Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Busterrimes said:

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

It is complex- perhaps they did and they didn't.

With Birmingham, they enforced the period of 2015/16-2017/18. This was the period of 3 seasons prior to this season.

The regulations/rules to which I am referring are the projected accounts. The Derby example I gave would have been the prior period as per Birmingham, but I am referring to the in-season accounts.

These were quoted directly in this thread. The point of them was to prevent clubs from wriggling out of their obligations- possibly even quoted directly from EFL website but will look into that later.

In terms of any hypothetical lawsuit. Us and Middlesbrough for a start would be eligible in terms of a directly affected wronged party. So too might Leeds and WBA- both stuck to the rules and yet lost to sides who appear to have disregarded them.

Then I would add Barnsley and Burton- both 2017/18 season, but both well within both finished level on points, Birmingham should've been docked points that season as that was the period their breach occurred in- should have been relegated.

Then you have sides like us and Middlesbrough, Leeds, Nottingham Forest- hell even Swansea who have all sold to help stay in line. Hull another.

Though tbh, Hull and Swansea smack of asset stripping. Norwich too but that cash flow and solvency as much as anything. Sheffield United too- Brooks sale- neither solvency or cashflow but trading and compliance purposes.

With the exception of Derby- who tbh sold 5 first teamers and 1 squad player, the other 2 big unpunished clubs have made no effort to comply.

Can't see the serious efforts by Aston Villa or Sheffield Wednesday. Birmingham still have hold of Adams and Jota to name 2.

If you don't enforce own rules such as these in a timely manner, it seriously distorts the competition.

Will go through examples of clubs who sold to help comply in due course.

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

17 hours ago, Davefevs said:

That has been my point on this for a good while.  I really hoped the projected accounts would make a difference to previous wrongdoings.  Of course perhaps Villa included the forecast sale of Grealish?  I don’t know.  @Coppello - would that be allowed?

I'm not 100% clear on the EFL rules for this but it would be allowed in the Premier League. I've also been a bit nervous about Villa forecasting this as it will allow them to write off a substantial amount of any loss. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent comment I saw from what I assume to be a Birmingham fan on a Guardian comment- media have been pretty pathetic, as per- but that is exactly the questions media should be asking.

Quote

 

Paul, given you are a journalist, could you do me a favour, and ask the League the following?

1. When did they find out Derby had sold their ground to their owner?
2. What checks did they make over the value Derby had given to it before?
3. When did they find out the level of rent?
4. Whom did the League ask as to whether that was a commercial level?
5. Whom did the League ask as to a proper commercial value for Pride Park?
6. What checks did they undertake as to compliance with their own regulations as to investment by a connected party?

Just wondering.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I'm not 100% clear on the EFL rules for this but it would be allowed in the Premier League. I've also been a bit nervous about Villa forecasting this as it will allow them to write off a substantial amount of any loss. 

It would for the period to 2018/19 season yeah, but if they stayed down they would have a major hole still IMO. A question as to whether Kieran Maguire's Infrastructure figures included depreciation etc as part of it, if they did that takes total losses down but still in breach- similar for Derby.

Also questions about whether they are getting a lot of HS2 compensation- saw one below the line comment on an article of £15m! No idea on that though- but a former Aston Villa chairman is in HS2 committee or similar in that region!?

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/former-aston-villa-chair-announced-as-wmca-hs2-growth-delivery-chair

Given Aston Villa are or maybe were due some compensation, it's an unbelievable conflict of interest, or has that potential at least- but then is anyone surprised anymore?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Davefevs said:

That has been my point on this for a good while.  I really hoped the projected accounts would make a difference to previous wrongdoings.  Of course perhaps Villa included the forecast sale of Grealish?  I don’t know.  @Coppello - would that be allowed?

 

44 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I'm not 100% clear on the EFL rules for this but it would be allowed in the Premier League. I've also been a bit nervous about Villa forecasting this as it will allow them to write off a substantial amount of any loss. 

Talk about  a moving target!

If you are allowed to include the forecast sale of a player(s) then in theory every club could put in the forecast sale of their most valuable player to offset losses that would otherwise take them over the ffp limit. Given the EFL's diligence if said player was not subsequently sold then nothing would happen.

If they used Derby's valuer, then we could forecast the sale of Pato for £50m, be well within ffp limits and could afford to buy Harry Kane!

Anyone else getting the impression that the ffp rules are not worth the paper on which they are written?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 

Talk about  a moving target!

If you are allowed to include the forecast sale of a player(s) then in theory every club could put in the forecast sale of their most valuable player to offset losses that would otherwise take them over the ffp limit. Given the EFL's diligence if said player was not subsequently sold then nothing would happen.

If they used Derby's valuer, then we could forecast the sale of Pato for £50m, be well within ffp limits and could afford to buy Harry Kane!

Anyone else getting the impression that the ffp rules are not worth the paper on which they are written?

I think if enforced by UEFA (or us on here :laughcont: )instead of EFL, we would have seen harsher and swifter punishments- the fact they i.e. UEFA are pushing for a Man City ban from CL is belated but finally- they have been trying to reopen the PSG investigation too, post Football Leaks.

Same could go for EPL, but then the limit is set at such a level that combined with TV money and allowable write offs it is almost impossible to fail (STCC a different matter)- funny that! ?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 

Talk about  a moving target!

If you are allowed to include the forecast sale of a player(s) then in theory every club could put in the forecast sale of their most valuable player to offset losses that would otherwise take them over the ffp limit. Given the EFL's diligence if said player was not subsequently sold then nothing would happen.

If they used Derby's valuer, then we could forecast the sale of Pato for £50m, be well within ffp limits and could afford to buy Harry Kane!

Anyone else getting the impression that the ffp rules are not worth the paper on which they are written?

That was pretty much my point a few weeks ago. 

If Villa gave included a forecast sale of Grealish, then they should be bound by it imho. If they don’t sale (because they’ve gone up) then in effect there losses are bigger and they should be denied promotion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That was pretty much my point a few weeks ago. 

 If Villa gave included a forecast sale of Grealish, then they should be bound by it imho. If they don’t sale (because they’ve gone up) then in effect there losses are bigger and they should be denied promotion. 

If they actually have a hard and fast deal in place to sell though- that is possible, then that would be somewhat more legit? I very much doubt they do, but look how quickly the Kelly transfer happened- this can be possible. As in, he goes regardless.

Agree, denial of promotion the only way- unsure how it would work though- replay the playoffs but with places shifting around- ie Leeds 3rd, WBA 4th, Derby 5th and Middlesbrough 6th? Award the final to Derby by default- maybe Leeds as the highest team who didn't go up automatically, but seemingly actually did comply with FFP?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That was pretty much my point a few weeks ago. 

If Villa gave included a forecast sale of Grealish, then they should be bound by it imho. If they don’t sale (because they’ve gone up) then in effect there losses are bigger and they should be denied promotion. 

It's because of this that I cannot see how a forecast sale can be included in the accounts for ffp.

There seems to be an issue when a club has a financial year end falling in the summer, i.e. after the transfer window opens, as they can include a forecast sale, as Vila could well have done with Grealish.

However, at a stroke, this gives those clubs an advantage over every other club whose year end is end of March or end of the tax year, as those clubs don't have he summer window into which they can forecast a player sale in the same way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If they actually have a hard and fast deal in place to sell though- that is possible, then that would be somewhat more legit? I very much doubt they do, but look how quickly the Kelly transfer happened- this can be possible. As in, he goes regardless.

Agree, denial of promotion the only way- unsure how it would work though- replay the playoffs but with places shifting around- ie Leeds 3rd, WBA 4th, Derby 5th and Middlesbrough 6th? Award the final to Derby by default- maybe Leeds as the highest team who didn't go up automatically, but seemingly actually did comply with FFP?

We all thought that the new rules, with projected accounts, was going to allow points deduction during the same season and thereby  deny offenders promotion.

If forecast sales are allowed, then if a club has a financial year ending in the summer ( as I guess Villa's does) , and after the transfer window opens, then it hands them an advantage( for ffp purposes) over other clubs whose year ends are end of March or the end of the tax year, for example, as those other clubs cannot project sales as they have no window available before then do father financial year.

If they are going to allow forecast sales then it seems they need to standardise the financial year ends of every club, so that no one gains an advantage. The better solution is that they don't allow forecast sales, as if a club carried out proper management accounts and controls, they should be well aware if they are in danger of breaching ffp well before the third year. If so, and they need to sell players to avoid breaching then they have a summer and winter window available to make sales and that should be more than enough!

 As you suggested, perhaps the EFL needs to appoint OTIB as it's ffp consultants and we can draw up a new set of rules that are robust, fit for purpose and can do the job for which they are designed. We could also draw up a special set of punishments for clubs we don't like and who think they have a special sense of entitlement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

We all thought that the new rules, with projected accounts, was going to allow points deduction during the same season and thereby  deny offenders promotion.

If forecast sales are allowed, then if a club has a financial year ending in the summer ( as I guess Villa's does) , and after the transfer window opens, then it hands them an advantage( for ffp purposes) over other clubs whose year ends are end of March or the end of the tax year, for example, as those other clubs cannot project sales as they have no window available before then do father financial year.

 If they are going to allow forecast sales then it seems they need to standardise the financial year ends of every club, so that no one gains an advantage. The better solution is that they don't allow forecast sales, as if a club carried out proper management accounts and controls, they should be well aware if they are in danger of breaching ffp well before the third year. If so, and they need to sell players to avoid breaching then they have a summer and winter window available to make sales and that should be more than enough!

  As you suggested, perhaps the EFL needs to appoint OTIB as it's ffp consultants and we can draw up a new set of rules that are robust, fit for purpose and can do the job for which they are designed. We could also draw up a special set of punishments for clubs we don't like and who think they have a special sense of entitlement.

Agreed- but given this seems not to have happened, I don't know how it would work if say Aston Villa win the playoff final- it could in theory but who would go up in their place? Mnd you I saw Swindon mentioned on this thread in 1990- precedent??

I think most clubs financial years end at the end of May or June- and in a couple of cases, end of July- so all clubs have an opportunity to sell within time but some more than others- something needs to be standardised if possible on this- maybe accounts up to a certain cut off point- end of May? Can't say I know of any ending in March though.

Agree, forecasted sales being abolished would be best. Still the above paragraph may have some sort of scope for standardisation. 

Agreed- and especially for the entitlement brigade, love to see them taken down a peg! Think the rules are mainly alright though, it's the implementation of them that is the problem- what @Coppello wrote on Friday about his discussions with someone at the EFL was shocking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If they actually have a hard and fast deal in place to sell though- that is possible, then that would be somewhat more legit? I very much doubt they do, but look how quickly the Kelly transfer happened- this can be possible. As in, he goes regardless.

Agree, denial of promotion the only way- unsure how it would work though- replay the playoffs but with places shifting around- ie Leeds 3rd, WBA 4th, Derby 5th and Middlesbrough 6th? Award the final to Derby by default- maybe Leeds as the highest team who didn't go up automatically, but seemingly actually did comply with FFP?

Or relegate one less from PL

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think if enforced by UEFA (or us on here :laughcont: )instead of EFL, we would have seen harsher and swifter punishments- the fact they i.e. UEFA are pushing for a Man City ban from CL is belated but finally- they have been trying to reopen the PSG investigation too, post Football Leaks.

Same could go for EPL, but then the limit is set at such a level that combined with TV money and allowable write offs it is almost impossible to fail (STCC a different matter)- funny that! ?

One thing that you might find slightly interesting is that the UEFA have their FFP rules which are different to the Premier League (as you're aware). UEFA sets the rules and each nation has a licensing body, which is the Premier League in England. Any team that wishes to compete in a European competition has to submit a number of reports through the UEFA portal to show that they are in compliance with these rules. All clubs are encouraged to submit these documents to UEFA regardless of their league position but in reality it would only be beneficial for any clubs with a shot of getting into CL/EL in April. 

These documents are submitted through the portal but are actually detail reviewed and audited by the Premier League (or whoever the local licensing body is). If the test is passed, the club are then issued with the UEFA license. If there are any issues, such as Man City/PSG, UEFA will then step in.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Or relegate one less from PL

Ha but a reprieve for Colin. Or Bryan (not too bad granted).

Would provide a fair solution though and denial of promotion the ultimate realistic punishment.

8 minutes ago, Coppello said:

One thing that you might find slightly interesting is that the UEFA have their FFP rules which are different to the Premier League (as you're aware). UEFA sets the rules and each nation has a licensing body, which is the Premier League in England. Any team that wishes to compete in a European competition has to submit a number of reports through the UEFA portal to show that they are in compliance with these rules. All clubs are encouraged to submit these documents to UEFA regardless of their league position but in reality it would only be beneficial for any clubs with a shot of getting into CL/EL in April. 

These documents are submitted through the portal but are actually detail reviewed and audited by the Premier League (or whoever the local licensing body is). If the test is passed, the club are then issued with the UEFA license. If there are any issues, such as Man City/PSG, UEFA will then step in.  

One bit I don't quite get in UEFA FFP PL limit split.

PL loss limit the aforementioned £35m plus costs. UEFA loss limit is quite a bit lower IIRC.

Which one takes precedence for obtaining a European license- UEFA I assume.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ha but a reprieve for Colin. Or Bryan (not too bad granted).

Would provide a fair solution though and denial of promotion the ultimate realistic punishment.

One bit I don't quite get in UEFA FFP PL limit split.

PL loss limit the aforementioned £35m plus costs. UEFA loss limit is quite a bit lower IIRC.

Which one takes precedence for obtaining a European license- UEFA I assume.

Yeah it's the UEFA rules. They're two independent codes of conduct but its just that the UEFA one is mainly administered by the PL (who have no actual say in the rules themselves). 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Coppello said:

Yeah it's the UEFA rules. They're two independent codes of conduct but its just that the UEFA one is mainly administered by the PL (who have no actual say in the rules themselves). 

Thanks, had a feeling it was something like that.

Chelsea had they not made CL this year- given their reliance on player sales or profit on player transactions, utilisation of the academy to these ends etc, might have been an interesting one for failing FFP- Arsenal- Arsenal- of all sides- maybe too. Saw a graphic in January that suggested that they could be losing £90m or something (before allowances granted) this season as a projected figure.

Or not? Internet is a funny thing, all sorts on there!

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

9 hours ago, downendcity said:

It's because of this that I cannot see how a forecast sale can be included in the accounts for ffp.

There seems to be an issue when a club has a financial year end falling in the summer, i.e. after the transfer window opens, as they can include a forecast sale, as Vila could well have done with Grealish.

However, at a stroke, this gives those clubs an advantage over every other club whose year end is end of March or end of the tax year, as those clubs don't have he summer window into which they can forecast a player sale in the same way.

 

All EFL and Prem clubs have to have an accounting year of End of May, June or July.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

All EFL and Prem clubs have to have an accounting year of End of May, June or July.

But why leave it at that, is what I don't understand? What not set it as a basic requirement of registration to the league that you must file your accounts for each year prior to the end of the season - 31st April say.

It's such an obvious, blatant loophole and it appears so easy to close

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, bcfctim said:

But why leave it at that, is what I don't understand? What not set it as a basic requirement of registration to the league that you must file your accounts for each year prior to the end of the season - 31st April say.

It's such an obvious, blatant loophole and it appears so easy to close

To everyone but the EFL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcfctim said:

But why leave it at that, is what I don't understand? What not set it as a basic requirement of registration to the league that you must file your accounts for each year prior to the end of the season - 31st April say.

It's such an obvious, blatant loophole and it appears so easy to close

(Pedantic hat on)

Because April doesn't have 31 days.

 

(Pedantic hat off)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eastonboy said:

(Pedantic hat on)

Because April doesn't have 31 days.

 

(Pedantic hat off)

You've rumbled me. I in fact work for the EFL as a Fixture Logistics Manager. You can set that date aside in your diary for Middlesbrough away, folks.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal question.

Can these clubs be disciplined over this, and perhaps even sued by other clubs under the "good faith" clause in the EFL regs? Because I would argue that though no rule against, purchase of assets to circumvent FFP is a huge middle finger up to that!

I believe this could ride a cart and horse through the "utmost good faith" regulation. It reads as follows:

Quote

each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.”

It's a pipe dream but I believe those clubs who acted in good faith towards the League and the regs by selling those players to help comply, to do it legitimately- well it is a dream but they should be compensated to the amount of the difference between the player sales and the FFP deficit. Or perhaps extend their allowable FFP deficits by an equivalent margin a more realistic albeit unlikely thing.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Genuine question.

Can these clubs be disciplined over this, and perhaps even sued by other clubs under the "good faith" clause in the EFL regs? Because I would argue that though no rule against, purchase of assets to circumvent FFP is a huge middle finger up to that!

Clubs suing other clubs could be a recipe for disaster, as it could lead to clubs looking for legal ways to "bring down" rivals. You only have to look at the acrimony ( albeit relatively brief) created when SL was trying to garner support for Leeds to be docked points for spygate.

Would it be possible for clubs to sue the EFL under the same "good faith" clause and on the back of the EFL failing to apply their own rules regarding ffp? I would have thought this would be a far better corse of action and it would carry much more weight if a number of disaffected clubs were involved in such action. It is often suggested that the reason the EFL are not  enforcing ffp punishments against "big" clubs like Villa and Derby is for fear of being dragged into legal action by clubs like this if they did attempt to deny them promotion.

Legal action being brought by one club for the EFL doing their job is one thing. The threat of legal action by a number of clubs against the EFL for failing to do their job and carry out thrown rules would surely be of greater concern.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Clubs suing other clubs could be a recipe for disaster, as it could lead to clubs looking for legal ways to "bring down" rivals. You only have to look at the acrimony ( albeit relatively brief) created when SL was trying to garner support for Leeds to be docked points for spygate.

Would it be possible for clubs to sue the EFL under the same "good faith" clause and on the back of the EFL failing to apply their own rules regarding ffp? I would have thought this would be a far better corse of action and it would carry much more weight if a number of disaffected clubs were involved in such action. It is often suggested that the reason the EFL are not  enforcing ffp punishments against "big" clubs like Villa and Derby is for fear of being dragged into legal action by clubs like this if they did attempt to deny them promotion.

Legal action being brought by one club for the EFL doing their job is one thing. The threat of legal action by a number of clubs against the EFL for failing to do their job and carry out thrown rules would surely be of greater concern.

 

 

Like a class action, joint lawsuit?

I really think clubs complying should go for this, clubs who have made sacrifices- perhaps clubs suing each other not ideal you're right, but it would in some respects be richly deserved.

So far I believe you can put us, Middlesbrough, Leeds and Nottingham Forest into the possibles for any sort of legal action- there are probably a lot more who try to comply than don't as well. Birmingham got punished- embargo and points over a period, you can add them. They didn't try to sell their ground etc!

On that note...

Sounds like Aston Villa might be gearing up for similar- EFL should have closed this loophole as soon as Derby did it.

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

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Like a class action, joint lawsuit?

I really think clubs complying should go for this, clubs who have made sacrifices- perhaps clubs suing each other not ideal you're right, but it would in some respects be richly deserved.

So far I believe you can put us, Middlesbrough, Leeds and Nottingham Forest into the possibles for any sort of legal action- there are probably a lot more who try to comply than don't as well. Birmingham got punished- embargo and points over a period, you can add them. They didn't try to sell their ground etc!

On that note...

Sounds like Aston Villa might be gearing up for similar- EFL should have closed this loophole as soon as Derby did it.

doh.png.2c8e43702ed618e45fe080280058ad45.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, downendcity said:

doh.png.2c8e43702ed618e45fe080280058ad45.png

I don't like football to be settled in the courtroom rather than the boot room (closest room analogy I could think of), but I am genuinely thinking something legally needs to be done by clubs about this situation.

CAS, compensation, whatever- it's abysmal, where you have a handful of clubs wilfully flouting the regs and everyone else selling to comply or trying to comply.

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

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't like football to be settled in the courtroom rather than the boot room (closest room analogy I could think of), but I am genuinely thinking something legally needs to be done by clubs about this situation.

CAS, compensation, whatever- it's abysmal, where you have a handful of clubs wilfully flouting the regs and everyone else selling to comply or trying to comply.

What is most abysmal is that the EFL, after introducing new rules and penalties with a fanfare, now seem to be impotent when it comes to applying them. It's this impotence that is allowing some clubs to flout the rules with apparent impunity, while the clubs that are complying are being made to look like naive fools.

I do think it needs those "naive fools" to do something about it, otherwise I can see ffp continuing in the same vein, other than more and more clubs will take a lead from  the likes of Derby and Villa on the basis if it's good enough for them then it's good enough for us.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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