Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

Mr Popodopolous

By Mr Popodopolous
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The last line stands out for sure...

"The EFL which has not been invited to Wednesday's meeting"

Am I reading something into nothing?

Good for him- I hope all the clubs who have played by the rules or done their utmost will join him in this!

Greater transparency is usually welcome,. so if it is pushed for that's generally a good thing.

Let's hope this leads to something- this season for any clubs in breach....

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CyderInACan

CyderInACan

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The last line stands out for sure...

"The EFL which has not been invited to Wednesday's meeting"

Am I reading something into nothing?

Good for him- I hope all the clubs who have played by the rules or done their utmost will join him in this!

Greater transparency is usually welcome,. so if it is pushed for that's generally a good thing.

Let's hope this leads to something- this season for any clubs in breach....

Sod's law that Villa and Derby will face belated sanctions - once one of them has gone up through the playoffs! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drew Peacock

Drew Peacock

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Sod's law that Villa and Derby will face belated sanctions - once one of them has gone up through the playoffs! 

Sadly I think that is the best we could hope for.  Without EFL involvement nothing will happen and by the time the EFL convene to discuss the outcome of this meeting, yet alone take any action, the season will be long over.  It could affect one of Derby or Villa next season if one of them goes up, plus Sheff W but I am not holding my breath.  

I suppose Lansdown and Gibson could launch a legal challenge against the final Championship table, but again, nothing would happen in time to affect this season and it is all a bit Bristol Rovers.

I'm afraid CyderInACan is right, best we can hope for is for some points deductions for a few teams next season, but with the spineless EFL in charge it may take an irate Gibson plus Lansdown and a few others (Birmingham maybe, looking for equal treatment?) to take some legal action to change it.

Where do Mark Ashton and any other Championship representatives sit in all this?

Fascinating day, but I expect no answers to anything. Love to listen in to the discussions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cidered abroad

cidered abroad

Posted
Posted

I believe the following to be factual.

The Ashton Gate stadium was owned by Bristol City Football Club until just after the 1982 financial fiasco of which all City fans are aware.

I believe that the ownership was transferred around 1983/4 to ensure that if the Football Club ever got into similar financial problems, the stadium would not be lost as an asset.

I also suspect that the rental paid by City and Bristol Bears is simply to cover the admin such as tickets, and ground maintenance, as all such employees are now working for Bristol Sport rather than the clubs. The stadium share should halve these costs for each club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, CyderInACan said:

Sod's law that Villa and Derby will face belated sanctions - once one of them has gone up through the playoffs! 

Projected accounts can now stop this before it happens- that's the whole point.

The rules are sound IMO- but my shall we say doubt stems from the fact that the EFL as others have said perhaps possess the spine of a jellyfish- I would also add that this is combined with the fact that they are incompetent, lacking in speed and dexterity with regards to this.

Which is very unfortunate, because what you need in these scenarios? Well it's exactly that- let us see if they surprise us!

Incidentally, I'm not still 100% convinced that Derby are in breach- very close yes, but not in breach is my guess, by a small margin. Took a look at their accounts the other day and if not for this deal, the profit on it their losses before allowable deductions would have totalled around £25m last season- like I say factor in all allowable losses, likely sales this year bringing the operating loss down, low 2016/17 losses and they're walking the tightrope...but just about compliant IMO.

Oh one more Derby note. About a week ago, it was posted that they couldn't complete signing for Graeme Shinnie owing to a soft embargo. Assumptions among Derby fans on Social media and their forum seemed along the lines of it'll be resolved by the end of last week..no news on that yet. Watch this space?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, cidered abroad said:

I believe the following to be factual.

The Ashton Gate stadium was owned by Bristol City Football Club until just after the 1982 financial fiasco of which all City fans are aware.

I believe that the ownership was transferred around 1983/4 to ensure that if the Football Club ever got into similar financial problems, the stadium would not be lost as an asset.

I also suspect that the rental paid by City and Bristol Bears is simply to cover the admin such as tickets, and ground maintenance, as all such employees are now working for Bristol Sport rather than the clubs. The stadium share should halve these costs for each club.

I don’t believe it is as simple as that. AGLtd has a big loan to service and a depreciation charge too. It won’t be a token rent payment. 

Ticketing is under Bristol Sport (not AGLtd) so again charged back to City at arms-length. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coppello

Coppello

Posted
Posted

This morning I had a meeting with an independent surveyor who were conducting a stadium valuation. The consultants who I spoke to had worked on the valuations of a number of Premier League and Championship grounds, none of which were Pride Park. I discussed the valuation of £80m with them and they could not fathom how they reached that figure.

The ground valuations are commonly made through the depreciated replacement cost method i.e. what would it cost to build a replica stadium and then depreciate over the number of years the stadium has been in existence to account for wear and tear. The stadium is built on an industrial estate away from the City centre and therefore the land value is pretty low. A stadium such as Craven Cottage would have a decent valuation given the location and property prices in the area. 

They estimated that the valuation should be lower than this and I believe that the independent valuers report should be scrutinised. The Football League should engaged their own surveyors to conduct a valuation. This would then help to determine whether the transaction occurred at an 'arm's length'. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Projected accounts can now stop this before it happens- that's the whole point.

The rules are sound IMO- but my shall we say doubt stems from the fact that the EFL as others have said perhaps possess the spine of a jellyfish- I would also add that this is combined with the fact that they are incompetent, lacking in speed and dexterity with regards to this.

Which is very unfortunate, because what you need in these scenarios? Well it's exactly that- let us see if they surprise us!

Incidentally, I'm not still 100% convinced that Derby are in breach- very close yes, but not in breach is my guess, by a small margin. Took a look at their accounts the other day and if not for this deal, the profit on it their losses before allowable deductions would have totalled around £25m last season- like I say factor in all allowable losses, likely sales this year bringing the operating loss down, low 2016/17 losses and they're walking the tightrope...but just about compliant IMO.

Oh one more Derby note. About a week ago, it was posted that they couldn't complete signing for Graeme Shinnie owing to a soft embargo. Assumptions among Derby fans on Social media and their forum seemed along the lines of it'll be resolved by the end of last week..no news on that yet. Watch this space?

I've said before that this feels like a watershed moment, as far as ffp is concerned.

Previously the system was flawed, as demonstrated by Bournemouth and QPR floating ffp rules but by securing promotion they passed beyond the reaches of the EFL when it came to them receiving any punishment. Even when QPR were relegated the financial punishment appeared to be watered down considerably because ( IIRC) QPR argued that the fine could jeopordise the club's future ( ironic given the purpose of ffp financial rules).

As you say Mr P,  my understanding was that the use of projected accounts in the third year was meant to avoid this and enable an offending club to receive their punishment in that same season. At the same time the introduction of points deduction was meant to introduce a level of penalty that could prevent the ludicrous situation whereby a club could flout financial rules and as a result gain promotion but their only punishment would be a financial fine, that would be chicken feed compared to the financial rewards of premier league football.

After the "fanfare" of Birmingham's points deduction it all seems to have gone very quite as far as the situation of any other club, despite the various rumours that have been floating round for weeks now. For transparency, and to build confidence in the system and process, I would have thought it essential that the EFP publish the accounts, including projections, of every club and the total profit/loss for ffp purposes and that this should be done well before the end of the season.

The meeting that Steve Gibson has called seems to be as a direct result of suspicions that certain clubs are being treated leniently but I haven't seen anything official having been published one ay or the other regarding any club's results, bar Birmingham. If clubs like Villa and Derby are in the clear then god luck to them but without evidence to show this there is bound to be a huge amount of suspicion and mistrust.

You suggest the EFL is being spineless, and I agree that they do seems to lacking speed in bringing the process to a quick conclusion. I also worry that the bigger clubs , i.e. those likely to be closest to breaching, will be the ones with the best financial and accounting brains acting on their behalf and against this the EFL will be seen to be naive and that it will be all too easy for the wool to be pulled over their eyes. 

I do hope that Gibson pulls together a weight of support from the other clubs that have been doing everything to toe the line with ffp, as the threat of substantial legal action from a group of this nature could really put the EFL under pressure. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Cue the break up of the EFL, the formation of a breakaway league, who misguidedly think they are Prem 2...only to realise the Prem are quite happy sharing between 20 clubs and don’t want to further spread their wealth!!!!

It isn't a great leap of imagination to think that a Prem 2 division is a possibility - but not necessarily made up of just calling the Championship Prem 2 and carrying on as normal.

The Premier League won't want any old rag bag outfit spoiling the party and I can see fast tracking by invitation of bigger city clubs into Prem 2 regardless of their position in the EFL. And conditions  such as clubs must have a fit for purpose stadium or plans for a minimum 30k seats, from a city that can sustain 30k+ crowds, etc etc. with no relegation from Prem2 unless there happens to be a club that fits the profile to come up. 

Lovely jubbly...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olé

Olé

Posted
Posted

Nothing to add to this excellent thread other than to thank the contributors, it makes fascinating reading.

 

I know cheating is cheating but I think I would be a little less irritated if it was a club that had never been in the Premiership, doing the fiddling. A bit Bournemouth style.

What winds me up is that it's clubs who have had their time in the sun, earned all the rewards, banked a tonne of parachute money, and are still looking for advantages.

I know it's probably just survival instinct now to them in financial terms, but to me it's the ugliest form of greed when you have it all, and yet still want more than your lot.

Most of my life has been League One level. Each time we went down we earned the right, over years, to go back up. We didn't hunt for loopholes. These clubs are ****s.

 

And on @Davefevs point about Premier League 2, that was my first thought too when I read they're meeting without the EFL. That does raise questions about the plan.

If you look for answers without the EFL then presumably the answer might not in the end involve the EFL. I guess there's any number of different consensuses possible.

Yes Gibson will have "small" clubs like us on his side, but he could equally be courted by his larger "accused" into focusing on PL2 with them all at the front of the queue.

So while we're aligned with Boro's point of view, let's not forget Gibson and his rivals were all part of the same cash-cow, I wouldn't assume he's simply on our side now.

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olé

Olé

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Olé actually I wasn’t suggesting Gibson would look to form a breakaway, was thinking more Villa, Leeds, etc would...you know the “entitled teams”, who still think they are Prem teams.

Agreed, I got the point you were making, all I was adding is that when it comes to talk of PL2 I wouldn't get complacent into thinking Gibson is "one of us" - he may well be angry with Villa, Derby etc at the moment and have our support, but he has been there before with these clubs in more profitable times, I'm sure it won't take too much for them to put an arm round him in a non-EFL discussion and say why not channel your energy into working with us for a breakaway league, we both know what that involves - why throw your lot in with smaller clubs like Bristol City and Brentford's, WE can make much more money if we stick together, and we will keep Boro central to our cartel to keep you sweet.

Or put more simply, when there is talk of breakaways, club stature and influence will talk in the success of a breakaway group, so the biggest clubs command disproportionate power in forming PL2, and therefore it won't take a lot for the big clubs in the division, however much they've broken the rules, to convince Gibson to fall in line and be part of their gang - stick with the bullies, not the bullied. And as always the clubs that ultimately lose out are the ones with the smallest voices who don't have that pulling power or influence. If I'm a big club meeting without the EFL and was in breach of FFP and didn't want the division turning against me, that's how I'd pick off the key dissenters....

Edited by Olé
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

Seems like Gibson was voted down. Surprised, i thought most championship clubs would go for it. 

Seems like you are correct.

Gibson was trying to get agreement for clubs to inspect other clubs accounts which doesn't sound like a good proposition to me. He's approached it from the wrong angle imo and gone a step further than transparency.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Seems like you are correct.

Gibson was trying to get agreement for clubs to inspect other clubs accounts which doesn't sound like a good proposition to me. He's approached it from the wrong angle imo and gone a step further than transparency.

 

Im certainly no accountant, so stand to be corrected by those that are, or at least have more detailed knowledge of football's finances.

I suspect that all clubs are limited companies, so their accounts are available for public inspection, once released. I appreciate that some club's structures are a bit more complex, with various holding companies and the like and can also appreciate that the third year's accounts are projections, but to be honest I can't see where the problem is if their accounts are in the public domain.

I think Im right in thinking that clubs had a deadline ( end of March?) to provide the EFL with their accounts to enable the ffp assessment to be completed. If so, and if ffp is to be transparent, then why is there a problem with all clubs being provided with details of the accounts and the EFL assessment ( as I presume this will detail allowable expenses etc) which will confirm whether club is in breach or not? 

Since Birmingham's very public punishment it has all gone worryingly quiet and the cynics among us suspect this could be because issues are being swept under the carpet in order to avoid big clubs and big clubs running for promotion, being bought to book, with the danger that this could create problems the EFL does not want to have to deal with. I suspect there are a number of other clubs and owners equally cynical and suspecting that there might be one rule for some clubs and another rule for the rest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted

All we can really hope for now is that neither Villa or Derby get promoted via the play-offs.  None of the top 4 are in danger of breaching FFP, nor are we, so I hope the final promotion place comes from within the 5 (top 4 and us).

We will then get to see how the extent of Villa and Derby’s projected accounts manifest into actual accounts over the summer (even if we don’t see them published ourselves til much later).

Imagine for a second the hypothetical situation that Villa would bust the limits, but included the projected selling of Grealish for £25m before the end of their accounting year (again lets keep this hypothetical) to show intention to the EFL to not take the piss out of FFP.

You then get several scenarios and considerations of Villa not going up:

  1. they do in fact sell Grealish for £25m and they fall into line within the 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season.  Sounds fine, but EFL need to decide whether in the spirit of FFP.  [What is to stop any team spending £200m to buy promotion, but sell those players if they don’t go up?]  However, the EFL should also be on guard that the next 3 year rolling period includes huge losses from the first two seasons, that requires more cost cutting than selling one player.  They would need to go on regular monitoring and embargo of some sort.
  2. they sell Grealish, but buying clubs know Villa are desperate and only stump up £15m.  Villa now in breach for 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season.  Straight embargo and points deduction to start 19/20 season based on scale set in Brum points deduction.  Same as 1. Re next 3 year rolling period.  
  3. they don’t sell Grealish.  I dread to think, maximum punishment possible???

In the above scenarios, Grealish has been used as their security.  What if they won promotion through the play-offs?

  1. they still have to sell Grealish for £25m.  Toughski Shitski!  They now fall into a Prem guidelines....still seems outside the spirit of FFP imho
  2. Promotion denied
  3. promotion denied

I just can’t see 2 & 3 above happening.

None of the first 4 of the 6 scenarios really satisfy the spirit of FFP.  They’ve taken a gamble of over-spending, knowing that punishment can’t really take place within the season they’ve taken the gamble in.

Anyone any bright ideas.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rudolf Hucker

Rudolf Hucker

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

All we can really hope for now is that neither Villa or Derby get promoted via the play-offs.  None of the top 4 are in danger of breaching FFP, nor are we, so I hope the final promotion place comes from within the 5 (top 4 and us).

We will then get to see how the extent of Villa and Derby’s projected accounts manifest into actual accounts over the summer (even if we don’t see them published ourselves til much later).

Imagine for a second the hypothetical situation that Villa would bust the limits, but included the projected selling of Grealish for £25m before the end of their accounting year (again lets keep this hypothetical) to show intention to the EFL to not take the piss out of FFP.

You then get several scenarios and considerations of Villa not going up:

  1. they do in fact sell Grealish for £25m and they fall into line within the 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season.  Sounds fine, but EFL need to decide whether in the spirit of FFP.  [What is to stop any team spending £200m to buy promotion, but sell those players if they don’t go up?]  However, the EFL should also be on guard that the next 3 year rolling period includes huge losses from the first two seasons, that requires more cost cutting than selling one player.  They would need to go on regular monitoring and embargo of some sort.
  2. they sell Grealish, but buying clubs know Villa are desperate and only stump up £15m.  Villa now in breach for 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season.  Straight embargo and points deduction to start 19/20 season based on scale set in Brum points deduction.  Same as 1. Re next 3 year rolling period.  
  3. they don’t sell Grealish.  I dread to think, maximum punishment possible???

In the above scenarios, Grealish has been used as their security.  What if they won promotion through the play-offs?

  1. they still have to sell Grealish for £25m.  Toughski Shitski!  They now fall into a Prem guidelines....still seems outside the spirit of FFP imho
  2. Promotion denied
  3. promotion denied

I just can’t see 2 & 3 above happening.

None of the first 4 of the 6 scenarios really satisfy the spirit of FFP.  They’ve taken a gamble of over-spending, knowing that punishment can’t really take place within the season they’ve taken the gamble in.

Anyone any bright ideas.

God forbid, but what if Grealish were to pick up a serious, perhaps even career limiting injury in his next match? Villa would be unable to capitalise on his sale; they’d be unable to claim on insurance for several years; how then would they ever square their ffp quandary?

Nobody wants to think the unthinkable and I certainly wouldn’t want Grealish to suffer any harm but he’s only human and thus prone to all of our frailties. Villa would be extremely unwise to mortgage their future on any one individual because shit really does happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

God forbid, but what if Grealish were to pick up a serious, perhaps even career limiting injury in his next match? Villa would be unable to capitalise on his sale; they’d be unable to claim on insurance for several years; how then would they ever square their ffp quandary?

Nobody wants to think the unthinkable and I certainly wouldn’t want Grealish to suffer any harm but he’s only human and thus prone to all of our frailties. Villa would be extremely unwise to mortgage their future on any one individual because shit really does happen. 

Agree RH.  

Which is why I wonder what purpose the projected accounts serve. They were brought in (I believe) to apply penalties in the current season. But my hypothetical scenarios prove how difficult they are to implement in that period. 

And if Villa get promoted, I don’t see the Prem applying the sanction on the EFL’s behalf. 

Surely if Villa only scraped in for the 3 years up to 17/18, when allowed £61m losses, their projected accounts for the period to 18/19 when only allowed £39m must have smashed it. 

I believe Birmingham’s 3 years upto 18/19 would be the same. 

That is why my hope is that Villa, Derby don’t go up and they have an embargo and points deduction for start of next season. 

The question would then be why were they allowed to deny say us or Boro a playoff place (should that happen)!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
phantom

phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

I think the days of us spending big money are over, which i am happy about, but all messages coming out of the club suggest they are confident of not failing FFP rules. 

@Pabloavfc certainly a massive end of season for Villa, it almost feels like any progression over the next few years is really dependent on them getting promoted this summer

Would assume Jack G will be sold if you stay down, so the money from that may be some leeway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, phantom said:

@Pabloavfc certainly a massive end of season for Villa, it almost feels like any progression over the next few years is really dependent on them getting promoted this summer

Would assume Jack G will be sold if you stay down, so the money from that may be some leeway?

Wonder when their loan deals expire... last game of the season or after the play offs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...