverable Value but that said, there are questions about whether Depreciation incurred on a historic/an accumulated basis may increase the Recoverable Value significantly, The training ground, the land and maybe the properties- though the latter could've been stated separately in the accounts- will all have been included under Tangible Fixed Assets, even if not all were necessarily Impaired. If the PL don't sign it off and haven't approved of it, then that means that it has technically not been approved- which means that the risk of punishment is there, the right to investigate further is there! That's what it means- and given the rules are Harmonised I suspect the EFL might follow the PL lead if not carry out their own investigations on return. The West Ham case is irrelevant in a sense- a bit of whataboutery. Firstly this was genuinely disposed of ie sold from the club to Galliard Homes I believe. A genuine third party, and an actual out and out removal of the ground from anything to do with the club- not a sale and leaseback to a commonly owned company! They are not the same, even if in terms of profit on disposal they are- but for FFP it's less clearcut! Ah yes, but the FFP rules in the PL and Championship are now joined up- or are meant to be. So the EPL absolutely have the right to examine this in depth and if necessary, disallow or adjust the profit, perhaps in coordination with the EFL- this was the first full 3 year cycle of the Harmonised Regulations. The old system was if in one year breach, a team will go up, pay a fine, stay down- Transfer embargo. This all changed effective from 2016/17 in full, with some transitional arrangements from 2014/15-2016/17 3 year rolling period. Edit: The Properties may come under Fixed Asset Investments. Worth checking the Reform Acquisitions Limited accounts (old name under Lerner- now NSWE Sports Limited) for 2015/16...there's a major Impairment there! Or worth checking Aston Villa Limited for the same season- there is an Impairment of £35m there that season! Aston Villa Limited was at that time categorised as the principal activity being Property Investment! We're all going round in circles tbh though- I'm happy enough to call it quits until the 2018/19 Accounts are published!

We will find out shortly. ? Interestingly, Andy Holt (ASFC) stated he’d never had the opportunity to review and vote on those changes.

I stand to be corrected by City fans with greater financial knowledge than I, but I'm pretty certain that "third party" ownership of Ashton Gate occurred prior to the current ffp rules. I am pretty certain it was done by the owner when he reorganised the club under the Bristol Sport umbrella ( it may even have preceded that) and not for any financial motivation i.e. Bristol City FC did not benefit financially from the change of ownership.

One of the things a couple of us have questioned is “Sean Harvey”. By that I mean we wonder whether club owners have spoken to him about their plans, he’s said “yes, that’s fine”, but not formally agreed by the EFL. There have been a few quotes from Villa, Derby, etc (interestingly all the clubs now being questioned officially, in Villa’s case the PL) saying the EFL agreed it, but never (to my understanding) being able to get the actual EFL to confirm in writing. Hence our thinking that Sean said it was ok, but that he may have been operating out of his jurisdiction and therefore giving a bum steer. If that’s the case, it’s probably a bigger mess. Think on either side it’s all or nothing.

....but this is the core of the problem. The whole ethos of ffp is that a club's day to day financial management enables it to stay within the financial parameters set down within the rules i.e. it lives within it's financial means and doesn't have to rely on metaphorically finding a few million down the back of the sofa at the 11th hour to bail itself out. We all know that it was the EFL's cock up when drafting the new rules that left the inadvertent loophole that enabled clubs to sell their stadia. You previously referred to the number of clubs that voted for the new rules, but I wonder whether the majority realised this loophole existed when voting, as sale of stadia to a related third party was not allowed under the previous rules? It's a bit like a couple living a lifestyle beyond their incomes, but being secure in the knowledge that at the end of 3 years of financial reckless living they can "balance the books " by selling their home to one of their children to raise the money to pay off loans and credit cards. The problem is that they don't own the home anymore, so won't be able to do the same thing when they next get into financial difficulty. The other factor is your statement that " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant". Fair value isn't determined by the amount the club needed to avoid ffp penalties, it is based on proper valuation principles,. This point has been debated on here in relation to Derby's sale of Pride Park. The crucial factor is that there is no established and active market in football stadium sales so no comparative evidence of values so it gives a lot of leeway, even if club's appoint professionally qualified and independent valuers. That you only just scraped in by hitting form late in the season thanks to Grealish's return from injury, misses the point completely. Ffp runs over a rolling 3 year cycle and even if the first 2 years were under different ownership, if the club operated outside the ffp limits over those 3 years it gained an advantage over every other club that had managed it's finances in order to comply. Notwithstanding the problems of shifting players out of the club, lets not forget that Villa had 3 years notice of the ffp deadline last March and during those 3 years had the benefit ( and advantage) of parachute payments to make the transition less painful. That Xia chose to use parachute payments as a war chest to boost Villa's promotion chances, is the reason for the problems that followed. Had promotion been achieved within the first 2 years, as was expected, all the financial problems would have been resolved in an instance. It wasn't and predicated all that followed , including the sale of VP where " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant" Again, QED.

I'm confused What has Caroline Lucas got to do with Rovers?

Yet they’ll still be telling everyone that it’s the best thing to ever happen to them just like they did the last time they were relegated out of the FL

And you know this how ?

Bunch of ?????rot in hell the lot of ‘em. I only come on this page to find what bizarre things those nobs from south glos have been up to each day to make smile? sigh ? gently and sleep ? peacefully knowing that a Bristol City fan is all great and good. ftg and ctid

Those knuckle dragging idiots need to take not of what’s happening with masters, it is an attempt from wael and Staines to silence the truth from coming out but those thick idiots are too stupid to realise what’s happening, when the ground has gone from under them and they are playing Paulton only then will the realise that wael doesn’t have the clubs best interests at heart

I would imagine the “kebab” is a euphemism.......ya know what I mean

You may not immediately recognise the name Bobby Humphries, but EVERY ONE of the 21,808 supporters that was at St. Andrews for our fixture with Birmingham City back in August will certainly remember his smiling little face. To remind everyone of the sad events, at just two years old Bobby was diagnosed with a brain tumour! As a result he spent the next three and a half years receiving chemotherapy to battle his illness, with his last chemo being just before we visited Birmingham earlier in the season. For those in the away end that afternoon will remember that really emotional moment when Bobby was introduced to the crowd just to the right of the away end, the little lads bravery and smiling face really made an impression on everyone there that day. There was talk at the time that it would be a great gesture if he could be involved in some way when Birmingham came to Ashton Gate. Well, Thursday Bobby gets his latest scan results and I'm sure we all hope for the best possible outcome and will be keeping everything crossed for a positive outcome. Bristol City have been liaising with both Birmingham City and Bobby's family and as a result invited Bobby to be the Birmingham City mascot Friday night and to lead the bluenoses onto the pitch. There's only one Bobby Humphries!

Don't be mean, he's just had some bad news. He found out his barber died ...... in 1978 ?

You'll have to help narrow down which stand you mean. They have at least a dozen that match that description.