The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[CyderInACan]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Essentially Mel Morris purchased Pride Park through a separate company owned by him- and leased it back- if this counts as income under FFP or legit under FFP, then the whole system is ******

Now that would be a shocker if that was allowed! No different to Pula Sports (or whatever it's called) paying £50m for naming rights to AG!

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Now that would be a shocker if that was allowed! No different to Pula Sports (or whatever it's called) paying £50m for naming rights to AG!

Exactly right.

At market rates it would be permissible- e.g. £41m to purchase Pride Park said the report, whereas he via another company of his paid £80m. Subtract the difference from the profit, then £24.6m losses is my estimate.

FFP is out the window if it is allowed. Like I say they may not be in actual breach, but it would restrict them somewhat if rules enforced correctly.

Yep, indeed said in BBC report- just to reiterate- that Pride Park purchased for £80m, asset value £41m. If it was some billionaire who wanted to buy the ground for no discernible reason, say from Venezuela- Mr Maduro looking for a bolthole for some cash, a hedge- ethically dodgy but legal probably, definitely no connection to Derby it would surely count as a legit profit- but so blatant as not even to be a third party company but a company owned by Mel Morris is just laughable.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The other interesting take on the Derby forum which I have skim read, is that they undervalued by nearly 50% Pride Park in their accounts- if it truly is worth £80m, then how would that fit??

Either way, it looks interesting...

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Coppello said:

When the most recent TV deal was announced, the Premier League introduced a short-term cost control element to the FFP reporting. This basically meant that, if a club had wage costs of over £67m, these costs could only be increased by £7m year-on-year. This doesn't sound a lot when you consider it works out as £135k per week but this threshold can be supplemented by the Company's Own Revenue Uplift (CORU).

This can be calculated as the average player trading profit from the past three years OR uplift in commercial revenues. This was put in place to dissuade clubs from splashing all of the additional TV money on wages. In reality, the rules are very easy to get around and is one of the reasons why you're seeing clubs have an official tractor sponsor or the signing of other odd commercial deals. Since this was introduced, no Premier League club has failed this test and it is being removed next year. 

In addition, if a Premier League club wanted to obtain a UEFA license to enter a European competition, it can only make a loss of £105m over the past three seasons. Again, this is quite a difficult threshold to breach and does not necessarily put off many clubs. 

With Premier League TV revenues stalling, I think we've hit the ceiling and we will not continue to see wage and transfer records broken year after year. When the broadcasting rights are put up for auction in a few years, the market may be shook up again but I think international TV companies are becoming less interested.. Current FFP rules are very far from penalising a lot of clubs and therefore we will not see a huge change in the figures seen above over the next few years. 

 

That's interesting stuff, thanks- especially the bit about STCC being removed.

I thought UEFA FFP had a breakeven requirement over 3 years, or is that all change again?

The operating losses I am interested in there for different reasons are Chelsea and Arsenal- pre player sales, then also factoring out other one off income, one off costs etc.

Chelsea because they had CL revenue and still had to have huge profits on transfers to get admittedly their record profit. I reckon their profit on transfers fallen by 40-50% this season, UEFA Europa League revenue despite improvements will be about £25-30m lower I suspect and though amortisation removed through sales and contracts that expired, plenty added too! if they don't make a return in the next 2 seasons, they could be in danger of breaching even the PL one, let alone the UEFA one, assuming the breakeven thing still exists.

Arsenal because for a long time and especially 5-6 years ago under Wenger they were the UK model for FFP. By far- yet if they miss top four this year, the equation has potential to change there too and that given where they were at a few years ago, is truly unbelievable.

I don't have time to do my own, certainly not at this time but here's one I saw online...

CL qualification vital for Arsenal- incredible they're even in a conversation that they could have got themselves into that position given as I said, how big on FFP they were under Wenger as recently as a couple of years ago.

I might do one for Chelsea later.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[CotswoldRed]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Exactly right.

At market rates it would be permissible- e.g. £41m to purchase Pride Park said the report, whereas he via another company of his paid £80m. Subtract the difference from the profit, then £24.6m losses is my estimate.

FFP is out the window if it is allowed. Like I say they may not be in actual breach, but it would restrict them somewhat if rules enforced correctly.

Yep, indeed said in BBC report- just to reiterate- that Pride Park purchased for £80m, asset value £41m. If it was some billionaire who wanted to buy the ground for no discernible reason, say from Venezuela- Mr Maduro looking for a bolthole for some cash, a hedge- ethically dodgy but legal probably, definitely no connection to Derby it would surely count as a legit profit- but so blatant as not even to be a third party company but a company owned by Mel Morris is just laughable.

Surely if that's allowed then SL has massive scope to spend as he wishes once he's massaged the numbers to suit his agenda. 

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Smoke and mirrors time...

Derby posted a £14.6m profit for last season despite only £3m in profit on player sales...staff costs up by £5.9m and whereas turnover rose only £600,000.

I'm not saying they breached FFP as such- what I am suggesting is that their profit is totally bogus. Estimates online suggest that their 'true' loss was more like £24.4m- again not suggesting they breached FFP over the 3 years just to be clear, maybe just the right side of the line but maybe £40m of 'income' should be stripped out.

Essentially Mel Morris purchased Pride Park through a separate company owned by him- and leased it back- if this counts as income under FFP or legit under FFP, then the whole system is ******. They haven't yet released their full accounts- still waiting on Bolton, Leeds too- WBA have submitted and they are being processed. Derby have not yet released their full accounts.

Brentford released theirs, made a loss of about £3.86m though if it wasn't for profit on player sales, that'd have been not far off £19m.

This might be interesting.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This might be interesting.

 

I think so too.

Based on BBC Article, ground valued at £41m in accounts- purchased for £80m. Fair market price therefore £41m?

Therefore, my interpretation of that is knock £39m off and therefore their "real" i.e. FFP figures are £24.6m losses.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Surely if that's allowed then SL has massive scope to spend as he wishes once he's massaged the numbers to suit his agenda. 

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

Expect SL to have MA all over this.  Wonder what 18/19’s projected accounts state?  16/17’s were only £7.9m, minus the usual £5m Allowance, so on,y £2.9m loss.  Vydra might just have saved them!  But they are stuffed next season.

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Expect SL to have MA all over this.  Wonder what 18/19’s projected accounts state?  16/17’s were only £7.9m, minus the usual £5m Allowance, so on,y £2.9m loss.  Vydra might just have saved them!  But they are stuffed next season.

Quite a few out of contract this summer there though- selling Weimann too though it wasn't a great fee, will have helped remove a bit of amortisation- every penny counts with this.

Thinking they are very close but not sure whether they have yet breached yet- unlike say Aston Villa or based on their own chairman in an AGM, Sheffield Wednesday.

We can only guess on projected accounts, but profit on Player Transfers for the big 2, admittedly TransferMarkt isn't perfect but it is one of the best sources.

Vydra Profit- £6,750,000

Weimann Profit- £1,175,000

Vydra- Reduction in Amortisation- £2,115,000

Weimann- Reduction in Amortisation- £855,000

The only question mark over that is, as per Kieran Maguire's coverage periodically and I think Swiss Ramble has also mentioned it, Derby have a unique accounting method- legal but unique in football- whereby a residual value is applied to the player so the straight line amortisation rule may not apply in the same way. May mean a higher profit on transfers...

May also mean though that when players released on a free, that instead of amortisation being removed, that whatever value the player has at that time- say £1m on contract expiry- that'd be a £1m loss on that player.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Quite a few out of contract this summer there though- selling Weimann too though it wasn't a great fee, will have helped remove a bit of amortisation- every penny counts with this.

Thinking they are very close but not sure whether they have yet breached yet- unlike say Aston Villa or based on their own chairman in an AGM, Sheffield Wednesday.

We can only guess on projected accounts, but profit on Player Transfers for the big 2, admittedly TransferMarkt isn't perfect but it is one of the best sources.

Vydra Profit- £6,750,000

Weimann Profit- £1,175,000

Vydra- Reduction in Amortisation- £2,115,000

Weimann- Reduction in Amortisation- £855,000

The only question mark over that is, as per Kieran Maguire's coverage periodically and I think Swiss Ramble has also mentioned it, Derby have a unique accounting method- legal but unique in football- whereby a residual value is applied to the player so the straight line amortisation rule may not apply in the same way. May mean a higher profit on transfers...

May also mean though that when players released on a free, that instead of amortisation being removed, that whatever value the player has at that time- say £1m on contract expiry- that'd be a £1m loss on that player.

Yep, swings and roundabouts of that approach.

Their actual accounts (when scanned in) will be interesting.

[CotswoldRed]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

I'm less thinking a big gamble, just the ability to throw the odd million or 3 just to get contracts over the line etc. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by CotswoldRed

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

IIRC EUFA/FIFA jave a special unit that looks at things like stadium naming rights to ensure clubs don't indulge in "creative accounting" to improve their income for ffp purposes. Did;t they pick up Man City when one of their owners other companies allegedly "paid" a huge amount to name their stadium?

If so, then surely the EFL must adopt a similar approach in order to avoid any danger of something like the Derby situation enabling a club to circumvent ffp. As you say this is essential if ffp is to have and retain credibility, and especially when we all thought the biggest test of credibility was whether the EFL would have the balls to punch clubs with points deduction.

Given that SL has championed that proper punishment is given for ffp breaches, I would hope he will be equally diligent in ensuring that the EFL address what Derby seem to be attempting with this manoeuvre .

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Leeds lost about £4.3m last season- I thought it would be in that bracket, doing the calculations myself I assumed in the range of £3-4m.

They're good to go basically this and probably next season- not much to see there.

The one notable thing having skim read their accounts was a rise in the wage bill to £28,090,979- and if we include as I guess we must their rises in social security etc then the full figure was £31,358,013.

Turnover of around £40.7m too- very good for a regular Championship club.

Oh and £18.1m from disposal of player transfers.

Rising losses yes, may need to cut back a bit but can't see a firesale needed if they stay down.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Leeds lost about £4.3m last season- I thought it would be in that bracket, doing the calculations myself I assumed in the range of £3-4m.

They're good to go basically this and probably next season- not much to see there.

The one notable thing having skim read their accounts was a rise in the wage bill to £28,090,979- and if we include as I guess we must their rises in social security etc then the full figure was £31,358,013.

Turnover of around £40.7m too- very good for a regular Championship club.

Oh and £18.1m from disposal of player transfers.

Rising losses yes, may need to cut back a bit but can't see a firesale needed if they stay down.

Agree, no sell off required...their model of several top players (Hernandez etc), but willingness to supplement with young homegrown is spot on for a non-parachute club.  £40m income helps though!

[Olé]

On 02/04/2019 at 15:39, Mr Popodopolous said:

The other interesting take on the Derby forum which I have skim read, is that they undervalued by nearly 50% Pride Park in their accounts- if it truly is worth £80m, then how would that fit??

Either way, it looks interesting...

One of the Beesotted (Brentford fanzine) guys just tipped me off on this, as I asked why the Derby fan group twitter was being so rude to them during their game on Saturday.

Apparently the Derby lot didn't like Beesotted's view that selling the stadium wasn't a good idea (based on their own experience with Ron Noades years back) and an FFP con.

The way he tells it, Mel Morris sold it to himself to wipe out Derby's FFP loss. At a value of £80m for a stadium valued at €23m in 2013. Turning a £50m loss into a £14m profit.

If they lost £50m in a year they'd have broken FFP already. Derby fans think they'll buy it back if they go up, Beesotted asked what if you don't, as Derby hasn't got players to sell.

Odd situation but I will read your contributions on this thread to understand better as I haven't had a chance to keep up with this before!

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Olé said:

One of the Beesotted (Brentford fanzine) guys just tipped me off on this, as I asked why the Derby fan group twitter was being so rude to them during their game on Saturday.

Apparently the Derby lot didn't like Beesotted's view that selling the stadium wasn't a good idea (based on their own experience with Ron Noades years back) and an FFP con.

The way he tells it, Mel Morris sold it to himself to wipe out Derby's FFP loss. At a value of £80m for a stadium valued at €23m in 2013. Turning a £50m loss into a £14m profit.

If they lost £50m in a year they'd have broken FFP already. Derby fans think they'll buy it back if they go up, Beesotted asked what if you don't, as Derby hasn't got players to sell.

Odd situation but I will read your contributions on this thread to understand better as I haven't had a chance to keep up with this before!

Yeah, saw a bit of a spat developing between them on Twitter- or views bubbling away on this. Derby lot very defensive must be said!

Don't know if £23m to £80m, one figure I have seen which maybe more realistic is £41m value, £80m sale. Either way it's pulling a fast one I think!

Would estimate their true losses to be around £25-26 before FFP deductions- which doesn't quite leave them in breach, but in a very tight spot! Took a quick look at their Accounts and that is roughly the same ballpark as my estimates- it shows the profit on sale of stadium and I think that profit given it wasn't even a related party transaction but their bloody owner through a company should be disallowed from FFP calculations.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[WarksRobin]

The outgoing EFL chairman was on R5L earlier (saying nothing in particular and just taking up airtime) but he did mention that no Championship teams are currently at risk of points deduction for breach of  FFP. The reason given was that most clubs’ FY is after the end of the season so there is still an opportunity for clubs to raise funds by selling players which is “normal business”

[Lanterne Rouge]

4 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

The outgoing EFL chairman was on R5L earlier (saying nothing in particular and just taking up airtime) but he did mention that no Championship teams are currently at risk of points deduction for breach of  FFP. The reason given was that most clubs’ FY is after the end of the season so there is still an opportunity for clubs to raise funds by selling players which is “normal business”

Well, that makes a complete nonsense of the whole `projected accounts` thing. So, if Villa for instance just say `we`ll sell Grealish for £35m in the summer` the EFL will accept that and when they go up and say `**** you, he`s staying` they can do nothing about it. Also, how can clubs sell players when the transfer window is shut - I don`t think it re-opens until July 1st?

What a kick in the teeth for all us clubs staying within the rules.

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Red Right Hand said:

Well, that makes a complete nonsense of the whole `projected accounts` thing. So, if Villa for instance just say `we`ll sell Grealish for £35m in the summer` the EFL will accept that and when they go up and say `**** you, he`s staying` they can do nothing about it. Also, how can clubs sell players when the transfer window is shut - I don`t think it re-opens until July 1st?

What a kick in the teeth for all us clubs staying within the rules.

100% agree.

I thought the whole point of projected accounts being used for the third year, was to avoid the situation that applied previously, i.e. clubs like QPR and Bournemouth could breach ffp  and gain promotion, but because the breach was not confirmed until their financial year accounts were produced, it was too late for any action to be taken by the EFL as the clubs were already by then premier league clubs.

All clubs have effectively had 3 years notice of the ffp rules that now apply. Proper financial management, administration and control should enable any club to identify that they are running close to, or outside of ffp limits well before the end of the third year and I would have thought such issues should be clear at the end of year two. If so, and if player sales are needed to avoid a breach, then they then have 2 transfer windows to remedy the situation.

To be "in discussion" with the EFL at this stage, when  breach is already known, about selling players in the future is farcical at best, and a complete slap in the face for all the clubs that have acted responsibly up until now.

If this is proven to be the case, and if we see any similar underhand actions in favour of clubs like Derby should they also breach, it would smack to me that while the EFL are very bold about penalising clubs with points deductions, they are only prepared to do this for lesser clubs or where it will not affect a club's strong chance of promotion or contending the play offs. If so, then ffp will be dead in the water and I hope that SL rallies support from other clubs, so that if the EFL was worried about the threat of legal action from clubs like Villa or Derby, should they be hit with a sever ffp penalty, it would be nothing compared to the legal action from 10-15 clubs that have been playing the game by the rules.

[Davefevs]

I always wondered how they’d implement the projected accounts against the scenario of selling a player in the summer to balance the books. 

Flawed. 

Birmingham proved you can undertake a transfer at any time without necessarily getting the registration recorded (Pedersen). 

Just got to hope Villa or Derby don’t go up. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

The thing is it all depends on financial year- perhaps that brings a loophole?

Transfer window in summer opens June 1st doesn't it? Aston Villa's financial year ends May 31st so any backdated transfers shouldn't count. Complexities when Derby e.g. is 30th June or Sheffield Wednesday's 31st July!

Derby I'm not so certain are in breach even without the "profit" but very close to it. Aston Villa though, most definitely!

Edited April 14, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[JamesBCFC]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The thing is it all depends on financial year- perhaps that brings a loophole?

Transfer window in summer opens June 1st doesn't it? Aston Villa's financial year ends May 31st so any backdated transfers shouldn't count. Complexities when Derby e.g. is 30th June or Sheffield Wednesday's 31st July!

Derby I'm not so certain are in breach even without the "profit" but very close to it. Aston Villa though, most definitely!

Transfer window is 1st of July I believe, as most player contracts go to 30th of June

 

Edit- I was wrong, opens on 9th of June

Edited April 14, 2019 by JamesBCFC

[bcfctim]

Is it the case then that different clubs have different financial years on which they base their accounts? Given we're all operating in the same system and under the same restrictions, transfer windows, regulations etc, I struggle to see why that should be the case?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the date of the opening of the summer transfer window as the transition point to the next season, and have all clubs within our league system be required to file their accounts for each year up to that point?

That way you wouldn't have the potential issue with backdated transfers as registrations wouldn't come into place and contracts wouldn't be made official until after then.

And I'm no financial expert by any means but I don't see why that would be a difficult thing to enforce. Just have it as a basic requirement for a 'company' to be registered with the league they must file their accounts by a certain point, up to a certain point.

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Transfer window is 1st of July I believe, as most player contracts go to 30th of June

 

Edit- I was wrong, opens on 9th of June

It must be linked to when CL final is? 1st June in 2018 when I looked it up- 9th June is a random date though!

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, bcfctim said:

Is it the case then that different clubs have different financial years on which they base their accounts? Given we're all operating in the same system and under the same restrictions, transfer windows, regulations etc, I struggle to see why that should be the case?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the date of the opening of the summer transfer window as the transition point to the next season, and have all clubs within our league system be required to file their accounts for each year up to that point?

That way you wouldn't have the potential issue with backdated transfers as registrations wouldn't come into place and contracts wouldn't be made official until after then.

And I'm no financial expert by any means but I don't see why that would be a difficult thing to enforce. Just have it as a basic requirement for a 'company' to be registered with the league they must file their accounts by a certain point, up to a certain point.

Just a quirk of business. Accounts will either be up until May 31st, June 30th or (rarely) July 31st of the financial year for football clubs.

Perhaps, though couldn't that in turn give some clubs an unfair advantage. Submit until May 2019 say, clubs whose financial years end at that stage full cost v revenue...whereas clubs who don't maybe missing one or even 2 months- losses and cost base lower.

Anyway clubs have to submit accounts to the League in advance of their release to Companies House. Actual accounts for the season just gone in December of the existing season and projected accounts for the current season in March 2019.

The very point of the latter was so that Aston Villa for example and Sheffield Wednesday, Derby could be punished in season if in breach- though I'm not convinced Derby are breaching. Close yes but close is enough to remain just that right side of the line!

[Coppello]

On 12/04/2019 at 05:23, billywedlock said:

I think the Derbyt situation is interesting, not least the valuation (but it won't impact the . AG has an asset value of £65M when fittings etc taken into account, obviously being depreciated in line with normal practice. The stadium company is separated but held under one parent Bristol City Holdings. (ultimately held by Pula ) SL continues to recapitalise the holding company to cover the losses and keep the business viable, last season £25.1M was lost (with football wage bill now £23M up from 17.9M 16/17 season)) . Hence why we needed to sell players to not fail ourselves the FFP. SL has put , what was it £120M into BCFC, his main asset is  the ground.  AG was taken out of the football club and there was a transfer of asset to the stadium company . There were loans with the banks for £50m to pay for the stadium development and further loans from Pula of £20m due for repayment in 2021. (Secured against the stadium or guaranteed by SL/Pula. ) Generally SL increases his capital (share issue) to keep the business alive. Back to Derby, the inflated figure is also needed against the book value of previous accounts to be used as a profit on sale of asset to have impact on the P/L, something I have not noted in BCFC accounts, SL was clear he wanted accountability of both of the businesses, and that appears to be what he has done, not a fancy trick to alter the P/L result , more so as the holding company is the same. Very different if he had moved it out of the holding, then it would be a sale and leaseback agreement, which is what I suspect is happening at Derby, and in that case just think Coventry City, though many clubs around the world do not own their stadium,. Nothing to stop Sl selling the stadium one day though if he wanted a return on his investment (partial ) but he knows greater value will be created if he can get the club in the Premiership and sell as a complete club. Derby can only sell their stadium once, and the details of payment , the quality of guarantees of that payment, where is the money,  will require close scrutiny for sure to make sure it is not financial engineering at its best. Something football clubs seem to suffer from readily, more so Prem players contracts for clubs that are likely to be in relegation battles. Until they start containing massive changes upon relegation this cycle will continue, and too many have gambled and lost on getting out of our league and failed. Derby the latest. There is plenty of money in football but financial regulation and lack of rigid player contracting by clubs makes it farcical. Our next accounts will be interesting , staff costs for sure just to debunk a few myths . 

They say that they have had the stadium independently valued by experts which is interesting. I'd struggle to see how the stadium valuation of £80m has been ascertained using the depreciated replacement cost method given that it's not brand new and it's in Derby, not the most expensive area of the country. I'm currently working on a stadium valuation at the moment in a more affluent area of the country and I'd be amazed if it comes out at 75% of the fee. I do wonder if we will see a wave of Championship and Premier League clubs following this method which would be absolutely ridiculous. It throws FFP rules into complete disrepute. The fact that it has been audited is a bit of an embarrassment to Smith Cooper (their audit firm) who has signed this off.

As a side note, it is commonly stated that the football club do not own the stadium which is a little misleading. Yes, it's not held in the same legal entity as the footballing activity but it is held in a company that Bristol City Holdings Ltd own 100% of. It doesn't really change things in the grand scheme of things because if it was held in Bristol City Football Club Ltd, Lansdown could still asset strip the football club and sell off Ashton Gate. It's just slightly easier now it's in a separate entity as he could effectively sell shares in it but the Bristol City group still 100% own the stadium. 

[joenaldo]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/15/middlesbrough-chairman-steve-gibson-pushes-efl-investigate-rivals/

Interesting if true - would be good for us if so.

[downendcity]

8 minutes ago, joenaldo said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/15/middlesbrough-chairman-steve-gibson-pushes-efl-investigate-rivals/

Interesting if true - would be good for us if so.

Gibson is absolutely right.

Why should Boro be penalised, by having to sell players in order to stay within ffp limits thereby affecting their competitiveness on the pitch, while other clubs unfairly  juggle/manipulate/massage their figures, so as to avoid taking similar steps ?

There is a real danger that in trying to address and asses clubs' financial situations, the EFL will prove as naive and easily fooled as, well, a referee at Villa Park.

[bcfctim]

11 minutes ago, joenaldo said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/15/middlesbrough-chairman-steve-gibson-pushes-efl-investigate-rivals/

Interesting if true - would be good for us if so.

Thing is, it shouldn't be left to us and Middlesbrough to make a stand about this, because then it will just look like sour grapes. Really, all 21 other clubs ought to be hammering on the EFL's door - even those who aren't competing for playoff places are still getting screwed over.