The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[downendcity]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If EFL were to say "We question this valuation and profit owing to it being a related party" pointing to the regulations in question- which Derby signed up to along with all clubs as a condition of membership.

If the EFL wished to appoint a truly independent valuer, with their rules- what's to stop them? If second independent valuer backs it up quite well, then it's unbelievable but you have to accept it.

Based on their actions ( more accurately inaction) so far, The EFL would probably contact Derby and ask which valuer they would recommend for the "independent" valuation!

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Based on their actions ( more accurately inaction) so far, The EFL would probably contact Derby and ask which valuer they would recommend for the "independent" valuation!

Funny, but depressingly likely!

I read one horrible prediction that Villa Park sold for £200m if they go down this road- loophole must be shut now- actually should've been already.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more idea.

Clubs- not individual owners but clubs- sign adherence to FFP or willingness to do their utmost, all reasonable efforts in conjunction with golden share.

They flout this and do so wilfully, then their Football League Golden Share is a matter of debate- or accept without legal recourse whatever alternative punishment EFL deems fit. That in this instance would include demotion from the playoffs for Derby and Aston Villa- that would be if their other regulation of projected accounts was enforced correctly.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If EFL were to say "We question this valuation and profit owing to it being a related party" pointing to the regulations in question- which Derby signed up to along with all clubs as a condition of membership.

If the EFL wished to appoint a truly independent valuer, with their rules- what's to stop them? If second independent valuer backs it up quite well, then it's unbelievable but you have to accept it.

I just don't think you'll get a wildly different valuation to be honest. A chartered valuer would probably follow his peer as there would be a good case for it. Football is a different beast; Lloyd Kelly, just sold for a quarter of the purported stadiums value. The money swashing around is horrific. Why wouldn't football real estate sky rocket? Birds of a feather and all that. 

You're right they could, but it would get them no-where in my view... Which kind of comes round to a class action. For BCFC, if I was on the board I'd be saying f that. 

The reason for this is it's one thing to win a claim, but if you want compensation you need to prove loss. We finished 8th, we will struggle there. Middlesboro on a better footing, at worst they lost the play off revenue. If we argue we sold players to comply, well how did we suffer harm seeing as we then went on to finish better. Again where is the loss? 

Maybe better the devil you know where you have a few rogue clubs going for bust than open pandora's box. 

[Drew Peacock]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think there must be some sort of law about abuse of a dominant position in a trade association, however yes FA ceding power to PL absolutely started this ball rolling- agree on that. On the dominant position thing, if they have it- there is an onus on them not to abuse it and I am sure it can be tested in the courts, be they here or elsewhere.

 

They need an Office of Fair Trading investigation.  Not much fun.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, 29AR said:

I just don't think you'll get a wildly different valuation to be honest. A chartered valuer would probably follow his peer as there would be a good case for it. Football is a different beast; Lloyd Kelly, just sold for a quarter of the purported stadiums value. The money swashing around is horrific. Why wouldn't football real estate sky rocket? Birds of a feather and all that. 

You're right they could, but it would get them no-where in my view... Which kind of comes round to a class action. For BCFC, if I was on the board I'd be saying f that. 

The reason for this is it's one thing to win a claim, but if you want compensation you need to prove loss. We finished 8th, we will struggle there. Middlesboro on a better footing, at worst they lost the play off revenue. If we argue we sold players to comply, well how did we suffer harm seeing as we then went on to finish better. Again where is the loss? 

Maybe better the devil you know where you have a few rogue clubs going for bust than open pandora's box. 

UEFA's own rules give provision for this and cover it quite well.

The loss of the players, it results in a very uneven playing field- no rogue clubs. If you wish to be a rogue club, then your FL membership is put to a vote of the 72 clubs IMO. The golden share is put on the table.

Proving of loss is a problem granted, but my formula might be compensation to the value of each player sold as it turns out for unnecessary reasons- e.g. £10m for Reid. Or maybe analyse the total profit on transfers n that period from the amount that shortfall in FFP that would have happened otherwise and set a formula based on this.

UEFA regs actually cover for these sorts of transactions.

This is/was a very easy case to prove that it was a related party- It isn't even a family member but the owner himself via a different company!

Quote

 

What is a related party?

In order to be classified as a related party for UEFA FFP Regime purposes, one must fit within the definition provided by UEFA, which is fairly broad in scope. In short, a related party is a person or entity that is related to the entity that is preparing its financial statements (the “Reporting Entity”). In considering each possible related party relationship, UEFA notes that attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form.24

As noted in Annex X of UEFA’s FFP Regime, a person or a close member of that person’s family25 is automatically related to a Reporting Entity if that person:

1. has control or joint control over the Reporting Entity;

2. has significant influence over the Reporting Entity (i.e. ability to influence, but not control, financial and operating policy decision-making); or

3. is a member of the key management personnel of the Reporting Entity or of a parent of the Reporting Entity,

(together, the “Automatically Related Persons”).

An entity is related to a Reporting Entity if any of the following conditions apply:

1. the entity and the Reporting Entity are members of the same group (which means that each parent, subsidiary and fellow subsidiary is related to the others);

2. the entity and the Reporting Entity are controlled, jointly controlled, or significantly influenced by the same government;

3. one entity has significant influence over the other entity;

4. one entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity (or an associate or joint venture of a member of a group of which the other entity is a member);

5. both entities are joint ventures of the same third party;

6. one entity is a joint venture of a third party and the other entity is an associate of the third entity;

7. the entity is controlled or jointly controlled by an Automatically Related Person;

8. a person who has control or joint control over the Reporting Entity has significant influence over the entity or is a member of the key management personnel of the entity; and

9. the entity, or any member of a group of which it is a part, provides key management personnel services to the Reporting Entity.

Under the updated UEFA FFP Regime, any entity that, alone or in aggregate, represents more than 30% of the club's total revenue in an assessment period is automatically considered a related party by virtue of having “significant influence”.26

Given the broad definition and potentially wide interpretation of the term “related party”, clubs face the prospect of sponsorship (or other commercial) agreements, which they consider to be part of their revenue for the purpose of assessing FFP compliance, being scrutinised under the “fair value” provisions of UEFA’s FFP Regime. UEFA, for instance, might decide to assess the sponsorship arrangements between PSG and Ooredoo, a Qatari telecommunications company, and PSG and QNB, Qatar’s National Bank, given the potential for related party transactions (since PSG and these sponsors are connected to Qatar – though the extent to which these entities are state-owned or influenced is not entirely clear).

Nevertheless, UEFA will interrogate and assess / value commercial deals only to the extent they are conducted with a related party. Accordingly, genuinely arms-length transactions will continue to escape the scrutiny of the regulator and will undoubtedly help clubs to maintain compliance with FFP, notwithstanding increasing transfer spending.

The Premier League and EFL also provide for related party transactions in their regulations. However, they take a different approach to that provided for by UEFA by defining a related party transaction as a “transaction disclosed in a Club’s Annual Accounts as a related party transaction or which would have been disclosed as such except for an exemption27 under the accounting standards under which the Annual Accounts were prepared”.28

 

Fair Value

In addition, the question remains as to what methods UEFA will use in attributing a “fair value” or, in the case of the Premier League and EFL, “fair market value” to commercial arrangements. UEFA, for instance, notes that fair value “is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction”.29 The EFL and Premier League provide for similar definitions of “Fair Market Value”.30 Ultimately, with the 2014-PSG sanction (which shall be discussed in more detail in due course) clouded in secrecy, one can only assume that the UEFA, EFL and PL assessors will use some sort of benchmarking exercise (to understand the value of deals struck by clubs of a similar size / stature) or professional valuing techniques if they consider that a related party transaction might have been conducted or valued improperly. Nevertheless, it is likely that clubs will seek to justify commercial arrangements on the basis that they do represent fair market value and will likely to point to the increases in value of sponsorship, and other commercial, agreements globally.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

 They need an Office of Fair Trading investigation.  Not much fun.

Yeah, maybe not then- it's one of those things that is justifiable but throws up a lot of real world issues in that instance.

Not sure what they can do aside from barring related party transactions- or certainly barring any such profit on transactions to count towards FFP, as indeed the rules arguably already stipulate. Or, one alternative route- allow all clubs to do it once then close off that and similar loopholes for good. Think the latter could do more harm than good though.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah, maybe not then- it's one of those things that is justifiable but throws up a lot of real world issues in that instance.

Not sure what they can do aside from barring related party transactions- or certainly barring any such profit on transactions to count towards FFP, as indeed the rules arguably already stipulate. Or, one alternative route- allow all clubs to do it once then close off that and similar loopholes for good. Think the latter could do more harm than good though.

Stadia, Academies and ( I think) training grounds  are the only assets  where an owner can invest outside of ffp . Accordingly it would seem completely logical and practical to have simple rules governing how these assets can subsequently be used.

Where an academy or training ground or a stadium is sold on the open market then the net proceeds of such a sale should  be allowed as income for ffp purposes. This would allow for a situation where a club is building a new stadium/academy/training ground  and is selling the old ground. This would have applied had Ashton Vale been given the go ahead and we had sold AG.   If there is a surplus after the new ground or academy is built that would be allowed as income. If the new stadium costs more than the sale price of the old ground then the additional investment would not count as a cost for ffp. 

This type of transaction is, as far as can be determined, transparent and subject to normal open market forces in terms of full value being paid.

Where there is a financial transaction involving an academy, training ground or stadium, but it is a paper transaction, then the proceeds of such a transaction will not be allowed to be counted as income for ffp purposes. The Derby situation shows that this type of transaction is almost certainly going to involve related companies, so cannot be regarded as arms length or open market transactions.

It would not prevent a club re-financing it's ground if needing to raise finance quickly for business cash flow e.g. the situation Villa found themselves in last summer, but it would prevent the abuse of ffp that seems to be blatantly the case with Derby ( and possibly with Villa and Wednesday as well!)

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Stadia, Academies and ( I think) training grounds  are the only assets  where an owner can invest outside of ffp . Accordingly it would seem completely logical and practical to have simple rules governing how these assets can subsequently be used.

Where an academy or training ground or a stadium is sold on the open market then the net proceeds of such a sale should  be allowed as income for ffp purposes. This would allow for a situation where a club is building a new stadium/academy/training ground  and is selling the old ground. This would have applied had Ashton Vale been given the go ahead and we had sold AG.   If there is a surplus after the new ground or academy is built that would be allowed as income. If the new stadium costs more than the sale price of the old ground then the additional investment would not count as a cost for ffp. 

This type of transaction is, as far as can be determined, transparent and subject to normal open market forces in terms of full value being paid.

Where there is a financial transaction involving an academy, training ground or stadium, but it is a paper transaction, then the proceeds of such a transaction will not be allowed to be counted as income for ffp purposes. The Derby situation shows that this type of transaction is almost certainly going to involve related companies, so cannot be regarded as arms length or open market transactions.

It would not prevent a club re-financing it's ground if needing to raise finance quickly for business cash flow e.g. the situation Villa found themselves in last summer, but it would prevent the abuse of ffp that seems to be blatantly the case with Derby ( and possibly with Villa and Wednesday as well!)

 

 

Infrastructure- so that covers stadia, training grounds etc, Academies, women's football and community expenditure all exempt under FFP yeah.

Agreed on that- in fact it's so simple it's watertight. Open market sales- fine, acceptable. Open market and arms length transactions. No issue. If Derby had sold their ground to I don't, know a property firm in Dubai and then leased it back and this was a totally unrelated party, I can't see any cause for complaint. Similarly as you say, sale of the ground in order to help build a new one. 

Agreed- paper transactions, with related parties/companies- no income for FFP purposes. I assumed (naively?) that the rules already covered this.

I hope SL and similarly affected clubs are planning a fightback on this- there will be a lot of aggrieved parties here, people that will be less than amused at the EFL allowing this...including 'medium to big 'clubs too, e.g. Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest- not that size should matter in this case.

Agreed.

Would apply something similar top parachute payments too- allocated to pay wages of unshiftable players, but said players not being eligible to play, something like that.

[CyderInACan]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I hope SL and similarly affected clubs are planning a fightback on this- there will be a lot of aggrieved parties here, people that will be less than amused at the EFL allowing this...including 'medium to big 'clubs too, e.g. Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest- not that size should matter in this case

There does need to be a concerted effort to bring the cheats to book. I'm sure the owners who run their clubs in line with, or close to, the rules (or the spirit of the rules) must be exasperated at the financial chicanery employed by the few who think they are above the law.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

There does need to be a concerted effort to bring the cheats to book. I'm sure the owners who run their clubs in line with, or close to, the rules (or the spirit of the rules) must be exasperated at the financial chicanery employed by the few who think they are above the law.  

Ideal scenario.

Aston Villa have the book thrown- plus further punishment for trying to evade the rules and spirit of the rules- aggravated breach then- if indeed they have tried the ground sale thing. Disallow profit from ground sale.

Sheffield Wednesday have their punishment and of course if they tried to do this to get round, further punishment for aggravated breach.

Derby have their profit on the transaction disallowed and a points penalty applied- plus some kind of embargo- it should follow them into the PL.

If I was SL, Gibson, Marinakis, Leeds owner and the rest of the less high profile but nonetheless affected, I'd be fuming at this and really pushing hard for severe punishments for the clubs who have flouted.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ideal scenario.

Aston Villa have the book thrown- plus further punishment for trying to evade the rules and spirit of the rules- aggravated breach then- if indeed they have tried the ground sale thing. Disallow profit from ground sale.

Sheffield Wednesday have their punishment and of course if they tried to do this to get round, further punishment for aggravated breach.

Derby have their profit on the transaction disallowed and a points penalty applied- plus some kind of embargo- it should follow them into the PL.

If I was SL, Gibson, Marinakis, Leeds owner and the rest of the less high profile but nonetheless affected, I'd be fuming at this and really pushing hard for severe punishments for the clubs who have flouted.

Agreed, but as far as we can tell Steve Gibson was a lone voice when he raised objections about Derby. 

Steve L was quick to have a go about the trivial 'spygate ' nonsense but we have heard nothing about his view of a club circumventing FFP when he plays by the rules. Which leads me to assume he is not bothered.

Shaun Harvey, who has a somewhat chequered past, was forced out as EFL CEO of course. Perhaps somebody at Ashton Gate has their eye on that job in due course. Though I can't think who.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Agreed, but as far as we can tell Steve Gibson was a lone voice when he raised objections about Derby. 

Steve L was quick to have a go about the trivial 'spygate ' nonsense but we have heard nothing about his view of a club circumventing FFP when he plays by the rules. Which leads me to assume he is not bothered.

Shaun Harvey, who has a somewhat chequered past, was forced out as EFL CEO of course. Perhaps somebody at Ashton Gate has their eye on that job in due course. Though I can't think who.

We're lead to believe that he is- he must be, Mark Ashton was talking about it a while ago.

Nothing public on his part but certainly he was more public on Spygate. He must be bothered though- why would he be happy about sides gaining a seriously unwarranted competitive advantage over us? If we had kept Reid, we make the playoffs- and if we had dome some related party sponsorships maybe we would have kept Reid...that alone should have him angry- he and the bulk of the owners should be all over this.

Shaun Harvey- linked with the FA despite his track record over his career. Couldn't make it up- yet in a way not too surprising. People go on about UEFA and FIFA being dreadful, but the FA and EFL are pretty useless at best themselves. I think that one from AG- though likewise no clue who- would look to have this enforced a lot quicker and more rigorously...

https://offthepitch.com/a/bristol-city-owner-wants-tougher-sanctions-deter-clubs-overspending

Quote

 

Bristol City owner wants tougher sanctions to deter clubs from overspending

 26 March 2019 10:26 AM

Photo: Getty Images  Stephen Lansdown, owner of Bristol City, calls for tougher sanctions for breaking profitability and sustainability rule.

 

In wake of Birmingham points deduction, Lansdown calls for tougher sanctions for breaking profitability and sustainability rules.

Bristol City want Premier League to intervene if a club wins promotion while breaking FFP rules.

Group of clubs, including Bristol City, fear creation of uneven financial playing field in the Championship.

CHRISTIAN FOMSGAARD JENSEN cfj@offthepitch.com

 

Bristol City majority shareholder Steve Lansdown is not happy with the way several Championship clubs are run financially, the Bristol Post writes. 

Birmingham City recently had nine points deducted by the EFL after breaking the profitability and sustainability rules, exceeding the allowable losses of £39 million over a three-year period by nearly £10 million. 

According to reports, the EFL is also closely examining Aston Villa, Derby County and Sheffield Wednesday over potential overspending. 

The group also includes Middlesbrough owner Steve Gibson and a representative of Nottingham Forest

But the punishments are not tough enough to discourage clubs from overspending in their pursuit of Premier-League football and higher income, Lansdown reportedly believes.

He is an influential member of a small group of Championship owners who are demanding more stringent punishments for clubs who fail to stick to the rules of Financial Fair Play, according to the Bristol Post. 

Besides Lansdown, the group also includes Middlesbrough owner Steve Gibson and a representative of Nottingham Forest. 

No harm done if you win promotion 

The group fear an uneven playing field is being created between clubs who are run carefully, and those who are willing to take the financial risk and overspend to secure promotion to the Premier League, in the belief that this will help cushion any potential long-term damage. 

Lansdown and Gibson therefore want the Premier League to intervene if a club wins promotion by breaking the rules. 
In their 2018 campaign, Wolves won promotion but lost more than £1 million a week following the examples of Bournemouth who got fined nearly £5 million for their losses in 2014/15 and Leicester City who got fined £3.1 million in 2014. Now established Premier-League sides, these amounts are insignificant for the clubs. 

Bristol City themselves reported a loss of £25.3 million in 2018, up from just £6.6 million in 2017. This is mainly because of the lack of player sales and an increased wage bill. 

The Robins are currently placed 9th in the Championship - just two points from the play-off spots with two games in hand.

 

The one erroneous aspect in there is Wolves.

Bournemouth and Leicester breached- Wolves as the rules were constituted were in line, but only just! The Wolves losses were under the new rules so just about legit, the Bournemouth and Leicester losses under the old rules so very much not!

Edited May 23, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Steve L was quick to have a go about the trivial 'spygate ' nonsense but we have heard nothing about his view of a club circumventing FFP when he plays by the rules. Which leads me to assume he is not bothered.

That or he is in the process of selling Ashton Gate to Maggie's Property Co Ltd for £300m!

[CyderInACan]

Shit just got real

https://twitter.com/telefootball/status/1131992444793511936?s=21

[CyderInACan]

 

Exclusive: Middlesbrough to sue Derby over alleged breaches of financial rules

share 

Middlesbrough and Derby in action earlier this season

•  John Percy 

24 MAY 2019 • 7:36 PM

Middlesbrough have stunned Derby by announcing their intention to sue the Championship club, days before the play-off final at Wembley.

Steve Gibson, the Middlesbrough owner, has taken drastic action in his dispute with Mel Morris by vowing to take legal action over what he insists are clear breaches of financial rules.

 

Gibson is alleging that Morris has broken the English Football League’s profitability and sustainability rules and Middlesbrough officials contacted Derby on Friday to inform them of their stance.

Boro are understood to be furious that Derby reported a £14.6m profit in their 2017/18 accounts, after Morris sold the club’s Pride Park stadium and then leased it back. Gibson believes that Morris has flouted the rules.

Derby are adamant they have been fully compliant, and the timing of Middlesbrough’s shock move has surprised the club ahead of their play-off final against Aston Villa on Monday.

 

 

Morris also twice invited Middlesbrough officials to look at Derby’s accounts in a meeting of all EFL clubs at Nottingham Forest’s City Ground in March.

He said: "Middlesbrough were offered by us in writing to come with their advisors to go through our submissions for profitability and sustainability, [but] they declined."

Gibson’s attempt to force an independent inquiry of club finances was also rejected by all of the Championship clubs in another meeting last month.

Villa and Sheffield Wednesday have also been in Gibson’s sights but his row with Derby is now threatening to turn ugly.

Derby were unavailable for comment.

 

[Drew Peacock]

Sweet.

Come on Gibson/Lansdown, go for Villa too!

[ZiderEyed]

Get the **** in. Go on Steve, you know you want a bit of that

[Davefevs]

I think this is a very clever move from Gibson.  Start a legal action before Villa and Wednesday (and anyone else) try the same.  Wonder how this will play out with the EFL.

Suspect SL is right behind him.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Brilliant news!!

The two Steves fingers crossed but certainly well done Gibson...righting wrongs of FFP or beginning this!!

Would also add, Nottingham Forest were not too happy about it, Nicholas Randall. I doubt Marinakis a shipping magnate who has stressed his obedience to FFP would have been too amused at Derby, Aston Villa and to an extent Sheffield Wednesday- Hillsborough status still uncertain!

Class action anyone? Lots more clubs have abided- or made significant effort to comply- than not...!

Edited May 24, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/24/aston-villa-restored-pride-hope-sense-identity/

What a lot of shit this article is- nauseating, biased crap...bet it doesn't mention their wild overspending despite Parachute Payments!

Now admittedly it is behind Premium so can only see some but...

Edited May 24, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/24/aston-villa-restored-pride-hope-sense-identity/

What a lot of shit this article is- nauseating, biased crap...bet it doesn't mention their wild overspending despite Parachute Payments!

Now admittedly it is behind Premium so can only see some but...

I saw this on Twitter, refused to open it....almost puked at the thought.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I saw this on Twitter, refused to open it....almost puked at the thought.

Happily, not being a Telegraph subscriber means I miss out on the full nauseating detail! Sure Dean Smith local lad, that connection there- but overall nauseating I am sure!

[Lanterne Rouge]

Anybody able to post on the Boro forum to let them know we`re 100% behind Steve Gibson on this?

Us fans need to start kicking off too IMO.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think this is a very clever move from Gibson.  Start a legal action before Villa and Wednesday (and anyone else) try the same.  Wonder how this will play out with the EFL.

Suspect SL is right behind him.

I suspect he is and is contributing towards legal fees - it’s really not uncommon for people to group together to pay the lawyers but one goes ahead. I hope we don’t join as an ‘injured party’, for reasons I’ve explained. I’m not disputing we might ‘win’ rather I reckon we’d be awarded nominal damages. Middlesboro though have measurable damages if Derby have breached. 

I’m really surprised he’s going at Derby. Even more surprised it’s not with EFl as joint defendants. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, 29AR said:

I suspect he is and is contributing towards legal fees - it’s really not uncommon for people to group together to pay the lawyers but one goes ahead. I hope we don’t join as an ‘injured party’, for reasons I’ve explained. I’m not disputing we might ‘win’ rather I reckon we’d be awarded nominal damages. Middlesboro though have measurable damages if Derby have breached. 

I’m really surprised he’s going at Derby. Even more surprised it’s not with EFl as joint defendants. 

Are you just talking playoffs, as that'd make sense.

I would add all of the clubs who sold key assets to help to comply, or restricted spending to stay in line- whichever way we look at it, that is an unfair advantage for 3 or 4 clubs who are unable to abide by the regulations that the League are Governed by.

Fingers cross the fight back begins here...and that this is just the start.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could it I wonder lead to a chance the playoffs getting replayed- or is that too late in the day?

Or Derby, indeed Aston Villa stripped of promotion and a playoff final between Leeds-WBA as a) The losing semi finalists b) The fact they complied c) The next 2 highest ranked compliant sides?

Edited May 24, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Are you just talking playoffs, as that'd make sense.

I would add all of the clubs who sold key assets to help to comply. Fingers cross the fight back begins here...

Yeah talking play offs. 

I don’t see how we’d prove we’d suffered a loss selling key assets, but that just may be my failing and someone better could make the argument.

The reason I think we’d struggle to prove loss is simply victim of our own success. Yes we sold those players, but we improved our standing and achieved a transfer surplus. We can’t say we did in a fire sell, we sold them all for very handsome fees and replaced them cheaper. We can’t quite say we sold Reid for FFP, he was in last year of contract, if we had an agreement with Flint to let him go as mooted, again not FFP. If Bryan expressed a wish to leave, again not FFP. 

If we were 7th, definitely. If it was a case against Villa and Derby and EFL, definitely, as is, we’d be better off paying into Gibson’s fighting fund I think. 

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could it I wonder lead to a chance the playoffs get replayed- or is that too late in the day?

Or Derby, indeed Aston Villa stripped of promotion and a playoff final between Leeds-WBA as a) The losing semi finalists b) The fact they complied c) The next 2 highest ranked compliant sides?

Smacks of West Ham v Sheff Utd a bit. I think cash settlement. I don’t know CAS powers but a traditional court, cant see how they could award that 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Guest

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Yeah talking play offs. 

I don’t see how we’d prove we’d suffered a loss selling key assets, but that just may be my failing and someone better could make the argument.

The reason I think we’d struggle to prove loss is simply victim of our own success. Yes we sold those players, but we improved our standing and achieved a transfer surplus. We can’t say we did in a fire sell, we sold them all for very handsome fees and replaced them cheaper. We can’t quite say we sold Reid for FFP, he was in last year of contract, if we had an agreement with Flint to let him go as mooted, again not FFP. If Bryan expressed a wish to leave, again not FFP. 

If we were 7th, definitely. If it was a case against Villa and Derby and EFL, definitely, as is, we’d be better off paying into Gibson’s fighting fund I think. 

Smacks of West Ham v Sheff Utd a bit. I think cash settlement. 

Not just us though- there are many clubs who have sold or restrained spending to try to stay in-line with it all.

That is why I think as many clubs as possible is a good way forward- it is gaining an advantage through manifestly unfair, means. A points deduction would have settled the issue for Derby and Aston Villa. Out the playoffs? Their hard luck, for not adhering to the regs correctly.

Technically I think the EFL have the power to stop promotion. Any punishment they see fit, nothing is off the table- as per their own rules. Whether it is at all realistic is a different matter.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

51 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Shit just got real

https://twitter.com/telefootball/status/1131992444793511936?s=21

Steve Gibson has more balls than the EFL for being prepared to put his head above the parapet. 

I fear that Derby's will be able to defend their position on the basis tha they have not "broken" EFL rules in the strictest legal sense. 

However, as it is a civil action brought by one club against another it will be interesting to see if they for Derby under the "fair dealing with other clubs" (not sure of exact wording) part of the rules. 

If it achieves nothing else it will cause the EFL maximum embarrassment and might cause many to question why a club Is taking action for something the EFL should be addressing. 

The stream of twitter comments from fans only further reinforces the feeling that too many fans still don't get it. They see it as sour grapes and fail to appreciate the serious issues involved. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by downendcity