The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[SinéadB]

39 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

That was in the days of "emergency" 93 day loans. Loans must now begin and end during a transfer window.

Matt Smith was an emergency loan so it was different.

However I believe that loans used to end on the last day of the season, but now I think they end at the end of the play offs so all season long loans would be eligible to play in the play offs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 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.

 

There is but one precedent- but it's an unusual one and probably an exception as opposed to a rule.

When AC Milan were facing a European ban this season, they went to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) last summer. UEFA had to overturn the ban- one of the things that it looked like AC Milan were successfully or looking like they may successfully lobby for was full disclosure, transparency of the accounts of PSG and Man City. Think the gist of their case was "Why are we being banned from UEFA Competitions, when those 2 sides have taken the limits and totally distorted them". CAS agreed- accounts didn't have to be disclosed but their ban was put off. They still got a punishment or a UEFA "Settlement Agreement".

Specifically, see the bolded bits- that would have set a very interesting legal precedent- and opened a major can of worms moving forward! I remember posting it on the forum last year on Milan FFP thread.  UEFA backed down on the European ban when ordered to produce the accounts of those 3, oddly enough...AC Milan may still have an investigation re-opened but on this I make them right. Punishment must be equally applied, equitable and clearly defined is the lesson here. More ideally all 4 would have received just punishment- but preferential treatment isn't a goer.

It’s reported that Milan have successfully lobbied to see the accounts for Paris Saint-Germain, Inter and Manchester City at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The Rossoneri are appealing a European ban, imposed by UEFA for Financial Fair Play violations.

Other big clubs have been treated in far more lenient fashion, so the club’s lawyers petitioned to see City, Inter and PSG’s accounts.

 They believe they set an important precedent, as if those balance sheets show similar losses and debts it would raise questions about why those clubs weren’t excluded.

According to La Repubblica, CAS has accepted the request and ordered UEFA to produce the documents.

However, the FFP Club Financial Control Body did not in its motivations that Milan’s losses were only part of the reason for barring them from the Europa League.

There were also severe doubts over owner Yonghong Li, who has since been ousted by U.S hedge fund Elliott Management.

 While that should partly assuage UEFA, the fund will look to sell the club when it can, which still creates ownership uncertainty.

 See the latest Serie A predictions and betting tips with Eurotips.co.uk

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 hours ago, Coppello said:

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'. 

  

Very interesting stuff that.

A loose interpretation, without having looked into it 100% is that the value of the ground is just that...the profit of £39-40m whatever it was? That's the illegitimate bit.

Agree fully, EFL should have engaged own surveyors- could it be too late to do that now and refuse to count income from it towards FFP calculations if they come to the conclusion that we all suspect?

FWIW, the profit- or more likely the "profit" listed in the accounts on the sale was £39,940,387. Sale £81.1m. Therefore the value pre profit was £41,596,113. More realistic/viable?

2 hours ago, Pabloavfc said:

This was from our CEO last month. 

 “The directors are actively seeking to implement actions to avoid future breaches of financial fair play.

“The directors believe they will remain compliant with the EFL profit and sustainability rules for the 2018-19 season.”

He continued: “The board recognises there are a range of opportunities available and depending on the impact of external factors which are always uncertain, including the market conditions prevailing in the 2019 summer transfer window, the board will determine the measures adopted in relation to ensuring this compliance.”

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. 

If it's the same article, they also said it would pose a significant challenge. My loose calculations are that the 3 years to 2018/19 you have a shortfall of £25-30m. Even if you backdated sale of Grealish, you would still have the problem of the 17/18 losses and the inability to use Grealish for profit on sales to offset for next season if you stayed down.

Quote

Writing on behalf of the board, chief executive Christian Purslow admitted FFPregulations would provide a 'significant challenge' while Villa ...

 

I think that plus what you put, isn't an unrealistic assessment of where you're at?

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

14 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.

If Villa ( or any team) is given wriggle room by using the "we will sell Grealish in the summer" to sidestep an ffp breach,  then what is to stop a team buying the best players in the division, paying massive wages and busting ffp by £30m and securing promotion, but then telling the EFL that they will  will sell 4/5/6 players for £40m in the summer window?

It makes a complete mercury of the whole excercise. Also, if they are not going to address ffp and issue punishment for breaches within the 3rd season of the 3 year cycle, what was the point of requiring projected accounts in the third year? 

I wonder whether the EFL thought that with the new rules clubs would not risk breaching ffp limits and incurring the penalties now available and had not considered how they would deal with clubs breaching, and especially bigger clubs in and around the promotion stakes. It looks to me that we are on the verge of a massive fudge in order to not rock the boat.

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If Villa ( or any team) is given wriggle room by using the "we will sell Grealish in the summer" to sidestep an ffp breach,  then what is to stop a team buying the best players in the division, paying massive wages and busting ffp by £30m and securing promotion, but then telling the EFL that they will  will sell 4/5/6 players for £40m in the summer window?

It makes a complete mercury of the whole excercise. Also, if they are not going to address ffp and issue punishment for breaches within the 3rd season of the 3 year cycle, what was the point of requiring projected accounts in the third year? 

I wonder whether the EFL thought that with the new rules clubs would not risk breaching ffp limits and incurring the penalties now available and had not considered how they would deal with clubs breaching, and especially bigger clubs in and around the promotion stakes. It looks to me that we are on the verge of a massive fudge in order to not rock the boat.

I believe we are in agreement. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

30 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

Yeah, i think we will see significant changes to our approach to squad building if we fail to go up, however our owners seem to believe we will face no sanctions or punishments. 

For me i'm all for it. When I think of the money we have wasted its mind blowing figures. We need to be signing more players like mcginn and hourihanne and using our youth players. I also think we remain an attractive option for loaning good players from the prem. It needs to be done, we have been run terribly for so long and Tony Xia nearly destroyed us. 

It could do you some good tbh.

Hourihane underutilised IMO..or has been overall. Just looking in from outside of course.

I think your new owners are astute, absolutely but that if rules enforced, correctly, then along with a number of sides then 'significant challenges' would be likely moving forward.

On that rules point too, if the projected accounts thing had been enforced correctly by EFL...then I can't see how you could despite departures sign:

Bolasie, El Ghazi, Tammy on loan in summer.

Then despite half-season Bolasie loan cancellation, and some loan departures- Hogan- add Kalininc, Guilbert permanently. Then loans for Hause and Mings.

All while keeping Grealish, Kodjia amongst others.

McGinn? Impressive value. Affordable too- more like the model if you stay down you should be looking at.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[ScottishRed]

3 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Only ask, but didn't we have to send Matt Smith back before the LDV final?

Indeed we did but I think that was under the previous loan regime when you could loan players for periods shorter than a season

[Coppello]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very interesting stuff that.

A loose interpretation, without having looked into it 100% is that the value of the ground is just that...the profit of £39-40m whatever it was? That's the illegitimate bit.

Agree fully, EFL should have engaged own surveyors- could it be too late to do that now and refuse to count income from it towards FFP calculations if they come to the conclusion that we all suspect?

FWIW, the profit- or more likely the "profit" listed in the accounts on the sale was £39,940,387. Sale £81.1m. Therefore the value pre profit was £41,596,113. More realistic/viable?

I think we're agreeing with the same point haha. I understand Derby (or more likely the owner) used a surveyor to value the stadium and obtain a report. This would prove to the auditors that the transaction was conducted at the market price. However, the value of the stadium on the accounts would've been kept at the historical cost i.e. the cost of construction (and capital expenditure since then) less depreciation charged over the last twenty years or so.

In their defence, using an historical cost to calculate the profit is not something that I have a problem with as it's completely legitimate from an accounting perspective. The issue I have is that the surveyors valuation of £81.1m and the consideration that this what the stadium is valued at. As others have discussed on here previously, this should be adjusted to a market value or an arms-length transaction. I'd be surprised if another surveyor valued the stadium at 50% of the £81.1m used as the sales price. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Pabloavfc said:

Yeah i'm not 100% sure how we worked the finances to do it. We did lose some big money off the bill in the summer with Terry and Gabby freeing up roughly £150,000 a week. 

Parachute Payments fell by £18m, profit on transfers fell though Amortisation may have dropped too...if you've pulled in sponsorships through legit means, pulling power etc- then fair enough. All good.

If it's legit, can't complain- I think there are quite a few questions over it though, personally.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Coppello said:

I think we're agreeing with the same point haha. I understand Derby (or more likely the owner) used a surveyor to value the stadium and obtain a report. This would prove to the auditors that the transaction was conducted at the market price. However, the value of the stadium on the accounts would've been kept at the historical cost i.e. the cost of construction (and capital expenditure since then) less depreciation charged over the last twenty years or so.

In their defence, using an historical cost to calculate the profit is not something that I have a problem with as it's completely legitimate from an accounting perspective. The issue I have is that the surveyors valuation of £81.1m and the consideration that this what the stadium is valued at. As others have discussed on here previously, this should be adjusted to a market value or an arms-length transaction. I'd be surprised if another surveyor valued the stadium at 50% of the £81.1m used as the sales price. 

Let's be honest.

If it looks like bs and smells like bs, it almost certainly is bs.

In fact, that could describe the way the EFL seems to be handling ffp at the moment!

[martnewts]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

If Villa ( or any team) is given wriggle room by using the "we will sell Grealish in the summer" to sidestep an ffp breach,  then what is to stop a team buying the best players in the division, paying massive wages and busting ffp by £30m and securing promotion, but then telling the EFL that they will  will sell 4/5/6 players for £40m in the summer window?

It makes a complete mercury of the whole excercise. Also, if they are not going to address ffp and issue punishment for breaches within the 3rd season of the 3 year cycle, what was the point of requiring projected accounts in the third year? 

I wonder whether the EFL thought that with the new rules clubs would not risk breaching ffp limits and incurring the penalties now available and had not considered how they would deal with clubs breaching, and especially bigger clubs in and around the promotion stakes. It looks to me that we are on the verge of a massive fudge in order to not rock the boat.

I dont think that accounting rules would permit the sale of a player being back dated into a previous accounting period unless the contract for the sale was dated before the end of the accounting period and that date was during a valid transfer window. If projected accounts to 31 May 19 are included projected player sales revenue then surely that would fail on both counts . 

 

[downendcity]

30 minutes ago, martnewts said:

I dont think that accounting rules would permit the sale of a player being back dated into a previous accounting period unless the contract for the sale was dated before the end of the accounting period and that date was during a valid transfer window. If projected accounts to 31 May 19 are included projected player sales revenue then surely that would fail on both counts . 

 

I agree Martnewts, but with some of the posts alluding to this, it does make you wonder at the skullduggery that might be used, and allowed by the EFL, for club's to sidestep punishment under ffp.

I hoped and thought that Birmingham's points deduction demonstrated that with the new ffp rules and penalties the EFL was tackling the issue head on. As time goes by I am increasingly feeling that they are all talk and little, or no action and that big clubs are too clever for the EFL.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

40 minutes ago, martnewts said:

I dont think that accounting rules would permit the sale of a player being back dated into a previous accounting period unless the contract for the sale was dated before the end of the accounting period and that date was during a valid transfer window. If projected accounts to 31 May 19 are included projected player sales revenue then surely that would fail on both counts . 

 

Well quite- the accounts for the season, for this season end for Aston Villa end May 31st 2019.

The transfer window opens on June 9th 2019...can't be done surely.

The only unlikely workaround is if Aston Villa extend their accounting period by a month or 2- assuming it hasn't changed in the last 5 years- then that would muddy the waters. Sheffield Wednesday announced or announced publicly at least that their accounts for last season/last financial year ran until July 31st 2018 rather than May 31st 2019. Extended accounting period? That could further confuse matters.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[WarksRobin]

On 24/04/2019 at 14:27, Coppello said:

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'. 

 

Built on remediated  landfill as I understand it so the land is of limited use and value. 

[Grey Fox]

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

[downendcity]

34 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

Ah, 

well,

no,

but,

yes,

because 

the taxman has rules and severe punishments available to come down hard on anyone who tries to do anything dodgy to fiddle their figures and wriggle their way out of their liability.

Football has rules and severe punishments available, but there the similarity seems to end!

Edited April 25, 2019 by downendcity

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

Indeed we did but I think that was under the previous loan regime when you could loan players for periods shorter than a season

Yes, you had the usual half and full season loans, but also the emergency loan system (up to 93 days).  Matt Smith was an emergency loan.

[BLRed]

Quick thought on Derby, yes they escaped ffp issues by selling their stadium to a company owned by their owner. given their stadium is now not owned by the club itself, they rent it, does that mean that they can't count match day revenue towards income meaning they will eventually succumb to ffp anyway?

surely their match day revenue goes to the company that owns the stadium? Am I being stupid?

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Quick thought on Derby, yes they escaped ffp issues by selling their stadium to a company owned by their owner. given their stadium is now not owned by the club itself, they rent it, does that mean that they can't count match day revenue towards income meaning they will eventually succumb to ffp anyway?

surely their match day revenue goes to the company that owns the stadium? Am I being stupid?

You’re not being stupid....but however Derby structure their various businesses they will cover off / include match day income.

No real difference to City, where Ashton Gate Ltd own the ground.

[Coppello]

3 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

You've asked a short but bloody difficult question @Grey Fox. The answer is most probably but there's a difference between taxable profit and accounting profit. The taxable profit doesn't get published and is hard to work out. But it is very likely they'd pay quite a lot of tax on the sale of the stadium. 

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, BOSRed said:

Quick thought on Derby, yes they escaped ffp issues by selling their stadium to a company owned by their owner. given their stadium is now not owned by the club itself, they rent it, does that mean that they can't count match day revenue towards income meaning they will eventually succumb to ffp anyway?

surely their match day revenue goes to the company that owns the stadium? Am I being stupid?

No - when it comes to ffp, and having the wool pulled over your eyes by clubs, that honour goes to the EFL.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

Hopefully- you'd think so!

FWIW, Tax doesn't count towards FFP figures- so far as I understand it, it's measured on pre-tax profits or losses- obviously tax not paid on losses. (May well be in Italy though at clubs, weirdly).

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 24/04/2019 at 19:20, Pabloavfc said:

Yeah. I can see his point but now reading what he actually wanted, I can see why he didn't have a majority behind him

There is a scenario in which it could happen, but not like this. Agreed- not desirable by a majority of clubs.

What clubs have to hide in terms of youth development expenditure and other exempted areas though...well it does beg the question a bit?

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 24/04/2019 at 22:30, 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.

Promotion denied would be the only fair solution of course.

The interesting thing about the Grealish sale of course is that just say they sell and backdate, stay down- that helps to alleviate the rolling period to this season, but then leaves them with an enormous hole...losing well I dread to think how much! Parachute payments gone albeit wages down- having to find a whole new set of profits on players just to stay compliant...straight- hard not soft- embargo and big deduction would surely be about right?

This Swiss Ramble Graphic shows just how tight a spot!

It would mean they could lose only £4m next season in this scenario plus FFP allowable exclusions. Let's assume they backdate a Grealish sale of £25m. Means they lose £35m in 2 years and then the next year in FFP terms can only lose, £4m...meanwhile Parachute Payments fall by £17m. Factor out the Grealish sale too. Means they need to find £52m from somewhere just to comply for the 3 seasons to May 2020.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

£15m FFP Exclusions seems high too.

Thanks for posting.  What it does show is that they are £25m over the FFP threshold for the 3 year rolling period ending this season.  A breach of somewhere near this magnitude much be in the projected accounts submitted in March.

Its obscene...unless of course they’ve been allowed to factor some huge “income” stream in before the end of their financial year.

[JamesBCFC]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

£15m FFP Exclusions seems high too.

Thanks for posting.  What it does show is that they are £25m over the FFP threshold for the 3 year rolling period ending this season.  A breach of somewhere near this magnitude much be in the projected accounts submitted in March.

Its obscene...unless of course they’ve been allowed to factor some huge “income” stream in before the end of their financial year.

Aren't they getting a chunk of money selling land for HS2?

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Aren't they getting a chunk of money selling land for HS2?

Couple of million isn’t it????

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

£15m FFP Exclusions seems high too.

Thanks for posting.  What it does show is that they are £25m over the FFP threshold for the 3 year rolling period ending this season.  A breach of somewhere near this magnitude much be in the projected accounts submitted in March.

Its obscene...unless of course they’ve been allowed to factor some huge “income” stream in before the end of their financial year.

Agree- it's beyond a joke. Obscene sums it up to a tee!

The only workarounds I can think of are- ones that maybe classed as legit that is:

Grealish sale pre-arranged, regardless of promotion- maybe that could be shifted into accounts for this year for £25m or so. Say arranged in Feb, taking effect as soon as window opens. Still pretty dubious though- if they'd wanted that they could legitimately have sold him for £25m in Jan and offered to let him continue to kick on for half a season of continued development on a loan back. Dicy but legit. Certainly not unheard of.

OR

If somehow they get a large sum as the final tranche of HS2 Compensation- HS2 compensation seems like it's gone nowhere fast but you never know- if they got say £25m this season that'd get them just over the line. The £3m I assume was HS2 but it still seems a bit up in the air.

Beyond that? 21 point deduction and embargo seems in order I'd say, based on the formula. Or 12 points at the bare minimum, would have to look up the formula in full again.

£15m could be possible, if Aston Villa really want to go for it on youth development as part of a new strategy then it's possible to believe it was legit- still a bit of a stretch though IMO.

Then again, there is an argument that says HS2 compensation shouldn't count towards FFP. Because if training ground expenditure etc doesn't, why should income from the admittedly unfortunate Bodymoor Heath HS2 thing count as FFP income? Club income yes...but not FFP.

Plus wow look at this...

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role

Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[JamesBCFC]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Couple of million isn’t it????

Not sure how much, £2-3m seems vaguely familiar though.

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree- it's beyond a joke. Obscene sums it up to a tee!

The only workarounds I can think of are- ones that maybe classed as legit that is:

Grealish sale pre-arranged, regardless of promotion- maybe that could be shifted into accounts for this year for £25m or so. Say arranged in Feb, taking effect as soon as window opens. Still pretty dubious though- if they'd wanted that they could legitimately have sold him for £25m in Jan and offered to let him continue to kick on for half a season of continued development on a loan back. Dicy but legit. Certainly not unheard of.

OR

If somehow they get a large sum as the final tranche of HS2 Compensation- HS2 compensation seems like it's gone nowhere fast but you never know- if they got say £25m this season that'd get them just over the line. The £3m I assume was HS2 but it still seems a bit up in the air.

Beyond that? 21 point deduction and embargo seems in order I'd say, based on the formula. Or 12 points at the bare minimum, would have to look up the formula in full again.

£15m could be possible, if Aston Villa really want to go for it on youth development as part of a new strategy then it's possible to believe it was legit- still a bit of a stretch though IMO.

Then again, there is an argument that says HS2 compensation shouldn't count towards FFP. Because if training ground expenditure etc doesn't, why should income from the admittedly unfortunate Bodymoor Heath HS2 thing count as FFP income? Club income yes...but not FFP.

Plus wow look at this...

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role

Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things.

Wow indeed.