Hxj

US and UK accounting standards are different, nothing else.

Having now checked again. It is clear that the loss limits of £5 million and £13 million relate to a member of 'The League' not a member of the Championship.

The Regulations make no exceptions for clubs promoted from League One, neither are there any guidance notes saying there are differences. The natural reading of the Regulations, in my view, is that the three year test applies to any club in the championship. To me that also makes perfect sense from a consistency and practical perspective. It also means that League One clubs need to keep an eye on the Championship FFP tests, which makes also makes sense.

As the property you are trying to enter is private property the owners are perfectly entitled to put any pre-conditions they like on you entering their property, providing they do not discriminate on the grounds of a protected characteristic. Likewise if you don't want to be subject to the attention you don't need to go anywhere near the ground.

So a club (A) which honestly and openly predicts breaching FFP in its March 2024 in year submission is given an in year sporting sanction of -5 points and is relegated from the Championship at the end of the season. in July 2024 after the end of the season (and after the AGMs where membership for the next season is finalised) it receives a bid from an EPL team for its goalkeeper for £10 million, and therefore in the FFP reporting period to 31 July 2024 it does not breach FFP at all. Another club (B) does not predict breaching FFP in March 2024. It is struggling in the Championship. It sacks the manager in April 2024 at a cost of £2 million. It appoints a manager who saves the club from relegation by a single point and receives a £3 million bonus as Club A was relegated in its place. In its FFP reporting period to 31 July 2024 it breaches FFP by £2 million, so receives a 3 point sporting sanction but in the 2024/25 season. Discuss the ‘fairness’ of the ‘in-year’ sanction.

I'm not sure how complying with the Regulations is anything other than complying with the Regulations?

The Q&As on the EFL website have been updated sometime since I last looked at them. Some additional information on Embargoes, and also 'Professional Standing'/'Established Player' which I believe is a changed definition (or maybe more clarity). The rules are now clear that a club which is predicting a FFP breach will be subject to an Embargo, as will a club which only meets the limits with future receipts. Currently no clubs are subject to an Embargo, so no club is predicting a breach as of today. That said the Future Financial Information doesn't have to be in yet for this year. My view remains the same as it always has been. You cannot breach FFP until your accounts are finalised and the final FFP form submitted, as they are the measure used. If the measures change my view might change.

They well have been cleared to 2023 already. They may well have been cleared subject to final accounts. Or they may believe that they will be cleared as they know all the figures.

@Mr Popodopolous So let's look at Cardiff. Their group accounting losses (Cardiff City Football Club(Holdings) Limited are: 2019: £0.8 million 2020: £12.5 million 2021: £12.0 million 2022: £26.6 million So for FFP to 2022 their answer is £45.7 million before any add backs at all. They were in the EPL in 2018/19, which forms part of the period, for loss limits. In 2022, they had player amortisation and write offs of £7.5 million, but made a profit on player trading of £4.3 million. They sold some. Player additions were £1 .0 million. More than happy to debate, but I see no problem with Cardiff City to 2022. As to 2023, they spent little on fees, whether there is a problem or not I have no idea, as of yet there is no evidence that they have breached to 2023

There is no such thing as a football regulator. It is a member's only club. The clubs agree to the rules and until recently policed them themselves.

The EFL got a good duffing up over Derby and from what I heard the Financial Unit don't operate on a 'softly softly' basis.

All clubs in the EPL and EFL passed FFP in 2022 except for Everton. All EPL clubs and EFL League 1 and 2 clubs passed FFP in 2023 except for Everton and Nottingham Forest. The EFL Championship position will become clearer in March and April. As regards Leicester we will have to await their 2024 accounts. They look to be in a tricky position as the limit is reducing by £22 million and the losses in 2021, which drops out were £30 odd million on an accounts basis.

Of course we have.

No you can't do that. The club could receive funds for a 'restricted purpose' and pass those on those funds. All we know for sure is that Bristol Sport, in the widest possible sense use The Robins Foundation to undertake some community charitable activity. It could be that other community charitable activities are carried on in the club, and some community activities which don't qualify for charitable status but qualify under FFP rules for community expenditure are carried out directly by the club.

Correct - expenses incurred by the Holdings group for community activities are not FFP costs - expenses can be in cash or kind (dedicated member of staff etc). The Robins Foundation is irrelevant in that calculation. For a charity Restricted Funds are those that can only be used for specific purposes, such as a bequest to pay for specific costs such as food for the community. Unrestricted funds can be used for any purpose.

In principle I agree, however both rely on accounts which are prepared to the same accounting standards. So whilst there will always be differences in interpretation and application a set of accounts prepared for the EPL will be identical to one prepared for the EFL with the same underlying transactions. It is those accounts which are relevant in this thread.

It would. I'll leave it there for this thread.

It was - Everton claimed that if they had capitalised the interest costs of the development then there would not have been an issue. Unfortunately following accounting standards they couldn't capitalise any of it, which shows how much thought went into their defence ....

When you account for the improvement, like a new building you capitalise the costs of the structure, so you don't have a cost that is deducted as an expense. Ina development project there are many expenses which you cannot capitalise and would therefore appear in the P&L and therefore count for FFP purposes. Plus if the whole development collapsed that would potentially put Ashton Gate Ltd into liquidation, which completely negates the purpose of a separate stadium company.

If the development was undertaken in Ashton Gate Limited the costs would have crippled that company for FFP purposes, you only have to see what happened with Bramley Dock and Everton. I'd expect the development to be transferred to Ashton Gate Ltd in due course. Once transferred the profits would feed into the FFP calculation for Bristol City Holdings Ltd, unless it was deemed to be too remote from the football trade for EFL purposes, but I don't see that happening.

No - it will be know as the Weimann Semenyo Arena

A club such as Everton could easily enter into a 'Death Spiral'. Relegation into the Championship, can't cut its wages, or dispose of players (the contracts are too good), new stadium is too expensive to run with no massive crowds, fail EFL FFP, get relegated again, crowds crash, costs cannot be absorbed, hello administration.

The -10 for was for a determined total losses sum to 2021/22 of £129.5 million. The decision states that the annual losses were falling throughout that period, but rose again in 2022/23. As far as I can tell it doesn't say if the 2022/23 losses were larger than 2021/22 losses, or all four years used in 2021/22 loss calculation.

The first hearing was a 'not guilty' plea - the second one is a 'guilty' plea. That isn't the basis of the charge. I appreciate that it is semantics but it is important. They were charged for a breach in the period to 2021/22 (and were found guilty) and subsequently they admitted a breach in the period to 2022/23. Under the EPL rules these are separate and equal charges. They could get the same penalty for each offence, or they could get a higher one on the basis that this is a second offence. Or as you say the panel could provide additional mitigation, but for what? If you read the original decision the panel were pretty robust.

I think having a both a KC and a junior barrister acting for you along with Pinsent Masons LLP in the first hearing is usually considered to be 'lawyered up'.