The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[downendcity]

1 minute ago, bcfctim said:

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.

I get the impression, sadly, that clubs like Villa and Derby have successful and clever businessmen as owners who will employ clever and successful accountants and financial advisers who will have looked for every which way of getting round the obstacles presented by ffp, should their clubs risk a breach.

The EFL, by comparison, are relying on "Business Accounting for Dummies" to catch them.

[Davefevs]

27 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.

If true, this is the start of the end, one way or another....either proper professional control implemented by EFL, or a Wild West “do what you want”.  I honestly think Gibson is well respected, and will have allies other than Lansdown.

I’ve no idea about the true value of Derby’s ground, but it appears they have taken the piss, the EFL have passed it, and Gibson is about to remind them of their rules.  Wednesday extending their annual reporting period - no smoke without fire.  You can imzgine support from Brentford and Preston too.

 

[steviestevieneville]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

If true, this is the start of the end, one way or another....either proper professional control implemented by EFL, or a Wild West “do what you want”.  I honestly think Gibson is well respected, and will have allies other than Lansdown.

I’ve no idea about the true value of Derby’s ground, but it appears they have taken the piss, the EFL have passed it, and Gibson is about to remind them of their rules.  Wednesday extending their annual reporting period - no smoke without fire.  You can imzgine support from Brentford and Preston too.

 

The bottom line is. These rules to protect the clubs from financial meltdown . The likes of villa think they’re too big for (fans anyway ) it to bother them. The reason they’re in the championship in the first place is because of being poorly ran. There will be no sanctions this season though , whatever happens. 

[ScottishRed]

9 hours 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.

Could get interesting, particularly if a club, who may just miss out on the play-offs partly due to other clubs overspending, had someone on the EFL board...................

[Johnny Musicworks]

11 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

Could get interesting, particularly if a club, who may just miss out on the play-offs partly due to other clubs overspending, had someone on the EFL board...................

I suspect that anyone like that with a clear conflict of interest would have to remove themselves from the process as it would make any action taken open to appeal.

 Not that for one minute I would expect them to take any action that could deprive a BIG club of a play-off opportunity.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I still maintain that Derby just within it-- selling it for fair market rate, questionable conduct but allowed...the profit however? Should simply be stripped from their calculations.

It is or was an inflation of £39-40m but they probably are walking a tight line within £1m or £2m but that "profit" should be simply disallowed. Reckon once FFP deductions taken into account, their FFP losses for the 3 years to last June 30th were £37-38m once it is adjusted for true market rate. Very close therefore but not quite over the line. Aston Villa are so far over the line it's mad. Sheffield Wednesday are over, probably closer to Birmingham than Aston Villa in terms of how much they've exceeded by but a points deduction for the last 2 and maybe Derby should be in the offing all told.

Not surprised Gibson is pushing this publicly or forcefully- as the articles rightly said Middlesbrough made big cutbacks in the summer. Hope all clubs near top and bottom indeed in the whole division regardless, who stuck within rules are going to apply some serious pressure...plus those who were penalised before under the rules old or new.

[Rudolf Hucker]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I still maintain that Derby just within it-- selling it for fair market rate, questionable conduct but allowed...the profit however? Should simply be stripped from their calculations.

It is or was an inflation of £39-40m but they probably are walking a tight line within £1m or £2m but that "profit" should be simply disallowed. Reckon once FFP deductions taken into account, their FFP losses for the 3 years to last June 30th were £37-38m once it is adjusted for true market rate. Very close therefore but not quite over the line. Aston Villa are so far over the line it's mad. Sheffield Wednesday are over, probably closer to Birmingham than Aston Villa in terms of how much they've exceeded by but a deduction for the last 2 and maybe Derby should be in the offing all told.

Not surprised Gibson is pushing this publicly or forcefully- as the articles rightly said Middlesbrough made big cutbacks in the summer. Hope all clubs near top and bottom indeed in the whole division regardless, who stuck within rules are going to apply some serious pressure...plus those who were penalised before under the rules old or new.

It is however ironic to read, in that article, Tony Pulis discussing the adverse impact caused by the financial irregularities of others.

[RIP (rams in peace)]

13 hours ago, downendcity said:

I get the impression, sadly, that clubs like Villa and Derby have successful and clever businessmen as owners who will employ clever and successful accountants and financial advisers who will have looked for every which way of getting round the obstacles presented by ffp, should their clubs risk a breach.

The EFL, by comparison, are relying on "Business Accounting for Dummies" to catch them.

Do you own your ground or is owned by your ultimate owner who has borrowed £50m to do 'improvements'.  Does your club pay rent to the true owner to play games there?  I have read this online but you can't  believe much from that source

[TETBURY MASSIVE]

54 minutes ago, RIP (rams in peace) said:

Do you own your ground or is owned by your ultimate owner who has borrowed £50m to do 'improvements'.  Does your club pay rent to the true owner to play games there?  I have read this online but you can't  believe much from that source

[RIP (rams in peace)]

3 minutes ago, TETBURY MASSIVE said:

so not true?

[Coppello]

2 hours ago, RIP (rams in peace) said:

Do you own your ground or is owned by your ultimate owner who has borrowed £50m to do 'improvements'.  Does your club pay rent to the true owner to play games there?  I have read this online but you can't  believe much from that source

No, the stadium is owned by Bristol City Holdings Ltd which is the football club. 

[RIP (rams in peace)]

17 minutes ago, Coppello said:

No, the stadium is owned by Bristol City Holdings Ltd which is the football club. 

but Bristol City Football Club Ltd is the club subject to P&S and BCHL is the parent company? So does BCFC no longer exist and all the player contracts are with BCHL now?

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, Coppello said:

No, the stadium is owned by Bristol City Holdings Ltd which is the football club. 

@RIP (rams in peace)

that is not strictly true Coppello.  I’ve done a fair bit of looking into the accounts.  Ultimately all under Steve Lansdown / Pula in some shape or form though.

Bristol City Football Club Ltd and Ashton Gate Limited are two separate companies, brought together under Bristol City Holdings. BCH is purely a holding company, undertaking no trading itself.  AGL own the Ground, and City (and Bears) pay AGL rent to use it.  AGL have an operating profit, but ultimately made a loss last year because of depreciation of the asset and payment of interest on the loan for the ground to SL / Pula.

It’s complicated.

What SL / Pula / AGL have done is properly value the ground based on the “arms length’” agreement between companies with mutual ownership, e.g. must be done at market value and charge an appropriate rate of interest on the loan.

Therein lies the difference between Bristol City / SL and Derby / Mel Morris....who has (allegedly) over-valued Pride Park to create a false profit figure to then offset significant losses on the football side, both companies he is interested in....

....and Steve Gibson bloody knows it....and next Wednesday he will attempt to convince the other Championship owners of this.  I very much suspect he has gained support from SL.  I sense this is all about to come to a head....but no idea which side will end up winning.

[RIP (rams in peace)]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@RIP (rams in peace)

 

Therein lies the difference between Bristol City / SL and Derby / Mel Morris....who has (allegedly) over-valued Pride Park to create a false profit figure to then offset significant losses on the football side, both companies he is interested in....

....and Steve Gibson bloody knows it....and next Wednesday he will attempt to convince the other Championship owners of this.  I very much suspect he has gained support from SL.  I sense this is all about to come to a head....but no idea which side will end up winning.

should be interesting and god help us if there is any over valuation.  My understanding is that it has been professionally valued which is after all what we would all expect.  I think Gibbo will be doing something similar next year now the unfair parachute payments have dried up.  Good luck for the rest of the season and IMO you will bet us next week and get into the playoffs; hope not though!

[Rudolf Hucker]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

....but no idea which side will end up winning.

But either way Bailey Wright will receive a three match ban. 

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

But either way Bailey Wright will receive a three match ban. 

And Diedhiou will get a six game ban, and Villa awarded a penalty.

[Rudolf Hucker]

18 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

And Diedhiou will get a six game ban, and Villa awarded a penalty.

Because they were awarded two penalties in their previous game against Rotherham and only one against little Bristol City.

[downendcity]

4 hours ago, RIP (rams in peace) said:

Do you own your ground or is owned by your ultimate owner who has borrowed £50m to do 'improvements'.  Does your club pay rent to the true owner to play games there?  I have read this online but you can't  believe much from that source

I've been out all day, but I see that you have received replies from a number of our posters who are better qualified than I to detail how our club's finances are structured.

I would also add that our owner made his fortune in the financial services sector, so is experienced in working in a highly regulated world and it would be against all his instincts to operate the club financially in a way that breaks  the rules ( and I suspect, the spirit ) of ffp.

The way he has re-structured the club over the last few years is specifically to ensure that we operate within ffp requirements and with the aim of the club being self sustaining, i.e. it lives within it's financial means. Many of our own fans have expressed frustratiion that the owner/club has not pushed the boat out in successive January transfer windows in order to take advantage of our league position, and especially as they know his personal wealth, but most realise that the reason is that the owner will not compromise sound financial management.

With this background, do you think he would indulge in some sort of "iffy" transaction involving the ground to give us a bit of a financial advantage, even it went against the EFL's financial rules?

P.S. Improvements ( in our case a complete re-devlopment) the ground are allowable expenses for the purposes of ffp, so the owner could invest his his own money if he wished, with no adverse effect on our ffp position. Similarly with investment in the club's academy.

That is completely different from a convoluted sale and leaseback transaction, with the ground being "valued" , for the purposes of the club's accounts, at well over market value, and merely as a device to address concerns that the club will breach the upcoming ffp assesement.

Edited April 16, 2019 by downendcity

[JamesBCFC]

25 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I've been out all day, but I see that you have received replies from a number of our posters who are better qualified than I to detail how our club's finances are structured.

I would also add that our owner made his fortune in the financial services sector, so is experienced in working in a highly regulated world and it would be against all his instincts to operate the club financially in a way that breaks  the rules ( and I suspect, the spirit ) of ffp.

The way he has re-structured the club over the last few years is specifically to ensure that we operate within ffp requirements and with the aim of the club being self sustaining, i.e. it lives within it's financial means. Many of our own fans have expressed frustratiion that the owner/club has not pushed the boat out in successive January transfer windows in order to take advantage of our league position, and especially as they know his personal wealth, but most realise that the reason is that the owner will not compromise sound financial management.

With this background, do you think he would indulge in some sort of "iffy" transaction involving the ground to give us a bit of a financial advantage, even it went against the EFL's financial rules?

P.S. Improvements ( in our case a complete re-devlopment) the ground are allowable expenses for the purposes of ffp, so the owner could invest his his own money if he wished, with no adverse effect on our ffp position. Similarly with investment in the club's academy.

That is completely different from a convoluted sale and leaseback transaction, with the ground being "valued" , for the purposes of the club's accounts, at well over market value, and merely as a device to address concerns that the club will breach the upcoming ffp assesement.

Cracking post.

[JamesBCFC]

31 minutes ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

Because they were awarded two penalties in their previous game against Rotherham and only one against little Bristol City.

And still complained about the referee!

[Coppello]

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@RIP (rams in peace)

 that is not strictly true Coppello.  I’ve done a fair bit of looking into the accounts.  Ultimately all under Steve Lansdown / Pula in some shape or form though.

Bristol City Football Club Ltd and Ashton Gate Limited are two separate companies, brought together under Bristol City Holdings. BCH is purely a holding company, undertaking no trading itself.  AGL own the Ground, and City (and Bears) pay AGL rent to use it.  AGL have an operating profit, but ultimately made a loss last year because of depreciation of the asset and payment of interest on the loan for the ground to SL / Pula.

It’s complicated.

What SL / Pula / AGL have done is properly value the ground based on the “arms length’” agreement between companies with mutual ownership, e.g. must be done at market value and charge an appropriate rate of interest on the loan.

Therein lies the difference between Bristol City / SL and Derby / Mel Morris....who has (allegedly) over-valued Pride Park to create a false profit figure to then offset significant losses on the football side, both companies he is interested in....

....and Steve Gibson bloody knows it....and next Wednesday he will attempt to convince the other Championship owners of this.  I very much suspect he has gained support from SL.  I sense this is all about to come to a head....but no idea which side will end up winning.

In all honesty, I've not actually read into the accounts as much as I should have but this is my interpretation of the group which I am pretty confident about. From a football club, I imagine we report at a consolidated level to the Football League. I've knocked together what I perceive the football section of the group looks like (although I am aware of there being other companies sitting above BCHL):

As you can see the stadium sits below the holding company which is common practice for many football clubs. Regarding the rental income, as the Bristol City Holdings Ltd report as a consolidated set of accounts, ie the results of Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd and Bristol City Football Club Ltd. When preparing consolidated accounts, intra-group transactions are eliminated and therefore any rental transactions between Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd and Bristol City Football Club Ltd will net off. The group accounts are, in its simplest form, the results of the companies added together. If my quick scan of the accounts is correct, we will actually benefit from the rental income from the rugby club.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Took a quick read of Kieran Maguire's article on Derby...

http://priceoffootball.com/derby-county-2017-18-say-youll-be-there/

A very interesting structure at that club I must say!

Now the key question, key point is which results would you use for FFP calculations? If it is DCFC Limited then they would be probably within FFP for the past 3 seasons albeit not by much even without the 'profit' but if not...if it is Sevco 5112 then the equation may well change.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Took a quick read of Kieran Maguire's article on Derby...

http://priceoffootball.com/derby-county-2017-18-say-youll-be-there/

A very interesting structure at that club I must say!

Now the key question, key point is which results would you use for FFP calculations? If it is DCFC Limited then they would be probably within FFP for the past 3 seasons albeit not by much even without the 'profit' but if not...if it is Sevco 5112 then the equation may well change.

Looks like the proverbial coach & horses being driven through ffp if they are allowed to get away with that!

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

I've been out all day, but I see that you have received replies from a number of our posters who are better qualified than I to detail how our club's finances are structured.

I would also add that our owner made his fortune in the financial services sector, so is experienced in working in a highly regulated world and it would be against all his instincts to operate the club financially in a way that breaks  the rules ( and I suspect, the spirit ) of ffp.

The way he has re-structured the club over the last few years is specifically to ensure that we operate within ffp requirements and with the aim of the club being self sustaining, i.e. it lives within it's financial means. Many of our own fans have expressed frustratiion that the owner/club has not pushed the boat out in successive January transfer windows in order to take advantage of our league position, and especially as they know his personal wealth, but most realise that the reason is that the owner will not compromise sound financial management.

With this background, do you think he would indulge in some sort of "iffy" transaction involving the ground to give us a bit of a financial advantage, even it went against the EFL's financial rules?

P.S. Improvements ( in our case a complete re-devlopment) the ground are allowable expenses for the purposes of ffp, so the owner could invest his his own money if he wished, with no adverse effect on our ffp position. Similarly with investment in the club's academy.

That is completely different from a convoluted sale and leaseback transaction, with the ground being "valued" , for the purposes of the club's accounts, at well over market value, and merely as a device to address concerns that the club will breach the upcoming ffp assesement.

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

Cracking post.

 I agree.

1 hour ago, Coppello said:

In all honesty, I've not actually read into the accounts as much as I should have but this is my interpretation of the group which I am pretty confident about. From a football club, I imagine we report at a consolidated level to the Football League. I've knocked together what I perceive the football section of the group looks like (although I am aware of there being other companies sitting above BCHL):

As you can see the stadium sits below the holding company which is common practice for many football clubs. Regarding the rental income, as the Bristol City Holdings Ltd report as a consolidated set of accounts, ie the results of Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd and Bristol City Football Club Ltd. When preparing consolidated accounts, intra-group transactions are eliminated and therefore any rental transactions between Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd and Bristol City Football Club Ltd will net off. The group accounts are, in its simplest form, the results of the companies added together. If my quick scan of the accounts is correct, we will actually benefit from the rental income from the rugby club.

 

I suspect too that we submit accounts to the EFL based on BCH level accounts.  I was unsure initially, but the more I’ve read, the more I suspect it to be true.  However for pure FFP, I do wonder whether certain things have to be excluded, e.g. non-football related stuff.  It is complicated though.  I do know that BCFC Ltd, receive nothing from Take That, Rod, Spice Girls, Muse gigs.  The other thing is that overall BCH made a loss in 17/18, so as per DownendCity’s post, Lansdown is not trying to hide stuff...he is doing it all above board.  He fully understands regulation.

We will see next week whether Mel Morris is quite so transparent.  As above I suspect Steve Gibson suspects not.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Looks like the proverbial coach & horses being driven through ffp if they are allowed to get away with that!

And I forgot, Mel / Derby has his own approach to amortisation.

[Coppello]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 I agree.

I suspect too that we submit accounts to the EFL based on BCH level accounts.  I was unsure initially, but the more I’ve read, the more I suspect it to be true.  However for pure FFP, I do wonder whether certain things have to be excluded, e.g. non-football related stuff.  It is complicated though.  I do know that BCFC Ltd, receive nothing from Take That, Rod, Spice Girls, Muse gigs.  The other thing is that overall BCH made a loss in 17/18, so as per DownendCity’s post, Lansdown is not trying to hide stuff...he is doing it all above board.  He fully understands regulation.

We will see next week whether Mel Morris is quite so transparent.  As above I suspect Steve Gibson suspects not.

I'm certain we report under Bristol City Holdings Ltd in order to capture every element of the football club. We are allowed to report the non-match day income as part of our FFP as it shows that a club can generate income without relying on handouts from the EFL. I don't doubt for a second that we are reporting things honestly and being transparent. That what makes the Derby debacle so infuriating. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

Looks like the proverbial coach & horses being driven through ffp if they are allowed to get away with that!

Agreed!

[Mr Popodopolous]

I think having thought about it a fait bit.

The team of the 3 accused I have most issue with is Aston Villa. Sure pretty well all would agree- they've made bits of effort to get in line...then wiped it with loans such as El Ghazi, Tammy, at the more expensive end. Then January signings, oh yeah and Bolasie- though that was cancelled-EFL should throw the book! Did all this and ran up all these losses despite all that parachute money- nuts!

On rankings of the other 2, I was going to say Sheffield Wednesday then Derby least.

Because the latter for their faults sold Messrs Christie, Hendrick, Hughes, Ince, Vydra and Weimann over last 3 seasons. That would definitely have been looked on as a positive mitigating factor. 

Whereas Sheffield Wednesday made some efforts but not a lot PLUS reduced transparency further (EFL will have accounts to May 2018 or whenever no doubt) by moving end to 31st July 2018 for period just gone and it being posted on CH day before accounts due to be released.

They froze out Westwood and some others under Lukhay purportedly to try to move them on to reduce FFP burden but back in favour now! Perhaps Lukhay just didn't rate them who knows. They also loaned Aarons and Onomah in January I think, plus some others?

Now the equation has changed. Aston Villa still top but Derby's sale of all those important players- positive efforts- have mostly been morally cancelled out by claiming about £40-42m in 'profit' from the owner buying the ground off his own club basically.

Now between them and Sheffield Wednesday because of that one move I cannot split them. Both pretty bad to a similar level in their own ways- Aston Villa worst of course.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[ScottishRed]

According to the BBC , The Telegraph are reporting that FLDC cannot complete the pre- contract signing of Graham Shinnie - been mentioned as of interest to us in the Transfer Forum - as they are already under a ‘soft’ transfer embargo whilst the EFL investigates their accounts.

If true, could become interesting.

[1960maaan]

Todays Telegraph, tomorrow could be interesting.