Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm not openly stating that I believe they are bent or similar- simply that if the EFL reported them to their bodies, they should welcome an investigation as they clearly have done nothing wrong. Just a bit of a believer in the saying "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"- in the same way Man City claimed they welcome the investigation by UEFA then perhaps those should welcome a report to their professional bodies? I think it would be good for transparency anyway- who doesn't like transparency after all. That paragraph perhaps reads a bit flippant though- but there are sufficient questions I think for some sort of report but particularly if there are substantive valuation differences for example.

If the EFL's valuation matches the club? Then we have to go with it. It sticks in the craw but we would have to accept it for what it is. A thorough investigation by top of the range accountants, auditors, corporate lawyers and land valuers should take place though and I dare say most Championship owners would agree. I dare say most owners are very rich at this level so would gladly fund it too if they pooled resources- they certainly easily could. The same would go for Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday too incidentally if they have attempted this.

Don't know- wouldn't be prudent for them to put that sort of thing on a public forum, PL in London IIRC? Though again can't remember entirely, definitely a London club- wouldn't presume to speak for them beyond that. On valuation- and I know this aspect isn't so relevant in building valuations, land let alone stadia- you mentioned house price inflation in Derby. House prices rising- well as it goes, Leicester- which is a good comparison- has higher house prices but a lower stadium valuation. Interesting, but perhaps not so relevant. FWIW, Zoopla- Average Property Price Derby- £210,436...Leicester £232,777. Now I know property valuation has little relation to that of stadia, but Walkers Stadium valued in the accounts at around £38m yet Pride Park goes for more than double!? Bit funny no- it isn't London, Monaco or New York- with respect. Hell it isn't even Bristol (£331,554)- yet AG a fair bit less as pointed out by @Coppello . 

Well that is interesting in itself- see when Villa Park was revalued in 2016, the amount lopped off it was put into the accounts and was down as the cost of impairment. Maybe it isn't obligatory with compulsory revaluations that take place over a given time period, but it is with ones by choice.

Only Steve Gibson knows Steve Gibson's motivations. Playing the long game maybe, who knows. Or maybe Morris offered it in a mocking way- only Gibson will know his reasons but I dare say he believes in them.

A fair bit doesn't stack up with it- not pointing the finger at Derby here (for once!), but I was under the impression that as well as Gibson, my club were pretty angry over the FFP issues, so too were Nottingham Forest and it goes without saying Leeds. Are they too playing a long game- maybe canvassing support and planning an ambush in the form of a vote at this summer's EFL conference?  That would be great!  :pray:

I'll read these articles again now- thanks. Well so they did- EFL should have got in independent auditors and lawyers appointed by them before approving- look at Man City now facing a possible CL ban, to think old cases cannot be reopened is patently a view that is held on shaky ground.

Haha suspicious minded? On some things perhaps...on this- yeah. I believe that there are clubs who have been very close to the rules- and actually FWIW I have always had Derby down as being just about in compliance before any such transaction- I have claimed it on this thread pretty often in recent months. Yeah though, I believe clubs may well have flouted the regs or seriously tested the spirit of them, while we and lots more have sold players and abided and it ain't right. It is still possible with a big youth expenditure in 2015-16, that the 3 years to 2017/18 might have had you in compliance, albeit narrowly incidentally! I think it is tight either way, but my main bugbear is that I think given you sold 7 players in that period- 4 or 5 first team and the remainder squad, that if you had breached then the EFL should have applied more mitigation i.e. removed a few from any potential points penalty if guilty due to said sales. Whereas Aston Villa I'd say should have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday no real mitigations either but a smaller breach so less punishment. Birmingham got punished and should be watching this with interest.

Agreed- I from time to time will look up other forums, interesting to see perspective- Aston Villa the most odious of them all IMO at this level.

Yeah fair enough- looks inflated though, £81.1m which while not doubled and doubled again. 50%,, double maybe- something like that.

Yeah, input is good- that is the point of forums after all.

They certainly can vary club by club and it is definitely an interesting subject- why else would I make this thread after all! ? Think it's interesting in itself and also interesting from a competitive advantage/disadvantage tbh.

Wouldn't say I'm so worked up as such. Passionate about it yes, and if honest quite angry at the EFL- they're a disgrace. Echo chambers are no good though, the input has helped stimulate the thread- different perspective always positive I find.

I can't speak for them, it just surprised me due to situations I've seen or heard about in the past.

I believe that at that meeting it was said the owners heard the briefing by the EFL's own finance people and were so impressed by it, that they trusted them to get things right. I'll try and find a link, it may have been live on Sky Sports News that this was said, not sure, hopefully there will be an article to back this up somewhere too.

That's fine I didn't expect them to say where it was that they worked, but sometimes when people have been together on a forum for a while, things become common knowledge between longstanding members that others don't know so I wasn't sure if others were maybe aware.

It may not have been relevant, I wasn't sure, I saw on Zoopla (maybe Rightmove? one of them...) that Derby has had a 12% increase in property values since 2016, that seemed quite high I thought.

I don't know about Leicester's valuation, that actually seems low to me, when you think about how expensive stadia are to build these days - look at Spurs ?, but I'm only a layperson.

I don't know if they're a good comparison, but on the other Derby venues I mentioned before, the Arena (velodrome) next to the stadium apparently cost the Council £27-28m to build - opened 2015 (I feel pretty sure the land was already council owned, it was built on an existing car park, so I guess the cost may not include the acquisition of the land?) granted theres a huge amount of wood for the track and all the work that making the actual track involved, but the building itself is pretty simple, nice but basic, only 1500 fixed seats. The Assembly Rooms that had the fire in the plant room (which was on top of the car park, not the main building, so very little damage to the main part) will apparently cost the Council £24m to fully refurbish, the cost to replace it would apparently have been £44m for a 3000 seater music and performance venue with car park. It's even costing the Council another £42m to replace an old swimming pool complex. Like I say, I don't know whether those values are at all relevant, but given the relative sizes and complexity of the buildings involved they could be? As an aside, I have no idea - do construction costs vary much depending on location? Or are most of the differences in costs due to location down to the land value, or the actual location itself being desirable?

Maybe, but Mel Morris doesn't seem to do that, he's very straight talking from what little I've seen and heard (televised fan forums, radio interviews) (the quotes mentioned before I think show this) he's very compelling to listen to, if you watch the clips of him you mentioned previously, I think you'll see. From those quotes he does seem unhappy that even after offering it and seemingly being ignored, it appears Gibson is still going for us, especially with the things that he points out Middlesbrough having done themselves previously, with their representative saying the same thing he is now ie. it was within the rules.

Presumably Forest would be angry because 1. It's us ? and 2. I don't think they can do the same as I think their ground is Council owned. Leeds, who knows, although I did notice they were mentioned by the Times as being close to FFP or something in the article you quoted in your other thread, I believe they bought their ground back quite recently too? Maybe they don't have any book value to market value headroom because of this?

Man City are under both PL and UEFA FFP rules - it is the UEFA ones they are supposed to have broken isn't it? We (clubs in the EFL) are under EFL FFP rules, they are not one and the same thing, so surely the situations cannot be compared?

That's the thing, as this point none of us know what the EFL did (or didn't) do with regard to it, which is why I asked what if their valuation was the same earlier, we simply don't know, we (as in the fans of the clubs rather than the clubs themselves) may never know, actually even the clubs themselves may never know, apart from a reassurance from the EFL - I'm not sure exactly what is covered under the confidentiality agreement. They haven't gone against the clubs claim that they okayed it though, so I assume that is accepted by the EFL, and presumably the club have the proof of this. That's why I don't understand how the club can be investigated even at the request of other clubs, that would effectively be the EFL investigating themselves, wave something through as ok and then say oh no sorry it actually wasn't.

This is not the same situation as Birmingham, they must have known they had flouted the rules, they spent a huge amount on very little income (isn't their wage bill alone something over 200% of their income? Ours isn't great but I don't think I've ever known it to be that bad!) but they made absolutely no attempt to do anything about it, and then bought another player when they were under an embargo. I seem to remember the EFL wanted a 12 point deduction, wasn't it 9 for the amount over and above what they were allowed to lose and then the extra 3 for the aggravated breach? I saw their fans arguing that because they ended up registering the player rather than forcing them to get rid, either temporarily, or permanently, that they shouldn't get punished for that bit. Is this the argument the club used? Is this why the deduction was the 9 points and not 12 in the end?

I do see that last part at least as somewhat similar to our situation, if the EFL okayed the sale of the stadium ie. a tangible fixed asset - as we're told they did - and they haven't denied it (not sure whether they knew the valuation or not at this point, however, logically, surely they would have known it was going to be more than the book value, as otherwise why would we have wanted to do it? - the club will know exactly how much the EFL knew at the time though) then we can't be punished for the sale under the good faith rule:

Quote

4.4          Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement).  Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

I notice that the rule specifically states that only The League shall have the right to bring any action. I assume then that should any legal action that Gibson may bring about mention 'good faith' (I don't know if you can actually sue someone for this?!) then the EFL may not be too happy about it, as it would undermine their own 'good faith' rule?

I did notice that you had said that you thought we might be ok for FFP anyway, I also note that the club specifically said (in the accounts - under the 'Financial and business review') that the reasoning for the stadium sale was:

Quote

to fully realise the market value of the stadium from its balance sheet after consideration of the Club's P&S position for forthcoming years.

...

Given the number of clubs in receipt of parachute payments and the level of wages and transfer fees paid in the division, the Club has wished to remain competitive to achieve its desires of Premier League football and undertaking a transaction of this type allows it to do so whilst also remaining within the financial rules of the league.

As it specifically mentions forthcoming years, I wonder if that is the case.

I'm glad that you don't mind my input, I wasn't sure whether I should be here or not, but I thought you might appreciate the different perspective, I'm pleased to see that is the case. I hope I'm not going around in circles (too much...) it's difficult to remember what you've covered before, especially when typing long posts! And it took me a while to notice the multi quote button. ?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On a light side note, given it appears to be in the rules.

Why don't Gibson and Lansdown do a ground swap- Lansdown purchases Riverside, Gibson does the same with AG and relevant guarantees about the future of the 2 stadia- with equivalent rent charged, given they get on so well!

No rule against...no loophole forbidding- if you can't beat them etc! :laughcont:

Ahh, but what are your book values? And why so convoluted, just each buy your own! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

Ahh, but what are your book values? And why so convoluted, just each buy your own! ?

Haha, well my idea is that bit more creative though- if you're going to pull a stunt, it should be a big one. Two third parties- sounds a good one!

Will respond to all the bigger posts later- saw this on another site though presumably the date indicates the date it was searched- if the transaction occurred later than 30th June 2018 though, it's amazing the flexibility permitted in UK business laws and regs!.

1863952822_CaptureDERBY.thumb.JPG.6a545f

Seemingly owned by Gellaw NewCo 201 Limited- which appointed a Voluntary Liquidator within a month or so. Amazing what Company, Solvency, Financial law and EFL regs permit! This was on the same site- Mel Morris likes a Gellaw Newco it appears.

Capture345.JPG.8710267e7d2192e9f62159a9b

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

14 hours ago, CyderInACan said:

Yet again this thread is absolutely required reading. Lots of interesting, healthy and intense - yet well mannered - debate. As it should be guys. Love it. 

Very true, a very interesting and informative thread, without the infighting that usually pops up at some point in OTIB threads. 

It does, however, have the unfortunate side affect of making me feel thick as pig shit though :farmer:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elhombrecito said:

Very true, a very interesting and informative thread, without the infighting that usually pops up at some point in OTIB threads. 

It does, however, have the unfortunate side affect of making me feel the EFL look as thick as pig shit though :farmer:

Corrected for complete accuracy elhimbrocity! :) 

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

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Haha, well my idea is that bit more creative though- if you're going to pull a stunt, it should be a big one. Two third parties- sounds a good one!

Will respond to all the bigger posts later- saw this on another site though presumably the date indicates the date it was searched- if the transaction occurred later than 30th June 2018 though, it's amazing the flexibility permitted in UK business laws and regs!.

1863952822_CaptureDERBY.thumb.JPG.6a545f

Seemingly owned by Gellaw NewCo 201 Limited- which appointed a Voluntary Liquidator within a month or so. Amazing what Company, Solvency, Financial law and EFL regs permit! This was on the same site- Mel Morris likes a Gellaw Newco it appears.

Capture345.JPG.8710267e7d2192e9f62159a9b

I'm not sure what all of that means, but does it not say the registered owner is Gellaw Newco 202, and not Gellaw Newco 201? ? I'm not sure why the liquidation of Gellaw Newco 201 is relevant - have I missed something?

If the date shown is the date of the search, then surely that doesn't have any bearing on when the transaction took place? Do you mind me asking which site you found it on? If that is the date of a search then I can't help but wonder why someone went looking for this information in January? ? The sale was only made public knowledge (as far as I'm aware anyway, ie. I'd not seen anyone mention it previously, and I feel sure someone on our forum or Twitter would have picked up on it) when we released the accounts.

Edited by DerbyFan
Changed it to read better, too many 'searches'!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I'm not sure what all of that means, but does it not say the registered owner is Gellaw Newco 202, and not Gellaw Newco 201? ? I'm not sure why the liquidation of Gellaw Newco 201 is relevant - have I missed something?

If the date shown is the date of the search, then surely that doesn't have any bearing on when the transaction took place? Do you mind me asking which site you found it on? If that is the date of a search then I can't help but wonder why someone went looking for this information in January? ? The sale was only made public knowledge (as far as I'm aware anyway, ie. I'd not seen anyone mention it previously, and I feel sure someone on our forum or Twitter would have picked up on it) when we released the accounts.

Owlstalk.

Owlstalk in that thread made reference to Gellaw Newco 201 having ownership at some stage- presumably because Sheffield Wednesday are or have been planning similar.

Okay, another post on that thread makes clear that it was within the accounting period.

Quote

 

Nothing is registered at Land Registry - still owned by Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited. (as at 17 May 2019)

Registration of transfer should be made within 30 days of date if transfer,

 

If you look at the title for Pride Park it was sold to Gellaw Newco 202 Limited for £81,100,000 on the 28th June 2018 and registered on 30th July 2018.

A lease for 20 years to Derby County was granted at the same time.

 

So it is unlikely our ground was transferred before  31 July  2018 (accounts period end), 

 

It would also be quite costly with  stamp duty of 5% of the sale price payable, (so £50m would be £2.5m stamp duty) plus another say £400k stamp duty on the grant of a 20 year lease at £1.5m rent per annum.

 

 

I also don't understand how this helps P&S any impact from the sale/purchase or deprecation of fixed assets (except players) is excluded from the calculated P&S losses,

 

Amazing that speculation in The times has lead to 36 pages here,

 

20 year lease, £81.1m- I make that a yield of around £4.05m per season rent if commercial rates applied. Yet I believe it is around £1.2m per season- on a 20 year lease for £81.1m transaction??

Though, in Derby rental yield apparently 3.41%- I make that £2.76m per season- maybe disregard the rent per year as purchase price but still it is £1.56m per season lower.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many on here, I'm totally at a loss to understand the technicalities of the business accounting world. Except that I have always understood that when money is involved, it is incredible how many ways there are for circumventing the rules.

So just a comment on the valuation of a football stadium. When we were trying to get Ashton Vale new stadium approved, we had a purchaser, Sainsbury's, lined up to buy ours. I don't remember the value of the stadium mentioned at the time but it didn't appear to be extortionate.

Surely the value of a stadium is not really measured by what it cost, except for depreciation in annual accounts. It has, in my opinion, minimal value as a stadium because unlike a residence or an office block, there will not be many, if any, purchasers. What does one do with a football stadium, if there isn't another football or rugby club in the near vicinity?

Pull it down and use the land for another building? Thus, the true value is what it would sell for as building land. Correct? If so the value should be in line with other land in the immediate neighbourhood, if there is any.

Edited by cidered abroad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Owlstalk.

Owlstalk in that thread made reference to Gellaw Newco 201 having ownership at some stage- presumably because Sheffield Wednesday are or have been planning similar.

Okay, another post on that thread makes clear that it was within the accounting period.

20 year lease, £81.1m- I make that a yield of around £4.05m per season rent if commercial rates applied. Yet I believe it is around £1.2m per season- on a 20 year lease for £81.1m transaction??

I'll go have a nosy, that's another forum I like to lurk on! ?

So were they wrong about Gellaw Newco 201? Did someone misread and then miscommunicate it somewhere along the line?

At least we now know that it was within the accounting period then.

Re. Hillsborough, I assumed they wouldn't have sold theirs until this years accounts anyway, 2019?

If they were intending to do the sale for the 2018 accounts then it would definitely have been done outside of the accounting period if the above quote about still being registered with the club at 17 May is true? Although I think they are still to file their 2018 ones?

I can't see in the rules where profit from the sale of fixed assets is excluded from P&S for Championship clubs, so I'm not sure why they have stated this, unless the rules, in full, are not the same as on the EFL website?

The quote I mentioned in a previous post from Mel Morris (article in the Derby Telegraph) specifically said that the sale of fixed assets was allowed in the rules, I can't think why else would you want to sell a fixed asset but to gain a profit?

For comparison, Reading, I believe lease their stadium? £1.1m a season, I seem to recall?* Less capacity but at £50m seemingly cost around double to build in 1998 (only 1 year after Pride Park opened in 1997), down South - so more expensive rental value to counteract the capacity?

*Actually, their accounts seem to say that their rent is only £750,000 to the parent company.

57 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Like many on here, I'm totally at a loss to understand the technicalities of the business accounting world. Except that i have always understood that when money is involved, it is incredible how many ways there are for circumventing the rules.

So just a comment on the valuation of a football stadium. When we were trying to get Ashton Vale new stadium approved, we had a purchaser, Sainsbury's, lined up to buy ours. I don't remember the value of the stadium mentioned at the time but it didn't appear to be extortionate.

Surely the value of a stadium is not really measured by what it cost, except for depreciation in annual accounts. It has, in my opinion, minimal value as a stadium because unlike a residence or an office block, there will not be many, if any, purchasers. What does one do with a football stadium, if there isn't another football or rugby club in the near vicinity?

Pull it down and use the land for another building? Thus, the true value is what it would sell for as building land. Correct? If so the value should be in line with other land in the immediate neighbourhood, if there is any.

It surely can't be as simple as only the land having the value, because regardless of the limited usage of a stadium (unless you get creative with it being a performance venue) it has cost something to build and/or make improvements to, can you imagine being the person that has to tell Spurs that their new £1bn stadium is now only worth the land value. ?

As the Ricoh Arena debacle shows there doesn't have to be a team in the near vicinity to attract a buyer - they were London Wasps weren't they?

Sainsbury's presumably would only have been interested in the land though (unless they wanted to branch out into the sport world? ?) which maybe would have limited the value if they were the only interested party at that time?

Edited by DerbyFan
Added extra
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I'll go have a nosy, that's another forum I like to lurk on! ?

So were they wrong about Gellaw Newco 201? Did someone misread and then miscommunicate it somewhere along the line?

At least we now know that it was within the accounting period then.

Re. Hillsborough, I assumed they wouldn't have sold theirs until this years accounts anyway, 2019?

If they were intending to do the sale for the 2018 accounts then it would definitely have been done outside of the accounting period if the above quote about still being registered with the club at 17 May is true? Although I think they are still to file their 2018 ones?

I can't see in the rules where profit from the sale of fixed assets is excluded from P&S for Championship clubs, so I'm not sure why they have stated this, unless the rules, in full, are not the same as on the EFL website?

The quote I mentioned in a previous post from Mel Morris (article in the Derby Telegraph) specifically said that the sale of fixed assets was allowed in the rules.

For comparison, Reading, I believe lease their stadium? £1.1m a season, I seem to recall? Less capacity but at £50m seemingly cost around double to build in 1998 (only 1 year after Pride Park opened in 1997), down South - so more expensive rental value to counteract the capacity?

It surely can't be as simple as only the land having the value, because regardless of the limited usage of a stadium (unless you get creative with it being a performance venue) it has cost something to build and/or make improvements to, can you imagine being the person that has to tell Spurs that their new £1bn stadium is now only worth the land value. ?

As the Ricoh Arena debacle shows there doesn't have to be a team in the near vicinity to attract a buyer - they were London Wasps weren't they?

Sainsbury's presumably would only have been interested in the land though (unless they wanted to branch out into the sport world? ?) which maybe would have limited the value if they were the only interested party at that time?

Bolded sections I reply to.

More than likely wrong about the Gellaw Newco number- there were quite a few. Thought of getting on the Land Registry myself but it costs and I have no professional interest so...

Yeah, only just but only just is enough!

Surely it can't be backdated to the 2015/16-2017/18 accounts which is what they would be judged on? Their accounts for that period were due on Feb 28th 2019, which they then shifted back to ending on May 31st 2019- don't know when that was planned but it came up on Companies House on 27th February 2019 and they have been due since April 30th 2019- seem to be down as overdue. If there's a side who deserve the book being thrown along with Aston Villa it'd be them!

Yep- see above for their shifting accounts.

Feels wrong though, if it is to a related party and especially interesting if towards the end of an accounting period where passing FFP up for debate.

Interesting you should mention Reading! I just now looked up their sale and leaseback of ground- I assumed it was sale of fixed assets other than Madejski Stadium but it appears it was for £26.5m- by way of comparison, that is a notable difference to Derby! Whereas Griffin Park for £30m- London premium? Madejski value at time of sale was around £20m, so the profit was £6.5m- £1.2m per season feels low for rent on an asset sold on a 20 year lease tbh- the Madjeski is a 25 year lease I believe. EFL should have insisted on commercial rent arrangements for such moves if to related parties from the get-go, would a bank or a property developer be happy with such a low rate? 

Tottenham's worth £1bn is crazy even for football yet if that is what it cost. London, high end PL clubs, capacity, inflation and all of the mod cons added probably played a role, agree property prices a bit of a red herring- Ashton Gate however as per our accounts- 5-6,000 less capacity than Pride Park but many similar features. According to Ashton Gate Limited, as I think already pointed out by Coppello,  £42,548,669 at 31st May 2018, though it wasn't a fresh new build but a big redevelopment nonetheless.

My big problem with this but particularly the sharp rise for Derby is that- what would Barclays Bank HSBC realistically offer- assuming they are not linked in any way to Derby. What would a property company offer? If an unrelated company came to a valuation of £81.1m and a rent of £1.2m per season on a 20 year lease? I'd think they were mental but it's their prerogative!! I can only assume the Reading valuation was a lot closer to an open market one, given that there was a profit of only £6.5m or so.

Edit: They're (Barclays that is) Derby's bankers- didn't think that one through- just picked a bank at random! ?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Bolded sections I reply to.

More than likely wrong about the Gellaw Newco number- there were quite a few. Thought of getting on the Land Registry myself but it costs and I have no professional interest so...

Yeah, only just but only just is enough!

Surely it can't be backdated to the 2015/16-2017/18 accounts which is what they would be judged on? Their accounts for that period were due on Feb 28th 2019, which they then shifted back to ending on May 31st 2019- don't know when that was planned but it came up on Companies House on 27th February 2019 and they have been due since April 30th 2019- seem to be down as overdue. If there's a side who deserve the book being thrown along with Aston Villa it'd be them!

Yep- see above for their shifting accounts.

Feels wrong though, if it is to a related party and especially interesting if towards the end of an accounting period where passing FFP up for debate.

Interesting you should mention Reading! I just now looked up their sale and leaseback of ground- I assumed it was sale of fixed assets other than Madejski Stadium but it appears it was for £26.5m- by way of comparison, that is a notable difference to Derby! Whereas Griffin Park for £30m- London premium? Madejski value at time of sale was around £20m, so the profit was £6.5m- £1.2m per season feels low for rent on an asset sold on a 20 year lease tbh- the Madjeski is a 25 year lease I believe. EFL should have insisted on commercial rent arrangements for such moves if to related parties from the get-go, would a bank or a property developer insist on such a low rate? 

Tottenham's worth £1bn is crazy even for football yet if that is what it cost. London, high end PL clubs, capacity, inflation and all of the mod cons added probably played a role, agree property prices a bit of a red herring- Ashton Gate however as per our accounts- 5-6,000 less capacity than Pride Park but many similar features. According to Ashton Gate Limited, as I think already pointed out by Coppello,  £42,548,669 at 31st May 2018, though it wasn't a fresh new build but a big redevelopment nonetheless.

My big problem with this but particularly the sharp rise for Derby is that- what would Barclays Bank realistically offer- assuming they are not linked in any way to Derby. What would a property company offer? If an unrelated company came to a valuation of £81.1m and a rent of £1.2m per season on a 20 year lease? I'd think they were mental but it's their prerogative!! I can only assume the Reading valuation was a lot closer to an open market one, given that there was a profit of only £6m or so.

Yes, I can't see how it can be at all possible that Sheffield Wednesday won't fail FFP at some point, haven't they only sold 1 player (to you) of any significance (or at all?) in something like 3 years? And I seem to remember that their owner actually told them that if they didn't get promoted they would be in big trouble?

Unless of course they can do or have done a stadium sale that covers for period they were going to fail for, that also covers the amount they were going to fail by. But I don't know 1. The valuation or 2. The book value of Hillsborough, to know whether this is achievable or not.

Re. Reading, just wondering, is it possible that the stadium was actually valued (not the book value) at more than the sale price but their owners didn't want to put in that much money so if they had a specific amount of loss to cover (ie. the amount of profit created from the sale once the book value is taken off) that this why they sold the stadium for the value they did? Can you sell an asset for a lot less than you know it is worth?

Griffin Park - very interesting, I find it strange in that case that theirs, even with a London premium, can be worth more than Reading, who are also southern and have a much nicer stadium. I notice from their accounts that Brentford used the same company we did for our 2013 valuation, Jones Lang LaSalle.

Re. Ashton Gate, I've seen an article (Bristol Post) that describes the work as costing £100m in total (including for not yet completed or future developments I assume?). I've also seen a BBC article from 2013 that says £40m developments (presumably this would have been a bit more by the time it actually happened like most things with a few years in between?). Is the £42m odd that you mention, the total valuation of your completed (£40m?) development works and what was already existing? Or is that the value of work that you have had done to it, minus the existing?

All I know, from the accounts, is that Pride Park was valued at £55m in December 2007 by King Sturge LLP (now incorporated into Jones Lang LaSalle), seemingly both highly respected companies for this kind of thing. It was revalued in 2013 by Jones Lang LaSalle (but no new value has been stated in the accounts as far as I can see) and both of these valuations were before the vast majority of the works I listed the other day, in fact I think it was only the internal big screen (and maybe the exterior ones) that were done just before 2013. Then it was valued in 2018 at £81m or whatever it was, for the sale, but it doesn't state by which company.

I don't know what anyone else would offer for it, but if an unrelated respected company has given it a valuation of £55m some 11 years before the sale (and some 10 years after it was built for a total cost of somewhere between £21-28m) then I can only assume they do and that would've been the amount at the time, in 2007.

Edited by DerbyFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fontaineofallknowledge said:

Looks like Villa did a derby and sold their stadium to circumvent FFP:

 

really disappointing that clubs are doing this-We are competing with parachute payments and dirty tactics (not to mention refs being against us!)

The disappointing bit- no the really annoying bit - is the way fans are almost admitting they are getting away with it because the rules are not tight enough and that even if any action is taken, they see little chance of points deduction now they are in the prem.

You get the feeling that as a club Villa decided that they would do whatever it took financially to get back to the prem, in the almost certain knowledge that they would face down any attempt by the EFL to bring them to book over ffp ( and win!) and that the money they would pocket in the premier league would enable them to balance the books.

In a nutshell it crystallises the problem the EFL has singularly failed to grasp and address. Namely, that the financial rewards for getting promotion are so great that some clubs will risk everything to get there and that they will do this because they know that the EFL is inept in implementing , applying and enforcing it's ffp rules, and in particular when faced with so called big clubs.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's late so I'll look properly tomorrow but one note.

Reports- maybe erroneously- suggested Aston Villa under a soft transfers embargo until 30th June 2019.

They've just announced signing of Jota. If it a straight swap with Gary Gardner all okay to a point as no cash changed hands but if not- aggravated breach.

How many points should within regs EFL dock them if they return in a year or 2? I'm going with 14.

Am assuming amoral scummers at EPL won't honour the agreement- legal action a possibility?

@Coppello you are the expert and particularly on PL FFP. Any scope for a Championship points deduction to follow a promoted rule breaker into PL?

Assumed that was a key point of harmonised FFP! A number of sources have certainly intimated it possible.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion for what it’s worth is that there could be various reasons why Gibson got no support from the other clubs including ourselves.

Firstly that having looked at it legally there was the conclusion that whatever had been done had broken no actual rule and concerted efforts to punish the ‘offenders’ would be futile.

Secondly that it was a case of ‘shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted’. We all know that financially this league is not a level playing field, favouring the cash rich and the ex premier League clubs consistently. Having Derby, Villa, Wednesday etc blatantly abuse the system  on top of everything else and then preventing the lesser clubs doing likewise would only tip the balance even more. Indeed the lack of support might indicate that an olive branch had been offered prior to the meeting by the EFL. Something like “okay before we do everything to close this loophole we have a period where anybody else can do likewise as each club can only do it once.”

Finally there is the possibility that a ‘plan B’ has been found that would redress the balance a little and it was merely a case of keeping their powder dry until the right moment. It would have been useful if one of the clubs sympathetic with Gibson had an astute financial expert as an owner and an employee on the EFL board. We can but hope !

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/were-aston-villa-well-just-pay-the-ffping-fine-but-it-would-be-nice-if-the-media-did-their-job-investigated/

Aren't they odious, the author of this piece- I don't like to generalise but.

Double relegation too good for them.

I actually am of a mind that if and when they return to Championship I have no desire for our players to have to share a pitch with the pricks. More importantly, SL to have to share a boardroom and most of all our fans to have to share a stadium.

Wonder how many other Championship clubs have similar feelings- at the very least fans and boardroom level.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's late so I'll look properly tomorrow but one note.

Reports- maybe erroneously- suggested Aston Villa under a soft transfers embargo until 30th June 2019.

They've just announced signing of Jota. If it a straight swap with Gary Gardner all okay to a point as no cash changed hands but if not- aggravated breach.

How many points should within regs EFL dock them if they return in a year or 2? I'm going with 14.

Am assuming amoral scummers at EPL won't honour the agreement- legal action a possibility?

@Coppello you are the expert and particularly on PL FFP. Any scope for a Championship points deduction to follow a promoted rule breaker into PL?

Assumed that was a key point of harmonised FFP! A number of sources have certainly intimated it possible.

Is this a PL points deduction once a Championship club has been promoted? There's currently nothing written in the legislation about it and I don't think the PL are that interested. They're focused on the granting of UEFA licenses to PL teams and ensuring the adherence to those rules rather than looking at the teams towards the bottom of the division. In addition, they're almost separate jurisdictions and this is why the EFL were unable to punish QPR until they went down to the Championship. There may be appetite to change this given the current situation but I haven't heard anything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Coppello said:

Is this a PL points deduction once a Championship club has been promoted? There's currently nothing written in the legislation about it and I don't think the PL are that interested. They're focused on the granting of UEFA licenses to PL teams and ensuring the adherence to those rules rather than looking at the teams towards the bottom of the division. In addition, they're almost separate jurisdictions and this is why the EFL were unable to punish QPR until they went down to the Championship. There may be appetite to change this given the current situation but I haven't heard anything.  

That's the thing, I've read different things on it. Some sites suggest that there was some sort of agreement that points deductions can follow a side up. Others seem to think just a fine-= EFL certainly if reports to be believed pushing for it- PL are amoral tossers however and EFL are wildly inept which is a terrible combination for enforcement of such matters- I would suggest the FA would be the most appropriate but I don't have a huge amount of confidence in them- Prince William FA, Prince William Aston Villa fan for one!? I am sure it wouldn't impair hus judgement but I have precious little faith in them.

Ah, just paper talk then? Besides how on earth can UEFA licenses be granted when PL loss limit is £35m per season, whereas UEFA limit quite a bit lower? That bit does confuse me a bit- surely the UEFA loss limits take precedence for licensing purposes?

Do you think therefore that stiff sanctions could be imposed on Aston Villa for a 3 year beach when they return? Aston Villa fans seem adamant no rule allows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

My opinion for what it’s worth is that there could be various reasons why Gibson got no support from the other clubs including ourselves.

Firstly that having looked at it legally there was the conclusion that whatever had been done had broken no actual rule and concerted efforts to punish the ‘offenders’ would be futile.

Secondly that it was a case of ‘shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted’. We all know that financially this league is not a level playing field, favouring the cash rich and the ex premier League clubs consistently. Having Derby, Villa, Wednesday etc blatantly abuse the system  on top of everything else and then preventing the lesser clubs doing likewise would only tip the balance even more. Indeed the lack of support might indicate that an olive branch had been offered prior to the meeting by the EFL. Something like “okay before we do everything to close this loophole we have a period where anybody else can do likewise as each club can only do it once.”

Finally there is the possibility that a ‘plan B’ has been found that would redress the balance a little and it was merely a case of keeping their powder dry until the right moment. It would have been useful if one of the clubs sympathetic with Gibson had an astute financial expert as an owner and an employee on the EFL board. We can but hope !

Perhaps yes- a full vote by clubs surely has potential to change this though?

Yes. Aston Villa by far the most egregious however IMO. At least Derby sold quite a few players- first team and squad alike, not fringe. Sheffield Wednesday were sort of somewhere between the 2 and Birmingham ultimately paid for one window of Redknapp! Run by idiots the last and possibly the 2nd last too. Your last sentence could be interesting- Allow everyone to do it once then shut off the loophole for good. I question whether UEFA would permit such transactions, but as we know the EFL are useless.

This is my hope too. Powder dry- EFL meeting today I believe in Portugal- wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall- do we think we will see any vocal arguments between owners??

I still have no desire for us to play them if or when they return to the EFL.

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

12 minutes ago, Coppello said:

Is this a PL points deduction once a Championship club has been promoted? There's currently nothing written in the legislation about it and I don't think the PL are that interested. They're focused on the granting of UEFA licenses to PL teams and ensuring the adherence to those rules rather than looking at the teams towards the bottom of the division. In addition, they're almost separate jurisdictions and this is why the EFL were unable to punish QPR until they went down to the Championship. There may be appetite to change this given the current situation but I haven't heard anything.  

Even if they were to be given a PL points deduction Villa will be enjoying the financial rewards of being in the prem, which was the purpose behind everything they have done to get around ffp.  If such a points deduction meant they were relegated after just one season they pick up, what, £100m plus the best part of another £100m in parachute payments. The only hope would be that they again throw caution to the wind by overpaying for players, so that when they are relegated, despite parachute payments they will again struggle to cope with reduced income. It could also be that by then the EFL might by then have grown a pair and apply penalties that should have been made last season to prevent their promotion in the first place.

More importantly, if they were to be given a PL points deduction, it would be for breaching EFL ffp rules. If so, the question then would be  why wasn't the breach identified and punished during this last season, which, under the new, much heralded rules, the EFL had indicated was to be the case and the reason for requiring projected accounts in year 3?

Piss up, couldn't,  EFL, brewery, organise a, would seem to be the appropriate words to use in connection with this whole shambolic mess. As a result a few clubs appear to have taken the proverbial!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Perhaps yes- a full vote by clubs surely has potential to change this though?

Yes. Aston Villa by far the most egregious however IMO. At least Derby sold quite a few players- first team and squad alike, not fringe. Sheffield Wednesday were sort of somewhere between the 2 and Birmingham ultimately paid for one window of Redknapp! Run by idiots the last and possibly the 2nd last too. Your last sentence could be interesting- Allow everyone to do it once then shut off the loophole for good. I question whether UEFA would permit such transactions, but as we know the EFL are useless.

This is my hope too. Powder dry- EFL meeting today I believe in Portugal- wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall- do we think we will see any vocal arguments between owners??

I still have no desire for us to play them if or when they return to the EFL.

Sl takes a stand and refuses to play Villa on their return to the championship.

You can bet the EFL would be lightning quick out of the blocks to give us a 40 point deduction, thereby guaranteeing relegation, and a £100m fine, for failing to fulfil a fixture.

Oh, they would also probably suspend Bailey and Famara for a whole season!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's the thing, I've read different things on it. Some sites suggest that there was some sort of agreement that points deductions can follow a side up. Others seem to think just a fine-= EFL certainly if reports to be believed pushing for it- PL are amoral tossers however and EFL are wildly inept which is a terrible combination for enforcement of such matters- I would suggest the FA would be the most appropriate but I don't have a huge amount of confidence in them- Prince William FA, Prince William Aston Villa fan for one!? I am sure it wouldn't impair hus judgement but I have precious little faith in them.

Ah, just paper talk then? Besides how on earth can UEFA licenses be granted when PL loss limit is £35m per season, whereas UEFA limit quite a bit lower? That bit does confuse me a bit- surely the UEFA loss limits take precedence for licensing purposes?

Do you think therefore that stiff sanctions could be imposed on Aston Villa for a 3 year beach when they return? Aston Villa fans seem adamant no rule allows it.

According to Villa fans the premier league desperately want a huge club like Villa back in the fold, so it's a fair guess that even if they are found to have breached EFL ffp (and I believe the premier league agreed with/endorsed the new ffp rules) they will do 100% of bu99er all about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Sl takes a stand and refuses to play Villa on their return to the championship.

You can bet the EFL would be lightning quick out of the blocks to give us a 40 point deduction, thereby guaranteeing relegation, and a £100m fine, for failing to fulfil a fixture.

Oh, they would also probably suspend Bailey and Famara for a whole season!

Needs 21- hell perhaps even as their breaches were smaller and not cushioned by parachute payments without which their (Aston Villa's) breaches would have been astronomical, all 23 clubs to take a stand and tell them where to go basically. A rough estimate at this stage but I believe that stripping out Parachute Payments, Aston Villa's three year breach would have been £100m+ over the limit- ONE HUNDRED MILLION PLUS!?! I assume they would have modified behaviour significantly and obviously without PP's a lot more clubs would have failed FFP but most relegated clubs at least sell key players, sign cheaper or a mix of the 2 to try to offset some of it.

Would have to be a totally united front however- you cannot force a division to play a bunch of cheats surely?

I also read that clubs have no faith in EFL- in a Telegraph article, which rather contradicts the DerbyFan who said that owners were very impressed indeed with EFL financial professionals! Unless this took place after the reforms of course- clubs wanting a far bigger say in the new P & S regs is particularly interesting- could be good, could be bad but definitely appears to be the case that there's no confidence- and rightly so! What took them so long??

Two Telegraph articles suggest a lot of disquiet indeed.

Some key snippets from the 2 articles- key bits within key bits in bold:-

Quote

 

EFL officials met with representatives from the clubs at Derby’s Pride Park stadium last week and were told there is no confidence in the existing board.

Clubs are insisting on governance reform and want a far bigger say in commercial deals, the new Profitability and Sustainability rules and the distribution of money across the leagues

 

Derby, Leeds, Aston Villa, Preston, Stoke, Middlesbrough and West Brom are the leading clubs demanding for change, though it is understood the 24 clubs in the Championship broadly share the same view. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going forward I wonder if the solution is that if a promoted club has been found to have breached FFP in the promotion season then perhaps the punishment should be that if they are subsequently relegated from the PL at any time in the future that they would then not be eligible for Parachute payments? This would certainly lessen the financial advantage gained by "cheating" to get promotion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Needs 21- hell perhaps even as their breaches were smaller and not cushioned by parachute payments without which their (Aston Villa's) breaches would have been astronomical, all 23 clubs to take a stand and tell them where to go basically.

Would have to be a totally united front however- you cannot force a division to play a bunch of cheats surely?

I also read that clubs have no faith in EFL- in a Telegraph article, which rather contradicts the DerbyFan who said that owners were very impressed indeed with EFL financial professionals! Unless this took place after the reforms of course- clubs wanting a far bigger say in the new P & S regs is particularly interesting- could be good, could be bad but definitely appears to be the case that there's no confidence- and rightly so! What took them so long??

Two Telegraph articles suggest a lot of disquiet indeed.

Some key snippets from the 2 articles- key bits within key bits in bold:-

That article is from March and references a meeting at the end of February (at Pride Park incidentally), the article to which I was referring was after the meeting in April (at Forest), in which the EFL's own finance team did a presentation. It is also the Telegraph and also written by John Percy here:

Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

An EFL spokesman said:

“Championship Clubs met on Wednesday where there was a positive exchange of ideas on a number of different issues, including the League’s Profitability and Sustainability rules.  

“The long term sustainability of all EFL Clubs remains of paramount importance to the EFL Board and they will continue to work with Clubs in respect of the rules.  

“Clubs were also reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any Club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.”

There's an interesting article here from 2 days ago about Blackburn's position, which references the stadium sale being within the rules:

Quote

Last month, it was reported Boro owner Gibson would take legal action against Derby for allegedly breaking EFL profitability and sustainability rules before Rams owner Mel Morris hit back, accusing Gibson of hypocrisy.

Waggott said some club have been ‘creative’ with how they have managed their figures, but notes everything is being done within current EFL rules.

He added: “There have been numerous discussions of how people are counting their figures back to profit and sustainability.

“Some are being creative with how they go about it, staying within the EFL rules of course. At the last Championship meeting we had a big presentation about it because it’s been well broadcast and heralded that some clubs are buying their stadiums and offsetting different losses against the permissible development.

“People are working within the rules as they presently are.

“We’re off to Portugal for an EFL meeting and it will be one of the hot topics.”

I do find the quote on this tweet quite interesting:

From here it looks like we weren't one of the clubs that lobbied against Gibson's proposal:

Quote

His proposed changes would have allowed all profitability and sustainability information to be shared with fellow Championship clubs, although a majority vote of 75 per cent (18 out of 24) of the second tier clubs at the meeting is the requirement to make changes.

The fiery meeting lasted over five hours, with Sky Sports News reporting that both Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday lobbied the decision in an effort to keep the current rules in place.

These are apparently Tony Pulis' comments from their Norwich programme notes (my bolding, quote from here) :

Quote

In his programme notes ahead of the Norwich City game, boss Tony Pulis echoed the chairman's position.

He wrote: "We saw Birmingham hit by a nine point deduction for breaching the EFL's profit and sustainability rules, Bolton hit with a winding up order and reports have suggested more clubs spending way beyond their means could be facing action from the EFL.

"Some of the figures published are quite staggering.

"Aston Villa's operating loss for last season was £50m while the player costs of both Reading and Birmingham was quoted as being almost 250% of their actual income.

"The total losses for the Championship clubs last season currently stand at £366m and with a number of other clubs still to announce their financial results it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the total figure could be in excess of half a billion pounds.

"Thankfully, here at Boro, we have an owner in Steve Gibson who will never risk the future of this football club.

"Steve is a committed man who lives and breathes this area. The care, attention and support he gives this club should never be under-estimated.

"Steve has worked hard to abide by the EFL financial rules but it is clear that a number of other clubs haven't and that simply can not be right.

"Birmingham's nine point deduction should set a precedent now for other clubs not complying with the rules.

"Over the past year here we have brought money in through the sales of players and reducing the wages and we have cut our cloth accordingly - yet at the same time there are others in apparent breach of the rules and that cannot be right."

He seems to go from being 'clear' that others haven't abided by the rules, to then saying 'apparent breach' of the rules, which sounds not so 'clear' after all?

The reason that I was sceptical in a previous post about the Daily Mail's very recent claim (30 May here) :

Quote

Villa, who were promoted to the top flight after beating Derby County in Monday's Championship play-off final at Wembley, are among a number of clubs — Derby included — currently operating under a soft transfer embargo while the English Football League continue to assess their P and S submission.

 that we were under a soft transfer embargo is because of this quote from John Percy (normally very reliable with our news) in the Telegraph (15 April here) :

Quote

But Derby are said to be operating under a “soft transfer embargo”, which is preventing them from registering Aberdeen captain Graeme Shinnie. 

The midfielder held talks with Derby last week but cannot sign a pre-contract at this stage, as the club’s accounts are being looked at by the EFL.

It is understood the embargo should be lifted later this week, however, enabling Derby manager Frank Lampard to make Shinnie his first signing ahead of next season.

As we have now announced Shinnie (7 May here - I think it's possible that it was only announced this much later because he had an injury in between and knowing how soon he would be back we didn't want to announce him whilst he was injured) then either it has already been lifted and the Daily Mail are wrong, or John Percy was wrong (which would be very unusual) that we couldn't announce Shinnie until it had been lifted.

From the quote in my previous post *678 (from the EFL regulations) that suggests you wouldn't be able to register new contracts if in breach of the rules and we have at least signed Roos on one, that's another reason to believe it has been lifted. All of this together would seem to suggest that the league have passed our accounts.

I have actually been pondering whether a soft transfer embargo is the default position of a (ie. every) club while the EFL finance team mentioned earlier do their own checks after P&S and/or account submissions. As I think we were one of the later ones to submit our accounts to Companies House, it may stand to reason that it then takes longer to clear.

As this post is already very long I'll post my thoughts on the Villa situation later.

Edited by DerbyFan
*Added post number for reference
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

That article is from March and references a meeting at the end of February (at Pride Park incidentally), the article to which I was referring was after the meeting in April (at Forest), in which the EFL's own finance team did a presentation. It is also the Telegraph and also written by John Percy here:

Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

An EFL spokesman said:

“Championship Clubs met on Wednesday where there was a positive exchange of ideas on a number of different issues, including the League’s Profitability and Sustainability rules.  

“The long term sustainability of all EFL Clubs remains of paramount importance to the EFL Board and they will continue to work with Clubs in respect of the rules.  

“Clubs were also reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any Club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.”

Playing devil's advocate a little, depending on which club's senior executive is quoted could have a huge bearing on the comment, as if it was, say, a Villa executive then he would say that, wouldn't he? 

As for "taking potshots .......... when on-field results go badly". I remember this sort of comment being trotted out by Leeds fans when our owner was pushing for Leeds to be punished over the spygate incident and I've seen comments from Villa fans along similar lines when their ffp position has been questioned i.e. it's sour grapes or jealousy. The issue is not that club's are aggrieved because their own results have gone against them, it is that if a club has breached ffp but escaped any punishment then  they have gained an advantage over all the other clubs clubs that have complied with the same set of financial rules. 

I am sure all clubs and fans would be more than happy to "let the authorities do their job". It is the fact that the authorities, i.e. the EFL, do not appear to be doing their job when it comes to ffp  that is causing other people to "interfere. The ulterior motive such people have is to ensure the EFL applies ffp rules properly and fairly across all clubs and ensures that any club that breaches is properly penalised - there appears to fairly widespread scepticism as to whether this is the case currently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:
Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

An EFL spokesman said:

“Championship Clubs met on Wednesday where there was a positive exchange of ideas on a number of different issues, including the League’s Profitability and Sustainability rules.  

“The long term sustainability of all EFL Clubs remains of paramount importance to the EFL Board and they will continue to work with Clubs in respect of the rules.  

“Clubs were also reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any Club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.”

Read more  

Playing devil's advocate a little, depending on which club's senior executive is quoted could have a huge bearing on the comment, as if it was, say, a Villa executive then he would say that, wouldn't he? 

As for "taking potshots .......... when on-field results go badly". I remember this sort of comment being trotted out by Leeds fans when our owner was pushing for Leeds to be punished over the spygate incident and I've seen comments from Villa fans along similar lines when their ffp position has been questioned i.e. it's sour grapes or jealousy. The issue is not that club's are aggrieved because their own results have gone against them, it is that if a club has breached ffp but escaped any punishment then  they have gained an advantage over all the other clubs clubs that have complied with the same set of financial rules. 

I am sure all clubs and fans would be more than happy to "let the authorities do their job". It is the fact that the authorities, i.e. the EFL, do not appear to be doing their job when it comes to ffp  that is causing other people to "interfere. The ulterior motive such people have is to ensure the EFL applies ffp rules properly and fairly across all clubs and ensures that any club that breaches is properly penalised - there appears to fairly widespread scepticism as to whether this is the case currently.

 

You beat me to the punch.

Perhaps it was Derby's! Or in seriousness, as you say anyone who is just happy with the status quo- that comment just sounds made up to me, I am not saying it is but it's so toadying, flies in the face of a lot of evidence that it is laughable unless in self-interest.

Where to start with the unnamed senior executive:

Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

It seems that they (EFL finance team) can talk a very good game. Easy to do at times- or being fair maybe this is what happens post the changes, maybe the anger at the March meeting has actually brought about serious changes- Shaun Harvey going for a start is an instant improvement. I'm open-minded on this, though a lot of course depends on the Senior Executive in question.

Quote

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute is owners selling grounds to themselves in a very creative manner- not just Derby, but anyone out of Aston Villa, Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday too. Reading, though for different reasons- £26.5m in that part of the country seems oddly low to me. They made a modest but barely substantial profit but I query why the value pre sale was £20m or so, Madejski Stadium that is. Shouldn't have been done of course but compared to Derby...?

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute even more is the prospect that Aston Villa run up an FFP excess of £25-30m over 3 seasons and only get a risk of a points deduction once they've reached PL!

What truly will- or should- bring a competition into disrepute is the EFL lacking the competence to close loopholes before exploitation- namely the ground one- and the dexterity to properly enforce in-season punishments as per their own regulations!!

Quote

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

Total toadying. Laughable, PR. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind than an objective reading of the situation- I mean they may have a valid point even if it isn't one I agree with, but it's so obsequious- with ironically a slight potshot, i.e. the bolded bit.

One more interesting note- the finances of Aston Villa and Derby it seems will be on the agenda at the EFL Summer Conference. Hopefully Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday also.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, downendcity said:
Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

An EFL spokesman said:

“Championship Clubs met on Wednesday where there was a positive exchange of ideas on a number of different issues, including the League’s Profitability and Sustainability rules.  

“The long term sustainability of all EFL Clubs remains of paramount importance to the EFL Board and they will continue to work with Clubs in respect of the rules.  

“Clubs were also reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any Club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.”

Playing devil's advocate a little, depending on which club's senior executive is quoted could have a huge bearing on the comment, as if it was, say, a Villa executive then he would say that, wouldn't he? 

As for "taking potshots .......... when on-field results go badly". I remember this sort of comment being trotted out by Leeds fans when our owner was pushing for Leeds to be punished over the spygate incident and I've seen comments from Villa fans along similar lines when their ffp position has been questioned i.e. it's sour grapes or jealousy. The issue is not that club's are aggrieved because their own results have gone against them, it is that if a club has breached ffp but escaped any punishment then  they have gained an advantage over all the other clubs clubs that have complied with the same set of financial rules. 

I am sure all clubs and fans would be more than happy to "let the authorities do their job". It is the fact that the authorities, i.e. the EFL, do not appear to be doing their job when it comes to ffp  that is causing other people to "interfere. The ulterior motive such people have is to ensure the EFL applies ffp rules properly and fairly across all clubs and ensures that any club that breaches is properly penalised - there appears to fairly widespread scepticism as to whether this is the case currently.

 

It could be but it obviously doesn't say who it was, so how can we know? I'm not going to assume I know who it's come from as I have no idea. I haven't seen any other direct quotes referencing the April meeting saying anything to the contrary. Have you seen any?

I can't know the reasoning behind their quotes, I did notice they used the phrases 'that everyone realised' and 'we all realised after discussion'. They seem to be talking like it was unanimous once they'd all discussed it? That would fit with the quotes I posted before from Mel Morris saying that no one voted for Gibson's proposal including his own clubs representative/s (whoever they were as he didn't even seem to attend according to the BBC):

Quote

The Boro chairman, who has reportedly demanded that the spending of Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa be looked at, is understood not to have attended Wednesday's meeting in Nottingham - which lasted almost five hours - at which the clubs decided not to accept Gibson's proposal.

If the clubs themselves decided not to vote for Gibson's proposal, who are we to say anything different? They were the ones that saw the EFL's presentation, they were the ones that had the discussion, they were the ones that had the chance to vote for it. They didn't.

Unless anyone comes out and says they did vote for it and the quotes from both Mel Morris and the person (whoever they are) quoted above are wrong, or tells us a different reason than the above as to why they didn't vote for it, then that's all we've got to go on, for now.

Re. the 'taking potshots' and 'ulterior motives' comments, you realise those were the comments from the 'senior executive' quoted and not myself? If the other clubs felt so strongly about clubs 'gaining an advantage' or if there was such 'widespread scepticism' they could have voted for the proposal or couldn't they have tried with a different proposal themselves? There would have to have been 75% voting in favour for it to be passed wouldn't there? If there are only a few clubs causing an issue, surely that would have been an easy target to hit from all of the others?

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You beat me to the punch.

Perhaps it was Derby's! Or in seriousness, as you say anyone who is just happy with the status quo- that comment just sounds made up to me, I am not saying it is but it's so toadying, flies in the face of a lot of evidence that it is laughable unless in self-interest.

Where to start with the unnamed senior executive:

It seems that they (EFL finance team) can talk a very good game. Easy to do at times- or being fair maybe this is what happens post the changes, maybe the anger at the March meeting has actually brought about serious changes- Shaun Harvey going for a start is an instant improvement. I'm open-minded on this, though a lot of course depends on the Senior Executive in question.

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute is owners selling grounds to themselves in a very creative manner- not just Derby, but anyone out of Aston Villa, Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday too. Reading, though for different reasons- £26.5m in that part of the country seems oddly low to me. They made a modest but barely substantial profit but I query why the value pre sale was £20m or so, Madejski Stadium that is. Shouldn't have been done of course but compared to Derby...?

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute even more is the prospect that Aston Villa run up an FFP excess of £25-30m over 3 seasons and only get a risk of a points deduction once they've reached PL!

What truly will- or should- bring a competition into disrepute is the EFL lacking the competence to close loopholes before exploitation- namely the ground one- and the dexterity to properly enforce in-season punishments as per their own regulations!!

Total toadying. Laughable, PR. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind than an objective reading of the situation- I mean they may have a valid point even if it isn't one I agree with, but it's so obsequious- with ironically a slight potshot, i.e. the bolded bit.

One more interesting note- the finances of Aston Villa and Derby it seems will be on the agenda at the EFL Summer Conference. Hopefully Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday also.

I've covered most of this in my reply above, so won't go over it all again - see above for my thoughts on the quotes.

Although I will add, at the time Middlesbrough were still fighting for top 6 with the clubs that he was accusing, is it possible that the executives of the other clubs thought about exactly why Gibson might have been making his accusations ie. he might have believed they wouldn't finish in the top 6 (as did come to pass) and was trying to unsettle some of the clubs they were directly competing with and they did actually believe he had an ulterior motive?

A few things I've found, that may or may not be relevant to the stadium valuation discussion, but I thought they were interesting none the less:

Here (Click 'OUR SPECIALISMS' -> 'Sport stadia')

Quote

Sports stadia and football ground assets are valued in different ways, depending on the purpose of the valuation. As each approach may produce different figures, it’s essential to understand the purpose of the valuation.

Here (Page 3 - Although seems to be from 2006, so it's possible it may no longer be relevant - I've not read much past that bit yet either, it's quite a long read!)

Quote

It is, however, important to remember that DRC is not intended represent a potential sale price (i.e. a value in exchange) and, within the UK, it should still normally be used only within the context of financial reports.

Re. The Villa situation, weren't Birmingham punished for their 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 season losses? If so, didn't the EFL say at the time that Birmingham were the only club to have failed FFP for this period?

In that case the only period that Villa (or anyone else for that matter) could have failed for is their 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 losses, ie. ending this season, which although finished, most clubs actual accounting periods don't end until later, giving them time after the season in which they made the loss to rectify it, once their know their future seasons financial position.

With the situation, as it stands, under the current rules (regardless of whether you believe it is right or not to be able to do so) had they stayed down they presumably could've sold players before the end of their accounting period after the end of the season which would've meant they stayed within the rules. I'm not saying it is likely they would have been able to cover a big loss had they stayed down, but they could surely argue they could have, and as they didn't stay down, now no one will ever know if this would've happened or not.

As it stands, having been promoted, I'm not sure when they get their first Premier League payment/s? If this is outside of their accounting period, I assume what they could do is take a loan on their guaranteed income to cover themselves for whatever they are behind by? In the same way that I believe they (and others?) have done when they've taken loans out on their future years of parachute payments?

Even if their losses are above those allowed and they chose to deliberately disregard FFP for this season, ie. not cover the loss anyway to make sure. Unless the Premier League are willing to align themselves with the EFL on the situation then there is sadly nothing that anyone can do about them having a points deduction into next season, this it the problem having different organisations controlling leagues with in the same league structure.

If they do still fail FFP, I guess the only thing the EFL could do to hit them currently is fine them a hefty amount. They might be able to 'park' a points deduction so that the next time they fall under their jurisdiction that comes in play? But I imagine as no one knows whether that will be 1, 2, 10 or even more years from now that might be something they try to avoid, so as not to hit any possible future owners?

If it does turn out that they failed FFP, and we passed, then we would have lost out at Wembley for a second time to a team that failed FFP, but once again there would be nothing that we could do about it, so we'd once again have to deal with it.

I don't know how, apart from making clubs have their financial years ending prior to the end of April (ie. before the end of the season to stop post season fixes), the EFL can fix this situation in the future, so that any punishment for a breach is dealt with in the season in which it occurs.

But even then don't they have months to file them with Companies House? Will they have them ready before that or not - I assume not? So how do the EFL make sure that they have them by the end of April (and go through them all) so that they can hand out punishment before the end of the season? Or is this the point of the P&S submission, you're basically submitting your accounts details to them early? But then how can you do this when you have to file that before your accounting period ends and things could change?

It's not easy is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments re the projected accounts submission id the big flaw in that rule and one we’ve speculated a lot on here. 

If Villa projected a big loss, then their FFP submission might include a footnote that they’ll sell Grealish before the end of of their accounts period to comply. 

And to be fair, there’s nothing wrong with that, hence the flaw in the projected accounts rule!

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...