Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DerbyFan

  1. I've listened to it on the catch up feature now. Re. the bit in bold, Jim wanted a straight answer but it couldn't be that simple, as I think Mel's point was that as it stands we haven't breached FFP, because we spent what we could within the limits including the stadium sale. So if someone just decides to do some sums and take the stadium sale off from the figures now then we will have but only because we spent up to what we could with it. That doesn't mean that without it we would have failed, it just means that as everything stands now the figures without the sale would show that we would have, because we spent including the sale in the planning, ie. if the sale hadn't happened, then we would have adjusted our spending accordingly and not failed it. You can't just take it off the figures as everything else would have changed without it, that's how I understood it from what he said. The valuation was always going to be on what was there now, not what was planned. The only way planned things could make a difference to the valuation was surely if there was the permissions for it already granted, like with a house or plot of land, if the permissions are there then it tends to be worth more? The only thing for the future that might potentially have made a difference is that I think the stadium was built to make it easy to expand to 44,000, I've got a feeling that there's some ground works already done for it or something already in place to allow it, I can't remember exactly. I'm not sure I agree with what Simon said about not being like selling a player from the way that Mel was saying it, from what I remember, Mel was only comparing be able to spend as like being able to spend after selling a player, ie. it's within the rules to sell a player and spend the proceeds, it's within the rules to sell a fixed asset and spend the proceeds, not sure he was trying to compare it in any other way. I agree with Mel about the pulling the drawbridge up, it's up to the other clubs now whether they want to change the rules, but we wouldn't try and stop them doing something we have done as it would be hypocritical. Don't really understand Jim's point about the only clubs that don't support Boro are the ones that want to do it too, well yeah, isn't that kind of the point? The ones that don't want to (maybe want to keep the asset within the club/don't want to spend that much money/etc) or can't (don't own their assets/can't spend that much money even if they wanted to/etc) do the same thing aren't likely to want other clubs doing it as it's puts them at a financial disadvantage! But that doesn't mean that we were wrong to do it when it's explicitly allowed within the rules. Mel's makes an interesting comment about Bolton, from what I remember most people seemed quite confused by the seemingly lenient way the EFL dealt with Bolton compared to other clubs in similar situations, like with Bury this season, they've not been given a lot of time, they were just kicked out. If that means that the rules were potentially stretched at all to let Bolton stay in when they wouldn't normally have been then we would have had a case to be annoyed by it, as we would have benefitted from it more than some others, but Mel says on the day of our game with Bolton he told them he applauded them for doing everything they could. In the end it didn't make a difference to us as we got the place anyway, but he didn't know that we would get it at that point.
  2. Thanks for making a note of what was said, I only caught the last 30 seconds! I'd guess that Gibson's problem is the Riverside isn't valued at what Pride Park (PP - easier to type!) is and he's wondering how given that PP was basically a copy when built. But, PP was opened only 2 years after, and (if the quoted figures are correct) it cost £12m more to build, £16m and £28m. So (if correct) that's either the difference in build costs in the 2 years between, or there are other differences, I notice that the link I posted to the costs of PP says: "Architects of Miller Partnership have implemented over 30 alterations" so it depends what those alterations were and how much they vary the costs, I'd hazard a guess that the location would also make a difference.
  3. I'm a bit confused about the whole thing. I didn't really pay much attention to the ins and outs at the time as I was a little too young to know/care/understand about that kind of thing! Having read through I can't figure out if it was sold or mortgaged. I was just going on the figures in the accounts, and since 1999 it doesn't appear to have ever left the assets. Can you do that if you've sold and only paid rent? I wouldn't have thought you could as it's not your asset? If you want a bit of light reading (ha!) from around that time just have a Google of 'the three amigos'.
  4. Just a quick reply to this, haven't had time to reply to your other posts yet, but was there a repurchase? Until the sale in 2018 I thought the club had ownership of it since it was built, is that not the case? Edit: Just double checked the notes I made about the accounts (so I didn't have to keep going back into them) the only thing I can see is in the 1999 accounts where I've got it down as transfer from subsidiary company. I haven't looked at the Sevco ones though, are you looking at those or the club ones?
  5. True, I understand why they like to allow spending on infrastructure because it's better for fans experience if it keeps improving. The only problem is, by having the FFP rules in the way they are, so that owners can't put money in even if they want to, clubs end up pricing out fans with sky high ticket prices. I assume it is because of FFP as it seemed to be when that was implemented that prices started going crazy, as clubs now need their income to be as high as possible to compete at the top end and, for Championship and lower clubs, tickets are likely their highest source of income outside of player transfers (which you cannot always guarantee will happen). I should have been clear, I have no issue with investigations, they're always needed so things remain in check, the problem for me is letting it get out in the press with no official comment on what you're actually doing. Either do it quietly and if theres a problem publicise it then when you can put some meat on the bones, or make regular statements about the situation and actually keep people informed (and their comments in check) by stating what was ok and stating what you're actually checking to make sure it is ok. What I mean is when it was first reported it was we are all 'cheats' because of the actual sales (not the values of the sales), the clubs involved are having to defend themselves for doing something that is within the rules (and even now some people don't seem to realise that the rules allow this!) did anyone from the EFL come out and say anything? I can't remember anyone saying look the rules allow profit from sales but we're going to check the valuations to make sure they're ok. They let it blow up into something big, they let some club owners openly say other clubs were cheating and threaten legal action, is that a healthy situation? And then by letting this about the valuations get out in the way it has everyone jumps on it, again, people (fans so far this time, not sure I've seen further comments from anyone else yet) calls the clubs involved 'cheats', and seemingly expects there to be punishment because of the way they've let the press whip everyone up into a frenzy again. At this point no one even knows if the Times are right do they? I've not seen an official statement from someone at the EFL unless I've missed it, in which case it's not been very well reported. If the Times are right then when are the valuations going to be done? What happens if they come back and the values are ok? (I'm not saying that all will do because I only know us and Villa said we got valuations, I'm not sure about the other two clubs involved) Do they hope it just quietly goes away? Or do they actually make a statement clearing the clubs of blame? What then happens to the club owners that called the clubs out for cheating, do they just get to say that and have no comeback for it? It's a massive mess! Re Spygate: I was actually on about the initial Police tweet - the tweet below is the one that first put Spygate into the public domain and it all blew up from there. I didn't want to go into it detail because it's over and done with, I only mentioned it above because I think it's helped influence the Leeds owners attitude to us over everything else, but as you've mentioned about the discrepancies I will. The day of the game (the day after the tweet above) the club made a statement on the official site, but it was being reported openly by then because of the above tweet, so I assume they felt they needed to say something as they didn't want to let it run and run without comment. The Police said it wasn't them who told the club who the man was or any information, so I don't know what happened and who exactly confirmed the mans identity or who confirmed what he was carrying, but Lampard said he heard from the Police about the wire cutters. Lampard also said he spoke to Bielsa the day before the game (the day it happened) and he admitted to sending him, but he would have known who he was before that I assume(??). Lampard and some of our players (Carson, Keogh, there may be others, I can't remember, it's very difficult to find things due to the sheer amount of articles on Spygate) said the Police came into/onto the training ground but the Police said they didn't, the whole thing is very, very confusing!! I do believe the club have a lot of cameras at the training ground, at least covering the pitches for recording training/games to analyse, so I assume there would've been video of the events at the time that might have cleared things up for the EFL/FA? In one of those links above (I think I put that one in!) Lampard said that our kitman had seen the same man before the first game with Leeds last season, our second game of the season I think it was (depending on when the cup game was), and he had been told to move on. There's another article here (which may or may not be correct or relevant) where a member of the public said they'd seen a man 'in the hedgerow' several times during the season. There were a lot of people that assumed it was the club who contacted the Police, but Mel Morris confirmed on Talksport that it was a neighbour (there are houses directly across the road). The comment's I mentioned in my previous post, about once he admitted doing it to everyone, are also on this link, I thought it was on Talksport. I remember Bielsa's press conference, the Leeds fans thought it was hilarious that he'd told the world our tactics, it was a few hours before we played at Southampton in our FA Cup replay (which we won on penalties) and then we went on to get 2 more points than Leeds in the remainder of the season! On the 16th Jan (day of the press conference) we were 11 points behind them (43-54), we finished 9 points behind them (74-83). Re: Rooney, did you see the article about this on Friday? There are some comments in there from 32red's general manager. He makes it very clear that the deal is as I said it was before (as was always going to be the case, it was the only way we could have done it!) yes they are paying us more because we are signing Rooney, but it is us they are paying and not Rooney himself, it is us that will pay Rooney via the increased sponsorship, that's just very good business sense from us. I'm not sure why how we deal with amortisation is at all relevant, we still have to account for their full value at some point whilst they're under contract, or take less of a profit (or a loss) if we sell them. In fact a lot of our high value players (from the time they were high value compared to most other clubs signings, rather than now where every club seems to be signing high value players) are now off the books due to their contracts ending or being released (Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman) so we will have had to account for it now anyway, whilst we're still in the Championship, so I don't see the problem, it's not like we've got away with not having to take the hit is it? I think this is where Mel Morris gets unfair criticism, he mentioned before about Boro selling their tax loss to their parent company to make it revenue. Seemingly perfectly allowed within the rules of the time (as he consistently asserts we have been now) gave them a presumably unfair advantage, but no one says anything negative or holds it against Gibson as something that he's done morally wrong! Why is Mel Morris being held to different standards? It is obvious to see his frustration in his comments in the article above, and I think it's completely understandable.
  6. I agree, there was surely only one way it was going to be used, unless they felt that maybe clubs who were selling old stadiums/training grounds or extra pockets of land should have the profits included? Obviously if clubs weren't aware of it at the time of vote then it's a very different situation, I just can't see that being the case if they are the ones who have to ok the rules. I think the EFL are trying to repair their reputation after Bury, Bolton, Blackpool and others. However, I don't think they should be making a point of looking into clubs that have followed the rules as they are written, even if it wasn't as intended, if the intention was different it should have explicitly said it. All they're doing by doing this rather than nipping it in the bud is causing more resentment between clubs, their owners and fans which will cause more issues in the long run that they'll then have to deal with. The Leeds owner is clearly still bitter with us after last season due to both Spygate and the play offs, but as Mel Morris said somewhere, it might have been one of his Talksport interviews, I can't remember, as soon as Bielsa did his press conference telling everyone that he'd done it to all teams it was out of our control. I guess we reported it at the time as we probably felt we had to as it had gotten out via the Police tweet on the day, but we didn't know it would blow up into what it did. I don't know if you follow Andy Holt's tweets in general? It's quite obvious he knows and likes Mel Morris, I also notice a few people have tried to draw him into saying bad things but he's brushed them off, most of it is from Forest and Leeds fans for obvious reasons, some examples of both below The one below is after we played them in the FA Cup last season Even Kieran Maguire himself is trying to stir things up, I've noticed before that he does this a lot, but I guess it gets him more work if he does! The below is a thread of comments from Andy Holt about the EFL, he mentions Mel
  7. The thing I don't get is, if Championship clubs were given a vote on the rules, then surely they must have known it said this? Even if it was unintentionally removed during the change of rules, wouldn't all of the Championship clubs have been given a copy of the rules to go over before any vote? Surely that's what would've happened? If that's the case then I don't see it as only the EFL's problem, because if so many clubs are against the rules saying that then surely one of them would have noticed and pointed it out at the time? I can't help but wonder if they knew full well it said it and it's only now become an issue because of how it's been used?
  8. It's a Championship only rule so I can't imagine he'd have had a vote on it.
  9. That's my point though, it's a different person giving their valuation, nothing about it makes it more likely to be right than the one from the club. Just as an aside, what would happen if the valuation actually found it to be worth more? Well yes, to help FFP compliance would likely be why they've been sold, but that doesn't mean they were overvalued. Clubs with no need (or no wish) to sell aren't likely to do it as a revenue boost so they don't need to get a valuation. Yes, it does need to be factored in, which is what the accounts do. What enhanced the value on the books from £21m to £60m the first time it was revalued? I can only assume that market changes have affected the valuation as well as the work done to it. As I mentioned, the depreciation seemed to be included in the original revaluation as it changed from £5.6m to £1.3m with that, so any further revaluation would I assume also take into account the depreciation. Reading's doesn't appear to have been revalued (there was no revaluation reserve listed after the stadium appeared), written down or written up during that time, there were however additions each year. I made a note of the figures from the 'Freehold land and buildings' section, and checked for the other bits like revaluation reserve elsewhere, hope this helps as a starting point (and I'm really, really hoping this shows up ok when I post! ) COST/VALUATION DEPRECIATION NET BOOK VALUE ADDITIONS RECLASSIFICATION DISPOSALS PROFIT ON DISPOSAL REVALUATION RESERVE 1996 2,424,539 173,917 2,250,622 - - - - 1,750,000 1997 3,492,355 192,355 3,300,000 - - - - 2,727,566 1998 3,492,355 199,986 3,292,369 - - - - 2,727,566 1999 30,284,529 403,790 29,880.739 - 30,284,529^ (3,492,355) 674,343 - 2000 30,285,513 1,009,015 29,276,498 984 - - 4,250,000+ - 2001 30,195,564 1,610,528 28,585,306 (89,949) - - - - 2002 30,756,172 2,217,179 28,538,993 560,608 - - - - 2003 32,108,199 2,880,227 29,227,972 1,352,028 - - - - 2004 32,657,449 3,597,711 29,059,738 549,250 - - - - 2005 33,517,935 4,315,204 29,202,731 860,486 - - - - 2006 33,676,456 5,195,931 28,480,525 173,725 - (15,204) - - 2007 36,604,151 6,061,510 30,542,641 2,927,695 - - - - 2008 41,309,673 6,936,345 34,373,328 4,705,522 - - - - 2009 41,514,968 8,409,454 33,105,514 264,523 - (59,228) - - 2010 41,574,629 9,947,932 31,626,697 59,661 - - - - 2011 41,566,830 11,494,789 30,072,041 27,944 - (35,743) - - 2012 42,786,641 13,044,124 29,742,517 1,219,811 - - - - 2013 45,899,086 14,717,695 31,181,391 3,112,445 - - - - 2014 45,749,698 16,159,042 29,590,656 870,920 - (1,020,308) - - 2015 42,434,216 17,670,997 24,763,219 2,330,873 - (5,646,355) 11,000,000 - 2016 43,336,478 19,036,759 24,299,719 902,262 - - - - 2017* 38,689,077 17,516,376 21,172,701 246,399 - - - - 2018~ 2,864,247 2,216,071 648,176 551,237 - (36,376,068) 6,518,222 - ^ From 'Assets in the course of construction' + During the year, the company granted a 125 year lease for part of its land to Madejski Stadium Hotel Limited for £4,250,000 * 'Training ground improvements' split off from 'Freehold land and buildings' ~ Sale not listed under 'Related party transactions', sale was to their immediate parent company Renhe Sports Management Co Limited, so presumably they used FRS 102 not to disclose it. The £60m I was referring to was when the net book value in the accounts jumped up from £21.6m to £60.1m with the revaluation in the 2008 accounts. The 'Assets in the course of construction' I was referring to was Reading's stadium, not to do with our accounts, see above. I assumed the 2013 valuation of our stadium was similar to the 2007 one due to the wording I quoted yesterday, where it said about 'material change'? Ahh thanks, that explains that, I didn't make a note, so obviously didn't see that mentioned. That's quite high? £11m profit just on the land? Yes, I know Birmingham ignored it, but we have said all along that we will abide by it, there has never been a time when we've said anything other than that, I assume the others are the same. What I meant about the valuation and not having gone over otherwise was because it's perfectly allowed to use the profit from a stadium sale (that is clear in the rules and doesn't seem to be disputed) the issue being mentioned at the moment is the valuation. The clubs will have worked out their figures on the valuation they were given. Had this valuation been lower, they would have adjusted their future spending to counteract that, in our case, I don't believe we needed to post a £14.6m profit? In which case, say the stadium was valued at £61m for example, the £5.4m loss posted instead should still have seen us under FFP for that period as I don't believe we were over from the 2 years before, but we would adjust future spending to account for that. Surely as it is we will have worked our future seasons planning on the valuation we were given, so if the valuation is lowered it might see us over, where we wouldn't have been if we had known that was the case in the first place. It's still entirely possible that the EFL's valuation is the same/very similar as the clubs anyway, given that they have both commissioned independent valuations. They'd be perfectly entitled to take legal action (and that's also why there's an appeals process). It would be a very different situation for a club that knows they've not kept to the rules and have made no attempt not to, to a club that knows they have and have the proof of that, ie. an independent valuation stating the value they worked to.
  10. From the EFL's point of view that's probably how they will look at it, but from the clubs point of view (those that got valuations anyway) they will likely look at it a very different way. Stage One - Why would the clubs just accept the EFL's independent valuations if they vary from the independent ones they obtained? You can't just argue that the EFL obtained one is the correct one simply because they are the ones that obtained it. If the clubs have also obtained their own independent valuations then they will argue that theirs are the correct ones too, no? Is that not the whole point of getting them in the first place? Stage Two - Again, if the EFL's were lower they could argue that the clubs were overinflated, but the clubs could counter argue that the EFL's were undervalued. After all are any of the people involved in a club actually qualified to know their stadiums valuations? Presumably this is why they get in companies to provide them with it. They will surely have taken that valuation in good faith? With ours particularly, given the £55m valuation in 2007 (presumably it was similar in 2013? Given the wording in the accounts mentioned previously), with them knowing all the work they've done since (pretty sure most if not all was also after the 2013 revaluation) and how much that has cost etc, I can't imagine that anyone would think anything wrong of a valuation of £81m around 11 (or 5 if that one was similar) years later? You actually have no idea whether Reading's was at the correct value either, but as it was lower you're making it the benchmark?? The book value of an asset actually doesn't necessarily mean a lot does it, unless it was very recently revalued? I notice from looking through Reading's accounts that they didn't appear to have ever revalued their stadium from the time it was built to the time it was sold, doesn't this mean the book value means very little to the actual valuation of the stadium? Don't forget when we revalued Pride Park it (the net book value) went from around £21m to around £60m, nothing had changed bar the stadiums valuation. The depreciation also went down, so the revaluation had obviously taken this into account, as the link I posted yesterday seems to suggest happens. If this is the case you cannot judge Reading's stadium value on the book value given that was only relevant to its construction cost (and any additions made). The only reason their value changed (upwards) through any of the accounts was because of those additions, which were every year from the year their stadium value was reclassified from 'Assets in the course of construction', the largest of which was around £4.7m. I notice it appears they disposed of another asset in 2015, on the books for around £5.6m, I think profit on disposal was listed as £11m, but this was before the FFP regulations changed to allow the profit in 2016. They actually made more profit on the disposal of this asset (I'm not actually sure what it was) compared to their stadium. Stage Two and Three - If the EFL's valuations were to come back different to (ie. lower than) the clubs, the scenario you mention above assumes that the clubs knew that the valuations were too high and they have knowingly gone over FFP limits. If you adjust the allowed spending in line with a potentially lower EFL valuation which subsequently means the clubs have gone over the allowed limit and would then be punished, then they will surely argue they would not have done this if they knew at the start that the valuation would need to be queried as they took it in good faith? I'm not sure how you could punish a club based on a further valuation providing they have all the evidence of the valuation they obtained themselves at the time? I'm sure if the above happened there would be a legal challenge from the clubs involved, and it would be a very long and drawn out process.
  11. Sorry to quote my own post, but I've found the interview on youtube, one of our fans had put it on, the video below should start at the beginning of the stadium discussion. He did mention £180m, it's not clear whether that would be because of the roof construction cost, or because of the extra money holding the events it would allow brings, but I guess as that only happens because of the roof then they're interlinked.
  12. No, I'm talking about it from the vendors point of view. If you wanted to sell your house you'd get a valuation and put it on the market at the market rate. That was my comparison of the situations. In the clubs case, the purchaser has accepted the valuation as when it's a RPT you'd have no need to get a valuation because you know that you've just had it valued and you trust the valuation, it would be a huge waste of money and completely unnecessary, the only people that gain in that situation are the valuers.
  13. The link below is a very interesting, if long, read https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media/upholding-professional-standards/sector-standards/valuation/drc-method-of-valuation-for-financial-reporting-1st-edition-rics.pdf It actually post dates the sale, but I can't imagine much has changed from the time of the valuation.
  14. Why would the EFL be commissioning stadium valuations? They're only doing it now because our clubs have sold them and people are questioning it, they wouldn't have done it on a whim. It was the clubs property, they are the ones that wanted to sell, so they are the ones that got a valuation, the same as selling a house. Did you read the Sky article from earlier today? Looks like it's very expensive to get valuations done. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/11802891/derby-defend-80m-pride-park-value
  15. Because they are commissioned as a qualified professional to provide a service. The EFL have today announced that they have commissioned an independent review of the regulations and procedures concerning the financial sustainability of EFL clubs. It's exactly the same situation.
  16. I presume this is the full article? I have never created an account with the Times so haven't actually read past the beginning, so thanks for pasting it in here. It says a lot without actually saying a lot doesn't it that article and once again, it is the Times writing a negative article about us, funny that! 'Could yet face sanctions', 'possible breaches' and 'it remains possible', great so Mr Journalist, you don't actually know if we will face sanctions, you don't actually know if we have breached the financial regulations and you have absolutely no idea whether the valuation was 'boosted' by the proposal to build the roof, wonderful stuff. Ahh yes, lets quietly mention Sheffield Wednesday - who he neglects to mention had a much much larger percentage increase on book value, a sale price of around £60m but a valuation that was made in 2014 for only £22.25m(!) - and Reading - who only made a £6.5m or so was it profit on book value? A book value that seemed very low in the first place (although I notice from their accounts they don't appear to have ever had their stadium revalued since it was built). Why do they require an independent valuation for that one, it's not like it was excessive? Could it be that they're getting valuations for every stadium sale and they don't necessarily expect to find anything awry with any of them? That doesn't make for a good story does it? 'One property expert with knowledge of Pride Park believes' - brilliant, would that be Pride Park the area, or Pride Park the stadium I wonder? Unless they're a property expert with experience of valuing stadiums then I'm not sure how it helps that they have knowledge of Pride Park, a stadium is a bit different to an office block or a car showroom. Great let's just mention the Rooney deal while we're at it. But let me get this right, can't sell the stadium for the independent valuation we obtained even though fixed asset sale profits are within the rules, can't sign a big name player with a great sponsorship deal for the club. What pray tell can we do to increase our revenues that isn't frowned upon? And to finish it all off, let's just quote the Leeds owner from months back! Sorry for the rant, I got carried away!
  17. Yes he is, which is exactly why it is mentioned under Related party transactions in the accounts, 'companies under common ownership'. But we also got an independent valuer in to get the sale price/market value. 'Property experts though', who exactly do you think did our valuation? Do you think we just got a random person in off the street? You're not happy with our independent valuation, done by a presumably qualified professional, but want to potentially put it to unqualified people who have no knowledge of the subject to decide if it's right, that is quite frankly absurd, if you do that you might as well have got in that random person off the street. Neither the revaluation reserve, nor the book values, changed with the 2013 valuation although as far as I can remember, all of the work I mentioned previously has been done after this valuation, ie. since Mel Morris bought the club. The actual wording in the accounts is this is interesting for two reasons 1. as it says 'the current valuation above' which presumably is the 'Cost or valuation' figure, rather than the net book value? 2. it says 'reflects their best assessment of the existing open market value of the property' - this confuses me a little because of the quote in my previous post where it suggests the valuation is different for different purposes. I don't know whether it will or not, I can only go by what the club say, I have no reason to doubt them, they have been very clear about the whole thing. They obviously had a valuation saying £81m, which is the figure they have worked on. I don't know if you've ever watched property shows on tv, there are times when the valuations vary quite wildly, but they are all done by professionals, how do you know which one is correct? Can you remember Mel Morris being on Talksport? He mentioned the potential of a roof but I'm sure he said that the stadium was taken out of the club because it will cost (which is obviously FFP exempt, infrastructure improvements) and be worth a lot more than £81m when that is done. I think it was £180m that he said? I'm not sure if that interview is still around anywhere, but I think he said something about how they would all have a problem if it was sold for £180m (the value after the roof) instead of the £81m, something along those lines. Should the EFL's valuation not match that of the club I imagine the club would fight it all the way given they also had an independent valuation at the time of the sale. They could not be expected to know the valuation, it's not their field of knowledge, getting a valuation done is all they can do in that situation.
  18. Does it? As has been said many times, the club told everyone when the accounts were released that they got an independent valuation to determine the market value. I assume they have all the evidence of this valuation. The valuations they obtained in the past were from reputable companies, they were mentioned in the accounts. Should the valuation the EFL obtain prove different to the clubs, then I'm not sure what could happen as I'm not sure what makes their independent valuation any more correct than the club obtained one? They're both independent valuations after all, and they can surely both argue that theirs is correct. The club have been open about the sale and it was sold to outside of the group of companies, unlike Reading, I believe they sold theirs to their parent company. I can't remember the situation with Sheffield Wednesday and Villa now, whether they sold in or out of group. I don't know whether market value is different to depreciated replacement cost value, quotes from websites that I've posted in this thread before make me think it is. The quote below being one of them, I'm sure there was another, I'd have to re-find it though. I think it mentioned a valuation only being used for accounting purposes, so presumably that means the valuation for other purposes would be different, whether that is more or less I'm not sure. https://www.lsh.co.uk/explore/services/valuation
  19. No, you're right, we don't really play with typical wingers, they tend to come inside, we've been like that for years, I struggle to remember the last 'proper' winger we've had in the team on a regular basis. Some thoughts on the game and how we've been going so far... I'm not sure how we'll set up, we might see a change of shape, we switched to 3 at the back at half time against Stoke, we could go with that tonight to get both Waghorn and Marriott on the pitch at the same time (now that Marriott's back from the pre-season injury). Although we could do that by putting Waghorn out on the right in the 433, or by going with a diamond instead. It's difficult to know what Cocu will do as we're only a few games into his tenure, I know he favours 433 if possible, but as of yet we've not seen our best team in that formation what with bedding new players in and with the injuries we've got/had. So far he seems very calm and measured and very tactically aware, his post match interviews have been really good, when he's been asked about why he's made a decision to change something he explains it really well (and without getting in a huff like some do if they feel they're being questioned! He seems to get that the fans like to understand his reasoning and that's why he's being asked) and so far we've switched formations during games if he's felt a need to. With this being the second of 5 games in 15 days it's possible we'll make some changes to the starting 11. We played some youngsters in the cup who did really well, a couple, Knight and Buchanan (who scored the winner in the cup), have been on the bench or involved in the first few league games, one or both of them could play a part. They didn't play for the U23s at Southampton last night. With our cup draw being as it is, it could be there's less chance of them playing in that and more chance of them playing in one or more of the league games. We'd likely want to reward them for getting us through to the next round but being drawn against Forest makes that an awkward game to play them, as Forest will probably go full strength and it's normally a fiery game, might not be the best game to be blooding them at this point. Obviously Bogle being injured is a miss, another few games out at least for him I reckon, but Cocu said weeks not months, so that's a bonus. That said Lowe's been doing well in his place so far, on his unnatural side, I wonder if he could be rewarded with the LB berth when Bogle's back. Almost certainly will be a first league start for Bielik, so depending on the formation we go with that might mean that Huddlestone doesn't play. We're a work in progress at the minute, as you'd expect in the early days under a new manager, but especially so with the delays due to the late departure of Frank. But we're unbeaten so far, we've had 3 away games of 4 including the cup, it could have been worse (Stoke hit the woodwork twice), it could have been better (Waghorn had a penalty saved against Swansea), so we'll see how we go tonight and onwards!
  20. Why exactly does it matter that other clubs are sponsored by them? Do you think that all of those clubs would have been paid the same amount by them in the first place? Of course they wouldn't, the get the amount that 32red deem reasonable for the exposure they will be given. In fact, due to this I'd imagine that originally Leeds were getting paid more than we were, as they are the club that's on TV the most from the Championship every year, guaranteed, so they would get more exposure from them. Why is it a move of questionable repute? It's a perfectly reasonable transaction, sponsor pays club for exposure, a star player will give them more exposure, club pays said player via income which happens to include sponsorship money, what's wrong with that exactly? Is that not how all sponsorship deals work? Does your sponsor not effectively help to pay your players via them adding to your income? If anyone has a problem with the number 32 that will be on his back then they'd need to stop players from every club with a sponsor that has a number in it from wearing said number. If the problem is only because it's a gambling sponsor, it is double standards as no one said anything about Blackburn using number 10. If they find that Rooney wearing the number 32 is against sponsorship rules because it's associated with 32red, every sponsor and every club should be treated in the same way. Why should the profile of the player mean the situation is any different? If the problem is stealth advertising on children's shirts via a squad number then I'm sure you will find children idolising Danny Graham too, and wearing his name and number on a shirt. If you can look at the 32 on the back and associate it with the 32 on the front, then you can look at the 10 on the back and associate it with the 10 on the front, it's exactly the same. We have stuck to the FFP rules too, there is no spirit of FFP, it's either allowed, or it's not, what we did was allowed, it's there in black and white (pardon the pun), if the clubs didn't want the rules to say what they say then they shouldn't have voted them in, it's really that simple. I don't see how removing the part about profit from selling of fixed assets can be an oversight as has been mentioned previously, there are 24 clubs in the Championship, that's at least 24 pairs of eyes checking over the FFP rules when they voted for them, if they were all so worried about them being secure then someone would surely have noticed. Villa also passed FFP and what on earth has Rangers being demoted 7 years ago got to do with 32red sponsoring them for the last 5 years? Why exactly would we be in breach of FFP? Including the 4 loanees we had on the books last season (a season for which we don't actually yet know the accounting figures) we have let 17(!!!) players go, 11 of which were either experienced players or high value buys and would likely be on quite high wages, and that's not including half a season of Ledley as he left last January. We've bought in 7 (even if you include Rooney who's not here yet) only 1 that we've actually paid a fee for, which on a 5 year contract doesn't add much even in straight line amortisation. We made between £2.5 - 3m in fees for players sold (including EPPP compensation for Delap) and we also have the compensation for Lampard et al, which is supposed to be north of £4m. 32red can sponsor us for whatever amount they see fit for the exposure they will be given, they are not a related party. They are entitled to renegotiate a sponsorship arrangement, they pay more, we get Rooney, they get more exposure, ergo paying more was good value - unprecedented situation yes, but perfectly allowed given they have no links to our club other than being a sponsor, as they are with other clubs. Your owner could not do that as that would be a related party transaction, that is where fair value comes in. You know that the club knows that they have to factor in 100% of Rooney's wages for FFP purposes right? Rob Dorsett said this live on Sky whilst he was reporting from outside Moor Farm on the day Rooney signed. Someone has decided that the rules say they only have to factor in 50% with a player coach role (it's actually the SCMP rules for League 1 and 2 clubs that say this - not the Championship rules) and loads of people, including yourselves have run with it even though it's not true.
  21. It makes you wonder why everyone waited until deadline day for it to go through if that's the case? Thanks, I'll check them out. From what I remember about him, he's always been a little annoyance when he's played against us, I've always assumed that was because he raised his game against us being ex Forest! Inconsistent certainly seems to be the go to word when describing most winger/no10 types, seems much rarer to get consistent ones.
  22. This morning, according to the Derby Telegraph, the plan was to bring in two players, apparently a right winger and an attacking midfielder, I had to laugh because our official site in the article about Paterson it says: that sounds like we've decided one player can cover the lot instead! Your guess is as good as mine as to where he'll actually be playing! We might still never hear that as you've got a January recall on him! Not watched the interview myself, doesn't sound great though! Seen a few of our fans saying something that made it sound like he's known he's been coming here for a while though?
  23. Well being ex Forest was obviously the reason for what was said in the video. But that on it's own doesn't normally matter too much, we liked Kris Commons and he was actually a Forest fan from Nottingham! There's actually a lot of players that have played for both clubs in the past, probably more than you'd imagine, someone on our forum said he'll be number 76! Just seems odd from both sides this one, what with you having the January recall, and us signing someone who said he doesn't like us!
  24. This is not exactly going down well at this end given a certain video! Strange move all round
  25. He'll already be wearing 32red branding on the front his shirt, what difference does wearing the number 32 on his back make? It's just a number. The same as 10, 88, 360, 365 and 888 are numbers which also happen to be related to betting companies that sponsor shirts. Does everyone moan about Danny Graham wearing number 10 for Blackburn because it's related to their shirt sponsor? If we had another player wearing the number 32 nothing would be made of it. If we'd not actually announced that we'd agreed a record breaking sponsorship with 32red at the same time nothing would be made of it. I presume we announced the sponsorship deal so that people understood how we could afford him, if we hadn't there would be even more people questioning it re. FFP, with the numbers that are being thrown around in the media. If club owners can't put money into their club, then they have to rely on sponsors, the ones that seem to be able/willing to pay the most to clubs in the Championship are the betting companies. They then get moaned at for getting the most out of the sponsorship. Can't win with it really can they? It's also rather ironic that this is what the focus is on when the whole football league is sponsored by a betting company!
  • Create New...