Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

On 28/04/2019 at 16:17, Mr Popodopolous said:

If the ruled with projected accounts as submitted by the club were enforced correctly, you likely would have been out by £25m.  For the 3 years to THIS season.

That'd be a 12 point deduction, 3 points for aggravated breach and one off for admitting it probably.

Hey Mr. P - I've been putting off trying to comprehend the unthinkable, but it's time to get my head around what happens if Villa actually go up.

I'm sure you've covered it but I've only dipped into bits of this (excellent) thread and am behind on my homework. Do they simply exit the jurisdiction of the EFL and therefore FFP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Olé said:

Hey Mr. P - I've been putting off trying to comprehend the unthinkable, but it's time to get my head around what happens if Villa actually go up.

I'm sure you've covered it but I've only dipped into bits of this (excellent) thread and am behind on my homework. Do they simply exit the jurisdiction of the EFL and therefore FFP?

There are 2 parts to this.

The first, and the most infuriating, is that the new rules introduced the requirement to produce projected accounts in the third year so that if a breach of ffp was then identified, sanctions could be applied in the same season. In the case of a club competing for promotion, then a points deduction could then be made to prevent them enjoying the fruits of their (cheating) labours and avoiding the farcical situations that existed when QPR and Bournemouth were promoted, thereby escaping the clutches of the EFL for their ffp breaches.

Secondly, when the new rules were announced I am sure I read that they had been agreed with and by the premier league. Whether this means that even if a club is promoted and a breach subsequently comes to light they can be punished and the premier league will accept the punishment I can't say, but the repercussions would be massive if it were the case. What if Villa won the play offs and were subsequently punished, could they be prevented from taking promotion and if they were who would be promoted instead - West Brom might argue that Villa should never have been in the play offs in the first place and Boro will argue they should have e taken the final play off place?

Because of the new rules I cant help but think that despite all of our suspicions, Villa's accounts show them to be within ffp. Either that or they are in breach but the EFL are fudging the issue, as they are not brave enough to take on a big club for fear of the legal repercussions, should they fight any points deduction. My suspicious mind makes me think the latter and especially so given that no action appears to have been taken with Derby, despite the accounting slight of hand they performed with the stadium "sale" to avoid busting ffp.

 

 

 

 

Edited by downendcity
  • Thanks 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Because of the new rules I cant help but think that despite all of our suspicions, Villa's accounts show them to be within ffp. Either that or they are in breach but the EFL are fudging the issue as they are not brave enough to take on a big club for fear of the legal repercussions should they fight any points deduction

Thank you! I wasn't far off in my understanding then, I just didn't know the Premier League would support retrospective action after promotion - and I thought I'd missed something given that nothing has happened already based on projected accounts, as I cannot believe with the problems they have been through, Villa have found a legitimate way to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Olé said:

Thank you! I wasn't far off in my understanding then, I just didn't know the Premier League would support retrospective action after promotion - and I thought I'd missed something given that nothing has happened already based on projected accounts, as I cannot believe with the problems they have been through, Villa have found a legitimate way to comply.

Not at all clear where the premier league stands regarding retrospective action.

Im guessing that if a club were to be fined or subject to a transfer embargo then they might well support such actions retrospectively. The big issue though is the question of points deduction for major breaches, and I can't see how this could be applied retrospectively, even if the premier league was in agreement.

As I mentioned previously, with projected accounts being provided in the third year I cannot see how and why any retrospective action should ever be required, unless the EFL cock it up or choose to kick a club's ffp issue into the long grass until a later date.

All we have at the moment is supposition ( albeit based on some pretty good forensic work by a couple of our in the know posters) from which there is strong suspicion that clubs like Villa and Derby have dogged a bullett by fair means or foul. If I was Birmingham City juts now I;d be spitting feathers and demanding the EFL explain their apparently less than even handed approach to championship clubs.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal take on it is that as it showed, they were in Aston Villa in compliance until May 2018.

Now I'd suggest a breach of the 3 years even after post-deductions of £20-30m- in theory the EFL can strip promotion from a side, prevent them from going up- I hope they lose the final absolutely but I also hope that if they don't then by some miracle, the EFL will declare the promotion null and void and award it to the opposition. Unicorns apt for this post/wish?

@downendcity I'm not wholly convinced Derby in breach without the stadium sale- if we assume market value of £40m is a fair transaction, or thereabouts then their 3 year accounts until May 2018 have them quite likely just within the limits if we knock off the profit...they've sold players for good money too so I see it as likely they may just about be compliant after allowable costs- way I see that one is largely to give Lampard a warchest and wage budget by adding £40m to "profits" to 3 year figures- that profit should be declared illegal- not necessarily in breach but very little headroom either.

The other issue with the EFL, is they're quite simply not very good. Slow off the mark- look how long it to them to breach Birmingham 9 points in what was a pretty easy case!

On the point about uneven treatment- Birmingham need to take this to the CAS! There is excellent precedent with AC Milan last year and basically if UEFA hadn't chosen to go away and rethink, they would had to have produced the accounts that they had for the 2 petro-clubs and Inter Milan that they all submitted, for AC Milan to inspect as part of a legal case, an appeal.

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

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My personal take on it is that as it showed, they were in Aston Villa in compliance until May 2018.

Now I'd suggest a breach of the 3 years even after post-deductions of £20-30m- in theory the EFL can strip promotion from a side, prevent them from going up- I hope they lose the final absolutely but I also hope that if they don't then by some miracle, the EFL will declare the promotion null and void and award it to the opposition. Unicorns apt for this post/wish?

@downendcity I'm not wholly convinced Derby in breach without the stadium sale- if we assume market value of £40m is a fair transaction, or thereabouts then their 3 year accounts until May 2018 have them quite likely just within the limits if we knock off the profit...they've sold players for good money too so I see it as likely they may just about be compliant after allowable costs- way I see that one is largely to give Lampard a warchest and wage budget by adding £40m to "profits" to 3 year figures- that profit should be declared illegal- not necessarily in breach but very little headroom either.

The other issue with the EFL, is they're quite simply not very good. Slow off the mark- look how long it to them to breach Birmingham 9 points in what was a pretty easy case!

On the point about uneven treatment- Birmingham need to take this to the CAS! There is excellent precedent with AC Milan last year and basically if UEFA hadn't chosen to go away and rethink, they would had to have produced the accounts that they had for the 2 petro-clubs and Inter Milan that they all submitted, for AC Milan to inspect as part of a legal case, an appeal.

The EFL dealing with clubs and clubs accountants appear to be like my parents were when trying to comprehend their grandchildren's computer technology!

I still think that the EFL hoped that when they introduced the latest ffp. rules, and particularly the punishments available to them under the new , that it would make clubs knuckle under and comply. Perhaps they saw a few fines and transfer embargoes but did;t envisage having to consider points deductions, and not from big clubs in and around promotion and not in the first season of application.

Accordingly, they seem to be dancing around the issues without actually confronting them, for fear of the potential consequences. Given what ff. is trying to avoid, with what is happening to Bolton just now, the EFL's inaction is pretty disgraceful.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As per Kieran Maguire, still overdue.

D6iyCHpXoAIeWDv.jpg

Bear in mind, they were already extended by 2 months so quite what they are up to will be very interesting surely...

Complications may have arisen from their change of name to Steve Bruce's Sheffield Wednesday.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that note, interesting story in today's Times.

Quote

 

Sky Bet Championship clubs accused of selling grounds then renting them back to exploit FFP rules

Matt Hughes, Sports News Correspondent

May 17 2019, 12:01am, The Times

Derby recently revealed they had sold Pride Park to Morris, the club’s owner

Derby recently revealed they had sold Pride Park to Morris, the club’s ownerNICK POTTS/PA

Share
Save

The English Football League will review its financial fair play rules this summer after complaints from clubs in the Sky Bet Championship that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books.

Sheffield Wednesday and two other Championship clubs are believed to have followed the example of Derby County, who revealed last month that they sold Pride Park to the club’s owner Mel Morris for £80 million last year, enabling them to record a pre-tax profit of £14.6 million for the 2017-18 season. Aston Villa are understood to be considering selling Villa Park if they fail to win promotion to the Premier League in this month’s play-off final.

Under EFL profit and sustainability rules that prohibit clubs recording losses of more than £39 million over a three-year period, there is nothing to prevent such sale and lease-back schemes, which are an accepted method of solving cashflow problems in other industries. Many clubs consider it unethical, however, and the EFL board has agreed to review its regulations. It is understood that the subject will be on the agenda at the end-of-season meeting of Championship clubs in Portugal next month.

Several clubs have expressed anger that their Championship peers appear to be using creative accounting to bypass financial fair play (FFP) regulations that have resulted in Birmingham City being docked nine points and Queens Park Rangers fined £42 million for breaches in the past 12 months. Derby and Villa are understood to be two of the clubs most at risk of breaking the EFL’s £39 million loss cap and incurring sanctions if they are not promoted to the Premier League. Wednesday and Leeds United are also at risk.

The EFL introduced a set tariff for FFP breaches this season. A maximum of 12 points could be docked, although a further nine can be added if an aggravated breach is proven.

One owner of a Championship club told The Times: “According to the rules it’s not cheating, but we should change the way the rules are written. In this instance fair play doesn’t mean anything. It’s not ethically correct.”

The chief executive of another club added: “My owners are furious about this and demanding change. It’s not a level playing field at present as the rules are meaningless.”

Villa raised £4 million through the sale of a car park close to Villa Park last year and will look at selling the entire stadium as an option to raise funds if they are in breach of the EFL’s spending limits this summer. Wednesday’s situation is even more intriguing as they have yet to file accounts for the year ending July 2018. These were due on April 30.

Villa Park could be sold if the club fail to win promotion to the Premier League
Villa Park could be sold if the club fail to win promotion to the Premier LeagueANTHONY DEVLIN/PA

The Times understands that the club have also failed to file accounts to the EFL which were due last December, which could lead to them being fined. A club spokesman said that any new arrangement regarding Hillsborough would be clear in their accounts, which they insisted would be published in the next few weeks.

“The long-term sustainability of all EFL clubs remains of paramount importance and we will continue to work with Championship clubs in respect of the rules at next month’s summer conference,” an EFL spokesman said. “Clubs have also been reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an independent disciplinary commission.”

 

Seems that Sheffield Wednesday have even failed to file accounts to EFL last December- they should be embargoed for that alone at minimum!

That article overlooks one point though- they actually- as is their legal entitlement once every 5 years so no rules or laws breached- extended their accounting period by 2 months.

The curious one on that list is Leeds- if there are not in-season punishments then they're not in danger. If there were they might be but they have lots of players on their books- them being sold will remove amortisation alone, let alone profit and wages, but then they would have legal recourse if they went up next season for no punishments against others, legal recourse to the CAS.

Also read which made me sick, Aston Villa £15m- that's FIFTEEN MILLION- compensation for HS2. Surely fake news?- but then again if we recall, an ex Aston Villa bigwig involved in HS2 in that area?!

If true though...Spawniest. Bastards. Ever!

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

On 15/05/2019 at 10:54, downendcity said:

Not at all clear where the premier league stands regarding retrospective action.

Im guessing that if a club were to be fined or subject to a transfer embargo then they might well support such actions retrospectively. The big issue though is the question of points deduction for major breaches, and I can't see how this could be applied retrospectively, even if the premier league was in agreement.

As I mentioned previously, with projected accounts being provided in the third year I cannot see how and why any retrospective action should ever be required, unless the EFL cock it up or choose to kick a club's ffp issue into the long grass until a later date.

All we have at the moment is supposition ( albeit based on some pretty good forensic work by a couple of our in the know posters) from which there is strong suspicion that clubs like Villa and Derby have dogged a bullett by fair means or foul. If I was Birmingham City juts now I;d be spitting feathers and demanding the EFL explain their apparently less than even handed approach to championship clubs.

 

I wonder whether Birmingham could be the salvation here, in terms of Villa’s flouting of FFP and finally getting done.  Big wishful thinking on my part.

We keep thinking about their 9 point deduction, but often forget that was for the 3 year period to 17/18.  They are still gonna be in the shit for for the 3 year period to 18/19, so likely to be under embargo....and get a points deduction at some point in the 19/20 season, when the EFL finally act.  They might show leniency if Adams is sold and brings some sanity back to their accounts.  But compare to Villa, there 3 year period to 18/19, also gonna be a mess.  Villa (if promoted) are gonna give the EFL the middle finger, but surely the EFL would need to request the Prem to apply similar treatment.

If not....then the more likely scenario is that FFP is scrapped!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I wonder whether Birmingham could be the salvation here, in terms of Villa’s flouting of FFP and finally getting done.  Big wishful thinking on my part.

 We keep thinking about their 9 point deduction, but often forget that was for the 3 year period to 17/18.  They are still gonna be in the shit for for the 3 year period to 18/19, so likely to be under embargo....and get a points deduction at some point in the 19/20 season, when the EFL finally act.  They might show leniency if Adams is sold and brings some sanity back to their accounts.  But compare to Villa, there 3 year period to 18/19, also gonna be a mess.  Villa (if promoted) are gonna give the EFL the middle finger, but surely the EFL would need to request the Prem to apply similar treatment.

If not....then the more likely scenario is that FFP is scrapped!  

Agree with this- definitely approaching crunch time.

Think the Birmingham ruling is now for the duration of this period 1 year- so £13m + allowable expenditure, as they can't be punished twice for the breach which occurred last season.

However 6 month accounts to December suggested that they had already exceeded £13m, to the HKSE (Hong Kong Stock Exchange). Birmingham Sport Holdings that is- presumably the overspend would be adjusted accordingly for the points tariff or is that another loophole the EFL haven't thought of I wonder!

In short, they might be saved in part by Butland sell on fee- IF it is by June 30th 2019 as that's when their accounts end and also the surely highly likely sale of Adams- again June 30th 2019 would be the deadline.

https://almajir.net/2019/04/23/bsh-credit-crunch/

They seem in a bit of a mess though, to say the least- perhaps not just with FFP either! Or it could provide them with some fresh legit income, who knows really.

https://almajir.net/2019/02/28/bsh-interim-results-to-december-2018/

Those results.

Oh yeah, my point about the tariff thing- if x-y in losses above the limit equals a given number of points then the obvious thing is to divide it by 3- so say £3m overspend=5 points (I know that isn't the tariff but can't remember it right now), then for an adjusted down limit it is £1m overspend=5 points. Bet the EFL haven't covered this base however!

For all that, yes they could be allies with us and other clubs in compliance. Inconsistent punishment by law of the same offences is very shaky- in sports law too. CAS proved this with AC Milan last summer.

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

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I wonder whether Birmingham could be the salvation here, in terms of Villa’s flouting of FFP and finally getting done.  Big wishful thinking on my part.

We keep thinking about their 9 point deduction, but often forget that was for the 3 year period to 17/18.  They are still gonna be in the shit for for the 3 year period to 18/19, so likely to be under embargo....and get a points deduction at some point in the 19/20 season, when the EFL finally act.  They might show leniency if Adams is sold and brings some sanity back to their accounts.  But compare to Villa, there 3 year period to 18/19, also gonna be a mess.  Villa (if promoted) are gonna give the EFL the middle finger, but surely the EFL would need to request the Prem to apply similar treatment.

If not....then the more likely scenario is that FFP is scrapped!  

In either case, where does it leave clubs that have sold key players in order to stay within ffp and in so doing have compromised their chances of promotion, or risked them being dragged into a relegation battle?

Would be interesting to know what legal advice they might receive, as far as taking action against the EFL is concerned.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In either case, where does it leave clubs that have sold key players in order to stay within ffp and in so doing have compromised their chances of promotion, or risked them being dragged into a relegation battle?

Would be interesting to know what legal advice they might receive, as far as taking action against the EFL is concerned.

 

I think that is the angle Gibson and Lansdown are playing at.  I see the good intentions of the projected accounts, but the implementation when both 1) club annual accounting periods finish after the end of the season and 2) the transfer window Re-opens before 1, is flawed.  Villa will just sell Player X and / or Player Y for £Xm if they don’t go up.

Perhaps in Gibson / Pulis / Boro’s case they showed their hand too early in cutting costs?

Re Ground Sale, the EFL have already concluded Derby’s was fine....so have set the precedent....haven’t they?  Bit late to say they are gonna investigate Wednesday, and Villa if they do the same.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re Ground Sale, the EFL have already concluded Derby’s was fine....so have set the precedent

So basically Lansdown to just buy AG from whichever company owns the stadium for £100m and see if the EFL have any balls ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think that is the angle Gibson and Lansdown are playing at.  I see the good intentions of the projected accounts, but the implementation when both 1) club annual accounting periods finish after the end of the season and 2) the transfer window Re-opens before 1, is flawed.  Villa will just sell Player X and / or Player Y for £Xm if they don’t go up.

Perhaps in Gibson / Pulis / Boro’s case they showed their hand too early in cutting costs?

 Re Ground Sale, the EFL have already concluded Derby’s was fine....so have set the precedent....haven’t they?  Bit late to say they are gonna investigate Wednesday, and Villa if they do the same.

Their accounting period runs until May 31st 2019- summer window opens in June...unless they can prove demonstrably to the EFL- doesn't have to be public, but it would be nice if a lot more of it was- then surely they'd be snookered for this season in that respect.

Maybe...but I prefer to think of it as clubs who abide and make decent efforts- and even mad though it sounds, Derby are better than a few having sold Christie, Hendrick, Hughes, Ince, Vydra and Weimann last 3 seasons to help at least, and those who don't- namely the 2 Birmingham clubs plus Sheffield Wednesday it appears. I mean there are those who will push the allowable limits to the max but won't breach it- Wolves and maybe Brighton spring to mind. In terms of those who sold to help try to ensure compliance, as well as Middlesbrough we have us, we have Norwich- though that was as much solvency as FFP, we have Nottingham Forest, they sold Brereton for £7m, we have Leeds- Wood, Taylor compensation amongst others summer 2017, fairly sure they sold in 2016/17 also, Vieira last summer, they're planning to bring in £7m in sales this summer and that's just early on if papertalk to be believed, albeit they're 2 players on loan elsewhere- helps offset losses though.

Then we have those who make small or moderate operating losses anyway, or in an FFP context- made smaller by sales, e.g. Preston, Rotherham, to an extent Wigan, on some levels Sheffield United- I'm sure there are quite a few if I look into it further. Then you have a handful of clubs who think they are above the rules- the 2 Birmingham clubs, though Birmingham City a shambles anyway I'd suggest, Sheffield Wednesday who if the Times article is to be believed haven't even submitted their accounts to the EFL though that could just be poor reporting- another badly run club, and Derby using a profit to cushion future spending/prevention of necessity to sell players.

Then you have the stupidest of all which was Barnsley selling Bree, Hourihane and Winnall even when they were already posting a profit for the season and were in the playoff picture- yet Birmingham survived at their expense a year and a half later!! Mix of asset stripping, loan repayments and debt reduction to owner IMO. Perhaps preparation for takeover too.

Precedent set- would seem so. I maybe wrong but I don't think they can forbid fair market value even if a related transaction- so £40-41m in the case of Pride Park, but perhaps moving forward they can disallow the profit as illegitimate if sold to a related party- that's the bit that really riles me personally, again Derby because of the aforementioned player sales and compensation for Rowett may just be in it if we strip the £39-40m profit from the sale but pretty hemmed in if they lose the final. In a similar way to debt write offs not counting as income for FFP.

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

I had an interesting conversation with a former Finance Director of a Championship club last regarding the state of the EFL at the moment. He described the FFP reporting as farcical and indicated that the finance department of the EFL were pretty incompetent.

Often he would phone the EFL's office, who are based in Preston, and ask Tad Detko (FD of EFL) queries regarding the reporting requirements. In a thick Lancashire accent, Tad would often respond with, "If it doesn't take the piss, I'm happy". It sums up the league's culture towards financial fair play and clubs have pushed their luck more and more. It is quite a contrast to the Premier League who are in constant communication with clubs and drive the reporting requirements. It sounds like those in charge of FFP at the EFL are simply not competent and perhaps do not have the capacity to monitor all 72 clubs. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I had an interesting conversation with a former Finance Director of a Championship club last regarding the state of the EFL at the moment. He described the FFP reporting as farcical and indicated that the finance department of the EFL were pretty incompetent.

Often he would phone the EFL's office, who are based in Preston, and ask Tad Detko (FD of EFL) queries regarding the reporting requirements. In a thick Lancashire accent, Tad would often respond with, "If it doesn't take the piss, I'm happy". It sums up the league's culture towards financial fair play and clubs have pushed their luck more and more. It is quite a contrast to the Premier League who are in constant communication with clubs and drive the reporting requirements. It sounds like those in charge of FFP at the EFL are simply not competent and perhaps do not have the capacity to monitor all 72 clubs. 

 

Haha, knew it! Knew it- incompetent and in some ways reluctant to be too pernickety- but incompetent absolutely!!

Thank you though, that is very interesting stuff- and the difference between EFL and PL is evident. Mind you in terms of the base FFP in the PL- not talking the STCC thing- for that is slightly different but the £35m + allowable losses- with their TV money and commercial revenue- and marketing on a global level, it's almost impossible to fail! £105m over 3 years...makes sense in some ways but in others, forgetting parachute payments for a minute they also have £44m + any profit accrued in the prior 2 years to play with- should be £13m per year and allowable losses in PL IMO but that'll never happen.

Personally I think and I'm sure most right minded people would agree that Derby and seemingly Sheffield Wednesday if reports are true selling the ground to themselves effectively- even if technically different corporate entities- for a 'profit' is taking the piss- but then business regs and ethics don't always exactly align.

@RoystonFoote'snephew Ah, did it? Thanks. Read on here at some point that it was June 9th- I'll go with what you say though, small window for Aston Villa if they lose that playoff final before it rolls over to 2019/20 financial reporting period. :dunno:

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I had an interesting conversation with a former Finance Director of a Championship club last regarding the state of the EFL at the moment. He described the FFP reporting as farcical and indicated that the finance department of the EFL were pretty incompetent.

Often he would phone the EFL's office, who are based in Preston, and ask Tad Detko (FD of EFL) queries regarding the reporting requirements. In a thick Lancashire accent, Tad would often respond with, "If it doesn't take the piss, I'm happy". It sums up the league's culture towards financial fair play and clubs have pushed their luck more and more. It is quite a contrast to the Premier League who are in constant communication with clubs and drive the reporting requirements. It sounds like those in charge of FFP at the EFL are simply not competent and perhaps do not have the capacity to monitor all 72 clubs. 

 

:grr:

If this is the case it is absolutely scandalous and proves the EFL and their administration of ffp compliance is not fit for purpose.

Villa phone call to the EFL.

Villa: "Hi  just wanted to bring you up to speed with our accounts and it looks like we will be about £35 million over the ffp limit"

EFL " Oh that doesn't sound too good"

Villa: "That's why I'm calling because it's not as bad as it sounds, as  we are selling Jack Grealish for  more than £40million and that will bring us well inline "

EFL " When will you be selling him?"

Villa: " Soon - very soon"

EFL: "That sounds OK then - nothing to worry about. I better ring off now because I've got to get in touch with Bristol City. They worry me I as they've overspent by £50 on their stationery budget so I need to teach them a lesson so that other clubs don't try and do the same thing. Oh and good luck in the play offs hope it goes well and you are soon back in the premier league - where you belong""

 

 

Photo of the EFL financial compliance team 

469008663_hearnoevil.jpg.c3bf3e6b33ac2cdf318d8287628362cb.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by downendcity
  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Credit to the excellent Swiss Ramble for this earlier in the year.

D1cXnRTX4AADq7N.jpg

I am now making an assumption that they got £15m for HS2 as one comment on an article said and that it'd be in this seasons accounts. This therefore is strictly a best case or an ideal case scenario of mine.

Allowable loss:

£39m + £45m=£84m over 3 years- that's when taking into account allowable costs. That is more than plenty for any Championship club except if one of the top 6 got relegated suddenly for financial irregularities or match fixing say.

2017/18

£36m loss- £15m=£21m

2018/19

*£54m loss-£15m-£12m=£27m

Already in Birmingham territory in this their final year of Parachute Payments. About £9m above.

Rough calculations though it is, but if this is in the right ballpark- and let's say it is...

£54m loss-£15m- so the same as before- put pushing further into the red -£17m parachute payments and £15m in HS2/land and until sales occur, also subtract £7m in profit on transactions.

I therefore estimate a loss of £93 million- before FFP exclusions of £15m- so nearly double the 3 year FFP in 1 years!!

Or £126m in FFP adjusted losses for the 3 years to May 2019!!

Were the £15m this season for HS2 to have been fake news, it'd be £138m in 3 year FFP losses admittedly before sales, loanees and players released.

£50m in profit on player sales let's say and £15m in wages saved- or vice versa...even that would have them well in breach.

My numbers may not be perfect but they're in the right ball park- what's a few million between friends such as Villa and the EFL :whistle:

In consideration of all factors therefore, I hope Derby smash Aston Villa...then get >11 points and have to rent Pride Park at several £m per year.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Haha, knew it! Knew it- incompetent and in some ways reluctant to be too pernickety- but incompetent absolutely!!

Thank you though, that is very interesting stuff- and the difference between EFL and PL is evident. Mind you in terms of the base FFP in the PL- not talking the STCC thing- for that is slightly different but the £35m + allowable losses- with their TV money and commercial revenue- and marketing on a global level, it's almost impossible to fail! £105m over 3 years...makes sense in some ways but in others, forgetting parachute payments for a minute they also have £44m + any profit accrued in the prior 2 years to play with- should be £13m per year and allowable losses in PL IMO but that'll never happen.

@RoystonFoote'snephew Ah, did it? Thanks. Read on here at some point that it was June 9th- I'll go with what you say though, small window for Aston Villa if they lose that playoff final before it rolls over to 2019/20 financial reporting period. :dunno:

Yeah, it wasn't exactly groundbreaking stuff but he did say quite a few things which did make me think. I agree with your point in terms of failing the PL FFP requirements, it is bloody hard to do. At the same time, they're marking you pretty tightly and query many of the numbers that go into your forecast. At the club I work at, the PL contact us with queries each week despite there being significant headroom. With a culture as poor as it seems with the EFL, I can't imagine that they can oversee the activities of 72 clubs that closely. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Coppello said:

Yeah, it wasn't exactly groundbreaking stuff but he did say quite a few things which did make me think. I agree with your point in terms of failing the PL FFP requirements, it is bloody hard to do. At the same time, they're marking you pretty tightly and query many of the numbers that go into your forecast. At the club I work at, the PL contact us with queries each week despite there being significant headroom. With a culture as poor as it seems with the EFL, I can't imagine that they can oversee the activities of 72 clubs that closely. 

It would help if they could manage 1 or 2 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

It's not often I say this, but it's great we have so many accountants here!  :laughcont:

This thread is extremely interesting reading. (And no, I'm not being sarky)

I find it quite depressing! 

Not about the number of accountants, I am one and we are a great bunch when you get to know us.  But Coppello's comments about the EFL's audit of the clubs accounts is a really depressing aspect of the EFLs governance, or rather lack of governance.  I know from practical experience how easy it can be to stretch matters when the audit comes along and practice the dark arts of creative accounting, but when you have a governing body giving you a nod and a wink to bend the rules - then what's the bloody point of FFP.  The recent audit scandals have shown how lax even professional audit firms can be, let alone a bunch of incompetent amateurs.

The only things that do give me hope are the number of articles that pop up about FFP such as the Times one above and the waves that Gibson (and presumably SL) are causing.  It is becoming more high profile and clearly there is unrest; the dam holding back implementing FFP hasn't broken yet, but I think the cracks are appearing.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I find it quite depressing! 

Not about the number of accountants, I am one and we are a great bunch when you get to know us.  But Coppello's comments about the EFL's audit of the clubs accounts is a really depressing aspect of the EFLs governance, or rather lack of governance.  I know from practical experience how easy it can be to stretch matters when the audit comes along and practice the dark arts of creative accounting, but when you have a governing body giving you a nod and a wink to bend the rules - then what's the bloody point of FFP.  The recent audit scandals have shown how lax even professional audit firms can be, let alone a bunch of incompetent amateurs.

The only things that do give me hope are the number of articles that pop up about FFP such as the Times one above and the waves that Gibson (and presumably SL) are causing.  It is becoming more high profile and clearly there is unrest; the dam holding back implementing FFP hasn't broken yet, but I think the cracks are appearing.

Think Nottingham Forest would also be pretty hacked off at this being let slide, even Birmingham now from sinners to sinned against in terms of double standards. Then any number of small to medium clubs at this level who absolutely do the right thing.  Leeds too maybe, they usually produce player sales or profit on. Mixture of gross incompetence- and I mean disgracefully so- and letting all but the stupidest or worst breaches slide- appalling.

This could I think be easily voted for- perhaps Gibson went about certain aspects wrong but proper and full enforcement without tricks that take the piss, all treated without fear or favour and rules being adhered to but with each case also judged depending on efforts to comply- e.g. if new owners try to clean house through player sales or even existing owners but there are lots of players out of favour but on good wages that can be a mitigating favour.

To me the rules are quite right, the big problem is the EFL- always thought that enforcement a problem when overseen by the EFL and it seems my fears (and those of many others) are being realised.

Theoretically, would it be too late to void Aston Villa's result especially and maybe depending on precise numbers Derby's and have a Leeds-WBA playoff final? In order for both to feel the full consequences of their actions!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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