The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

The EFL HAVE to close that loophole before Aston Villa can get cracking on that- before the playoff final basically. At minimum they have to make any inflated profit from a related party illegitimate in, struck from FFP submissions.

The fact Sheffield Wednesday have a) Delayed their accounts for 2 months i.e. extended reporting period b) Still haven't submitted their revised reporting period accounts and c) If the Times article to be believed, still not submitted accounts that were due in December 2018 to EFL, means that they should have a summer window embargo- well IMO anyway- as a total minimum. I'm talking the weakest punishment.

In reality they should have closed it early before anyone could- now it may sound like being wise after the event but they are the Governing body who see accounts...should've been closed in 2016 or 2017 at the latest. Mind you, with the state of play as described by @Coppello what hope is there!!

Three sets of scummy cheats- Aston Villa, Derby and now seemingly Sheffield Wednesday- hope for the worst for all 3 of you, decent fans from Sheffield Wednesday on here notwithstanding. Okay the only possible saving grace for Sheffield Wednesday, on the ground thing is if they sold it to an external party and I mean a truly external party, not a related "external party". Other than that, yeah cheating scumbags!

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour 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.

 Posting on here, while interesting interesting, merely makes me ( and many others Im sure) more frustrated and angry at the amateurish ineptitude that the EFL appear to  be demonstrating and will change nothing.

I was thinking that perhaps Copello would do better by forwarding  his comments to SL or Steve Gibson, as it needs someone with some clout in the game, and the will to take on the powers that be, if ffp is to be properly enforced and actioned  rather than remain the set of hollow words it seems to be just now. 

[downendcity]

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The EFL HAVE to close that loophole before Aston Villa can get cracking on that- before the playoff final basically. At minimum they have to make any inflated profit from a related party illegitimate in, struck from FFP submissions.

The fact Sheffield Wednesday have a) Delayed their accounts for 2 months i.e. extended reporting period b) Still haven't submitted their revised reporting period accounts and c) If the Times article to be believed, still not submitted accounts that were due in December 2018 to EFL, means that they should have a summer window embargo- well IMO anyway- as a total minimum. I'm talking the weakest punishment.

In reality they should have closed it early before anyone could- now it may sound like being wise after the event but they are the Governing body who see accounts...should've been closed in 2016 or 2017 at the latest. Mind you, with the state of play as described by @Coppello what hope is there!!

Three sets of scummy cheats- Aston Villa, Derby and now seemingly Sheffield Wednesday- hope for the worst for all 3 of you, decent fans from Sheffield Wednesday on here notwithstanding. Okay the only possible saving grace for Sheffield Wednesday, on the ground thing is if they sold it to an external party and I mean a truly external party, not a related "external party". Other than that, yeah cheating scumbags!

Don't know if you, or any other posters know, who handles the administration and policing of the EFL ffp rules. Do they have accountants or professional financial experts or is it members of the "blue blazer" brigade. 

At the momnent it reminds me of a 2 Ronnies news story about the Irish Police rushing to a bank in Dublin while a raid was in progress. They sealed all the exits, but the robbers escaped through the entrances.

Clubs appear to be running rings around them and one step ahead of EFL's compliance. They are making the EFL look naive at best, inept at worst. 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Have to say, reading the Sheffield Wednesday forum many- not all, some are saying it'd lead to more problems down the line, some are saying profit won't be counted, but many are predictably moaning and predictably declaring "It's not our fault it's the regulations- blame the regulations".

Now the regulations are not perfect, but they are (by which I mean the posters) dead wong It's your- by which I mean obviously their- fault for good, but over time it became average recruitment, little thought about sell on value and wanting to buy your way out of issues. Your- or rather your owners fault- take responsibility!! I'd like to see a summer embargo at the least on them in order to ensure they cannot benefit immediately from any upturn brought about by this- with pressure still to comply so they'd have little choice but to sell one or 2 decent players as well.

I know they are popular on here but they've drifted right down in my estimation recent months.

@downendcity I'd like to think a professional body would have professional experts even if only a few to scrutinise these types of cases especially- the worst cases-  but with this bunch...

Coppello would probably be best placed to answer this one.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Have to say, reading the Sheffield Wednesday forum many- not all, some are saying it'd lead to more problems down the line, some are saying profit won't be counted, but many are predictably moaning and predictably declaring "It's not our fault it's the regulations- blame the regulations".

Now the regulations are not perfect, but they are (by which I mean the posters) dead wong It's your- by which I mean obviously their- fault for good, but over time it became average recruitment, little thought about sell on value and wanting to buy your way out of issues. Your- or rather your owners fault- take responsibility!! I'd like to see a summer embargo at the least on them in order to ensure they cannot benefit immediately from any upturn brought about by this- with pressure still to comply so they'd have little choice but to sell one or 2 decent players as well.

I know they are popular on here but they've drifted right down in my estimation recent months.

@downendcity I'd like to think a professional body would have professional experts even if only a few to scrutinise these types of cases especially- the worst cases-  but with this bunch...

Coppello would probably be best placed to answer this one.

If they are then they are bringing their profession into disrepute.

 

[Drew Peacock]

24 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If they are then they are bringing their profession into disrepute.

 

Like Grant Thornton at Patisserie Valerie, KPMG at Carillion, PWC at BT, Deloitte at Mitie and PWC at BHS..........

In fact KPMG have a string of audit failures to their name.  If the big accountancy firms can't get it right, then what chance the EFL?

[Coppello]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Have to say, reading the Sheffield Wednesday forum many- not all, some are saying it'd lead to more problems down the line, some are saying profit won't be counted, but many are predictably moaning and predictably declaring "It's not our fault it's the regulations- blame the regulations".

Now the regulations are not perfect, but they are (by which I mean the posters) dead wong It's your- by which I mean obviously their- fault for good, but over time it became average recruitment, little thought about sell on value and wanting to buy your way out of issues. Your- or rather your owners fault- take responsibility!! I'd like to see a summer embargo at the least on them in order to ensure they cannot benefit immediately from any upturn brought about by this- with pressure still to comply so they'd have little choice but to sell one or 2 decent players as well.

I know they are popular on here but they've drifted right down in my estimation recent months.

@downendcity I'd like to think a professional body would have professional experts even if only a few to scrutinise these types of cases especially- the worst cases-  but with this bunch...

Coppello would probably be best placed to answer this one.

@Downend City The EFL have their own accountants which monitor and scrutinise the FFP submissions of clubs.

Part of it is based on the financial statements which are audited by an external accounting firm and should provide assurance that they meet the relevant accounting standards. However, there are several deductions made to the accounts to make them more in line with the FFP requirements and the auditors will not look at this as they’re looking at them from a completely legal view. 

The figures reported in the accounts, less the deductions, will then be scrutinised by the EFL’s accountants. They will have limited information on how the deducted items have been made up, for example they have limited oversight over the total academy spend, the deductions for women’s football, community spend etc. which makes their job a little harder.

However, the most contentious piece of the reporting is the forecasts submitted for the upcoming year(s). The auditors will not review these and therefore the whole review is performed by the EFL and this is where the scope for creative accounting increases significantly. In the Premier League, the forecasts are heavily scrutinised and if you report significant profits from player trading, they threaten to hold your hand through the transfer window.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Coppello said:

 @Downend City The EFL have their own accountants which monitor and scrutinise the FFP submissions of clubs.

 Part of it is based on the financial statements which are audited by an external accounting firm and should provide assurance that they meet the relevant accounting standards. However, there are several deductions made to the accounts to make them more in line with the FFP requirements and the auditors will not look at this as they’re looking at them from a completely legal view. 

The figures reported in the accounts, less the deductions, will then be scrutinised by the EFL’s accountants. They will have limited information on how the deducted items have been made up, for example they have limited oversight over the total academy spend, the deductions for women’s football, community spend etc. which makes their job a little harder.

 However, the most contentious piece of the reporting is the forecasts submitted for the upcoming year(s). The auditors will not review these and therefore the whole review is performed by the EFL and this is where the scope for creative accounting increases significantly. In the Premier League, the forecasts are heavily scrutinised and if you report significant profits from player trading, they threaten to hold your hand through the transfer window.

  

Very interesting stuff, this insight you are providing. Sounds like the promise of future transfers to make up shortfalls needs real oversight...my solution and it's purely theoretical would therefore be an embargo for any club that 'stretches the truth' on it, until such a time as the deficit is cleared or the obligation is fulfilled.

One question I would have, as the rules stand, in your opinion is it possible to strike from the record  the profit on transactions to related parties, or is that stable door and horses bolting? E.g. Derby FFP submissions would show £40m instead of £80m on 'sale' of Pride Park.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very interesting stuff, this insight you are providing.

One question I would have, as the rules stand, in your opinion is it possible to strike from the record  the profit on transactions to related parties, or is that stable door and horses bolting? E.g. Derby FFP submissions would show £40m instead of £80m on 'sale' of Pride Park.

Surely if the submission was wrong, there must be an option to adjust.

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Surely if the submission was wrong, there must be an option to adjust.

I'm surprised it doesn't have implications for tax purposes, HMRC, the Revenue etc as well- but then I'm not a tax specialist! How can an asset just shoot up in value like that, it's nuts.

In fact, the Derby accounts from 2016/17, says the following- my take is that a £40m may have been generous but let's assume it is fairish value. Anyway though...below.

Bottom of P.22.

Quote

 

"The freehold buildings with a historical cost of £20,852,867 known as the Pride Park Stadium were valued by independent valuers Jones Lang LaSalle on 23 May 2013. The valuation was prepared on a depreciated replacement cost basis and was made in accordance with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Asset Statements of Valuation Practice and Guidance Notes. Based on this valuation the directors have assessed that the carrying value of the freehold buildings and determined that the current value is appropriate"

 

We're therefore expected to believe that it was undervalued by 50% in 2013, that it had somehow doubled and doubled again by 2017/18. Now it may- I don't know the ins and outs- but it may have had refurbishment done, corporate facilities on and off matchdays etc upgraded- I can accept that a valuation of £40m might- and I mean might- be possible if stretching it a bit. £80m though?? That's before even factoring in depreciation in the 4-5 years since this took place!

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm surprised it doesn't have implications for tax purposes, HMRC, the Revenue etc as well- but then I'm not a tax specialist! How can an asset just shoot up in value like that, it's nuts.

In fact, the Derby accounts from 2016/17, says the following- my take is that a £40m may have been generous but let's assume it is fairish value. Anyway though...below.

Bottom of P.22.

We're therefore expected to believe that it was undervalued by 50% in 2013, that it had somehow doubled and doubled again by 2017/18. Now it may- I don't know the ins and outs- but it may have had refurbishment done, corporate facilities on and off matchdays etc upgraded- I can accept that a valuation of £40m might- and I mean might- be possible if stretching it a bit. £80m though?? That's before even factoring in depreciation in the 4-5 years since this took place!

You have just answered the question the EFL guys should’ve been asking!  It’s been hideously over-valued to make Derby stay within FFP.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Like Grant Thornton at Patisserie Valerie, KPMG at Carillion, PWC at BT, Deloitte at Mitie and PWC at BHS..........

In fact KPMG have a string of audit failures to their name.  If the big accountancy firms can't get it right, then what chance the EFL?

Totally agree. And actually; given his dual position MA is in a very, very tight spot.

Of course he’ll want BCFC to be the torch bearer for FFP with one hat on, but if I was SL I’d be asking a number of awkward questions.

Two teams are competing a play off final when it appears they’ve had a competitive advantage. Mark.... why aren’t you flying our flag? How has this happened? If he’s a director, is he failing his duty to promote the best interests of BCFC.... Gibson is going public and fair play to him, I think SL needs to flex his arms internally. 

[View from the Dolman]

So looking at the Derby County stadium ownership... The freehold of DY342736 was transferred to GELLAW NEWCO 202 LIMITED (registered 19th June 2018) and registered on 30th July 2018. GELLAW NEWCO 202 LIMITED was incorporated with GELLAW NEWCO 201 LIMITED (registered  18th June 2018) holding the only share in the company. GELLAW NEWCO 201 appointed its liquidators 10 days after its incorporation in a members voluntary liquidation on 28th June 2018.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

So looking at the Derby County stadium ownership... The freehold of DY342736 was transferred to GELLAW NEWCO 202 LIMITED (registered 19th June 2018) and registered on 30th July 2018. GELLAW NEWCO 202 LIMITED was incorporated with GELLAW NEWCO 201 LIMITED (registered  18th June 2018) holding the only share in the company. GELLAW NEWCO 201 appointed its liquidators 10 days after its incorporation in a members voluntary liquidation on 28th June 2018.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

The ‘smell test’. Stinks of Shit. That’s not even clever. It is as overt as it could be. They probably went to the lowest grade advisors for that. 

The saving grace is in having such a blatant back-to-back and insta-collapse deal, they didn’t try so hard on the structure so they’ve may have had ‘on the cheap’ tax advice and triggered a big bill for someone along the way.  

Edited May 17, 2019 by Guest

[downendcity]

8 minutes ago, 29AR said:

The ‘smell test’. Stinks of Shit. That’s not even clever. It is as overt as it could be. They probably went to the lowest grade advisors for that. 

The saving grace is in having such a blatant back-to-back and insta-collapse deal, they didn’t try so hard on the structure so they’ve may have had ‘on the cheap’ tax advice and triggered a big bill for someone along the way.  

 

38 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

So looking at the Derby County stadium ownership... The freehold of DY342736 was transferred to GELLAW NEWCO 202 LIMITED (registered 19th June 2018) and registered on 30th July 2018. GELLAW NEWCO 202 LIMITED was incorporated with GELLAW NEWCO 201 LIMITED (registered  18th June 2018) holding the only share in the company. GELLAW NEWCO 201 appointed its liquidators 10 days after its incorporation in a members voluntary liquidation on 28th June 2018.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Makes you wonder what the EFL financial compliance team are doing if a few guys on a football club forum can get together a bunch of information that throws into question the validity of certain clubs' meeting ffp requirements.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

 

Makes you wonder what the EFL financial compliance team are doing if a few guys on a football club forum can get together a bunch of information that throws into question the validity of certain clubs' meeting ffp requirements.

And that’s why Ashton is a weird one. He’s an EFL board member. He’s also a director of Bristol City Football Club Limited. He has a statutory duty to promote the success of BCFC under the companies act 2006. 

On the presumption blind eyes have been turned or incompetence has been shown within the EFL, whilst BCFC have ensured they have complied: he might need to  consider how much of a fuss he’s been kicking up within the EFL and whether he’s kicked up enough to satisfy his obligation to BCFC to promote its best interests. 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Guest

[Coppello]

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very interesting stuff, this insight you are providing. Sounds like the promise of future transfers to make up shortfalls needs real oversight...my solution and it's purely theoretical would therefore be an embargo for any club that 'stretches the truth' on it, until such a time as the deficit is cleared or the obligation is fulfilled.

One question I would have, as the rules stand, in your opinion is it possible to strike from the record  the profit on transactions to related parties, or is that stable door and horses bolting? E.g. Derby FFP submissions would show £40m instead of £80m on 'sale' of Pride Park.

Applying accounting rules, profit on transactions with related parties should be at an arms length. Given that they’ve had an independent valuation, who have determined that the fair value of Pride Park is £80m (which is farcical), they’ve technically worked within the rules. 

The problem is that transactions with related parties can be genuine and it can’t always be genuine. For example, we can the rugby club rent for the use of Ashton Gate in the accounts of the stadium. We’ve actually charged rent at an arms length and it’s fair for them to pay for the use of the stadium. 

What they’ve done is the financial equivalent of scoring a goal when a player is down injured; there’s no rules against it but it’s unethical. Unless the EFL enforce a change in rules, the same thing will continue to happen. Legally, I don’t think the EFL can ask them to strike it off this years accounts. 

What I think they can do is scrutinise the accounts and appoint a surveyor to conduct another valuation. I have absolutely no idea how they can reach £80m for a 20 year old stadium built on a converted rubbish tip in Derbyshire. 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Coppello said:

Applying accounting rules, profit on transactions with related parties should be at an arms length. Given that they’ve had an independent valuation, who have determined that the fair value of Pride Park is £80m (which is farcical), they’ve technically worked within the rules. 

The problem is that transactions with related parties can be genuine and it can’t always be genuine. For example, we can the rugby club rent for the use of Ashton Gate in the accounts of the stadium. We’ve actually charged rent at an arms length and it’s fair for them to pay for the use of the stadium. 

What they’ve done is the financial equivalent of scoring a goal when a player is down injured; there’s no rules against it but it’s unethical. Unless the EFL enforce a change in rules, the same thing will continue to happen. Legally, I don’t think the EFL can ask them to strike it off this years accounts. 

What I think they can do is scrutinise the accounts and appoint a surveyor to conduct another valuation. I have absolutely no idea how they can reach £80m for a 20 year old stadium built on a converted rubbish tip in Derbyshire. 

For some of the Estate Agents I've known and dealt with in my time, that sounds quite reasonable!

Re. transactions with related parties. Im sure that UEFA have a specialist team that evaluate things like stadium naming rights and sponsorship deals to ensure they are at "fair value". Didn't they look at Man City's stadium naming rights because it was paid for by another of their owners related companies?

The more Im reading from people like you, the more it sounds to me like the EFL came up with the new set of rules and punishment, but are effectively working out how to apply them on the hoof i.e. making it up as they go along. They seem to have (naively) relied on club's playing by the rules, which is all well and good if all clubs toe the line. Unfortunately with the rewards for promotion to the prem being so great, and with some clubs being so financially stretched, and therefore desperate for promotion, there will always be some that will be prepared to take the risk and especially if they have a good idea that the EFL will be weak in pursuing them. 

It would be interesting to hear the Derby owner's justification for selling the ground to another of his companies and the timing thereof but doubt if this sort of question would be raised by the EFL.

P.S. I'm not an accountant or tax expert. I don't think capital gains tax applies to companies, so presumably the £80m will go into the income column and will increase the vendor company's profits  which will be taxed at corporation tax rate? If so then it is the equivalent of a fine , which is preferable to a points deduction for breaching ffp!

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Coppello said:

Applying accounting rules, profit on transactions with related parties should be at an arms length. Given that they’ve had an independent valuation, who have determined that the fair value of Pride Park is £80m (which is farcical), they’ve technically worked within the rules. 

The problem is that transactions with related parties can be genuine and it can’t always be genuine. For example, we can the rugby club rent for the use of Ashton Gate in the accounts of the stadium. We’ve actually charged rent at an arms length and it’s fair for them to pay for the use of the stadium. 

What they’ve done is the financial equivalent of scoring a goal when a player is down injured; there’s no rules against it but it’s unethical. Unless the EFL enforce a change in rules, the same thing will continue to happen. Legally, I don’t think the EFL can ask them to strike it off this years accounts. 

What I think they can do is scrutinise the accounts and appoint a surveyor to conduct another valuation. I have absolutely no idea how they can reach £80m for a 20 year old stadium built on a converted rubbish tip in Derbyshire. 

Thank you for the responses.

Arms length responses can be legitimate and genuine agreed. This one strikes me as not- or for want of a better phrase, taking the piss.

I think somewhere between £20-40m about right- the latter the maximum. Weird to see how it doubled- and doubled again- since 2013 however! Maybe there was improvement work and it was undervalued so £40m maybe...but not likely. Anything over and above? Grossly overvalued IMO.

Wonder if EFL did that. If the independent surveyor found it was grossly overvalued, could the profit then be struck from the FFP calculations, or is it now too late?

[Mr Popodopolous]

36 minutes ago, downendcity said:

For some of the Estate Agents I've known and dealt with in my time, that sounds quite reasonable!

Re. transactions with related parties. Im sure that UEFA have a specialist team that evaluate things like stadium naming rights and sponsorship deals to ensure they are at "fair value". Didn't they look at Man City's stadium naming rights because it was paid for by another of their owners related companies?

The more Im reading from people like you, the more it sounds to me like the EFL came up with the new set of rules and punishment, but are effectively working out how to apply them on the hoof i.e. making it up as they go along. They seem to have (naively) relied on club's playing by the rules, which is all well and good if all clubs toe the line. Unfortunately with the rewards for promotion to the prem being so great, and with some clubs being so financially stretched, and therefore desperate for promotion, there will always be some that will be prepared to take the risk and especially if they have a good idea that the EFL will be weak in pursuing them. 

It would be interesting to hear the Derby owner's justification for selling the ground to another of his companies and the timing thereof but doubt if this sort of question would be raised by the EFL.

P.S. I'm not an accountant or tax expert. I don't think capital gains tax applies to companies, so presumably the £80m will go into the income column and will increase the vendor company's profits  which will be taxed at corporation tax rate? If so then it is the equivalent of a fine , which is preferable to a points deduction for breaching ffp!

 

Agreed on what you say- EFL seem to be working it our far too slowly- these rules were in place the new 3 year ones since 2015/16. Yet they only deigned to announce points deductions in September 2018, even that could've been leaked to the Times- in the early stages of Birmingham's eventual punishment.

Plus announced a proper range, tariff, only after the Birmingham deduction- this should have been put out there in 2016/17 surely.

Alas on the tax thing, think tax liabilities can be offset against trading losses. Their accounts said £0 tax.

Because like many clubs, they post losses- so paid no tax so far as I can see. Plus for FFP tax isn't counted- believe it's the profit/loss before tax that is used.

[Grey Fox]

On 17/05/2019 at 13:27, hodge said:

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

Why just the ground, what is to stop an owner adding to his souvenier colllection and buying a club ashtray for £m,s if he wanted to?

Edited May 18, 2019 by Grey Fox
Came out wrong

[Drew Peacock]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

Alas on the tax thing, think tax liabilities can be offset against trading losses. Their accounts said £0 tax.

Because like many clubs, they post losses- so paid no tax so far as I can see. Plus for FFP tax isn't counted- believe it's the profit/loss before tax that is used.

It will probably be a group tax computation so it will all net out.

[Mr Popodopolous]

43 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Why just the ground, what is to stop an owner adding to his souvenier colllection and buying a club ashtray for £m,s if he wanted to?

Dunno how serious this post of yours is but anyway Related party, arms length transaction rules. Or have I been WHOOSHED! 

On a serious note, we could boost commercial revenue and stay within the rules as I think we will- you maybe don't something.

Make sure it's cleared with EFL etc but we could get each stand sponsored by a related party perhaps provided it's within market rates.

The HL stand, the company he has invested in - Sustainable Energy Technology Investments Ltd for another, maybe if he's got any business interests in Botswana- if it's within accepted market rates I don't see an issue..

Have the training ground sponsored too- again stick strictly to market rates.

[Drew Peacock]

53 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

It will probably be a group tax computation so it will all net out.

Thinking about it, it must be a sale external to the Football group, otherwise it would just be an internal transfer, so although I haven't done CT for a while, I think the profit will be offset against this year's loss and then use up the accumulated losses brought forward.  Unlikely to be a big tax bill if anything at all.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Thinking about it, it must be a sale external to the Football group, otherwise it would just be an internal transfer, so although I haven't done CT for a while, I think the profit will be offset against this year's loss and then use up the accumulated losses brought forward.  Unlikely to be a big tax bill if anything at all.

 

FWIW, dunno if they backdated the transaction or what, but it said on their accounts for 2017/18 tax bill £0. Checked it a bit earlier- plausible to offset against prior losses?

In an FFP context, taxation doesn't seem to be a factor anyway from what I can tell.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FWIW, dunno if they backdated the transaction or what, but it said on their accounts for 2017/18 tax bill £0. Checked it a bit earlier- plausible to offset against prior losses?

In an FFP context, taxation doesn't seem to be a factor anyway from what I can tell.

In an FFP context, diddlin' and fiddlin' don't seem to be factors either. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In an FFP context, diddlin' and fiddlin' don't seem to be factors either. 

Partly what Coppello said, partly what you said about still working it out, partly what I said about gross incompetence- those 3 cover it!

I think the reason for tax is okay- because say s club makes a pretax loss of x but gets a tax rebate of some sort, past losses etc can help bring it about for companies I believe, maybe that law has changed but I'm sure I remember seeing a clubs accounts which had losses then those losses reduced by tax credit.

That could be a difference between passing and failing FFP so to cover all bases it's probably for the best.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As regular readers of this thread will know, Kieran Maguire has tracked differentials between Derby accounts and their holding Company Sevco 5112.

Noticed it when looking at his Twitter for something else- credit to him.

However I noticed there's nothing- unless he's accounted for it in a different way in his figures- about Depreciation on there, or indeed amortisation of Intangible assets which don't include football. Comes to about £9.09m, but that is still £3.11m (roughly) over the limit. Dunno how many points off that would be but it would surely have meant Middlesbrough in 6th rather than us- would have to find the points to overspend tariff and see. Now I don't know it could be the case that Infrastructure covers depreciation etc.

Found it!

Without the ground thing, going by this- assuming my amortisation isn't me double counting somehow, then it would likely have been 4 points plus deemed an intentional breach so 7 in total- but one given back if like Birmingham they admitted to it. 

 If it is/was me double counting then 9 points plus the aforementioned 3 for a breach- plus of course one given back for admitting which we assume they would. Regardless we may not have made the playoffs- that may have been Middlesbrough- but we would have finished above them. That's before we even get into the cop out of failure to implement projected accounts.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I was looking back at this thread, around February, March time- and the EFL have literally not enforced their own rules- projected accounts in particular. They have simply neglected to enforce these, in particular against likely offending clubs. Derby's ground thing may have got them off the hook though.

We and Middlesbrough to name 2 compliant clubs have missed out on a legitimate shot at promotion via the playoffs. Any scope for legal actions against EFL/offending clubs?

Edited May 18, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Busterrimes]

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I was looking back at this thread, around February, March time- and the EFL have literally not enforced their own rules- projected accounts in particular. They have simply neglected to enforce these, in particular against likely offending clubs. Derby's ground thing may have got them off the hook though.

We and Middlesbrough to name 2 compliant clubs have missed out on a legitimate shot at promotion via the playoffs. Any scope for legal actions against EFL/offending clubs?

I would ay you could sue because the EFL have failed to enforce their own rules. heprecedent is that they did enforce them against Birmingham