Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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!

I agree, of course clubs will do it if it helps them and they're allowed to.

I don't really know what the EFL can do to fix the flaw. Would forcing clubs to have reporting periods ending by April, so that they can't project a sale happening after the season work? But then I don't know if there's a way around that too, would having a sale set up ready to go when the window opened be a way around it? Or because that sale would only go through after the end of April (when the window opens) be enough? Could a club use their post balance sheet events as mitigation if they did fail?

So many questions! ?

Edited by DerbyFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regards projected accounts- these posts are relatively small so can reply to them now and bigger ones on the weekend, a few thoughts.

Problem- Accounts submitted by 1st March 2019 don't cover proposed sales- ie. Grealish.

One solution might be to get a contractual undertaking that sale is pre-arranged- any breach automatic points deduction for fail FFP in whichever division- or maybe even refuse to accept such an idea of sale of Grealish unless a proper paper trail.

Problem- Accounts submitted by 1st March 2019 may not cover further revenue i.e. playoffs.

Solution- In Aston Villa's case their apparent breach was so big that playoff revenue wouldn't make a material difference to the points/loss tariff. Maybe a problem for clubs within a lower range- Promotion and playoffs about £5m? Any club within that range would have to include that as a variable within their projected accounts.

Problem- Ground can be sold to owners postseason but before accounting period closes.

One possible Solution- The projected submitted accounts take precedence for FFP purposes-, ground sales to owners that take place post 1st March 2019 therefore not included in FFP calculations for this period. May require a rule change voted for by at least 18 clubs for this though- or another aspect to the solution maybe that simply no profit from such RPTs for FFP purposes. FFP results are different to published accounts after all.

The other big solution as well as in-season punishments would be to have the EFL given unlimited powers against any club who breaches this on their return- would again require the 18/24 minimum voting rule and be a new rule moving forward- Aston Villa reps along with the newly promoted clubs will actually be at the Conference in Portugal so there may yet be one last chance to get a punishment voted on?

As for Ground Transactions involving related parties- well it's unbelievable oversight by EFL to have profit on such transactions included as positive revenue for FFP calculations. If it is a true third party transaction and all transparent, could people complain too much?

Plus moving forward, given there is a share transfer between EFL and EPL- in theory why couldn't the EFL refuse to transfer the share of say Aston Villa if it transpires that the following has occurred: a) They have won playoffs in a big FFP breach, b) A ground sale and leaseback with owners/Related parties was arranged hastily after promotion or lack of and c) A proposed Grealish sale by 31st May 2019 turned out to be bogus.

Different sites and such do suggest that points penalty can follow a side up, but others contradict this- unless there is a watertight agreement, then it could be this eras ITV Digital debacle for the EFL?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting note.

From OwlsTalk- and I'll get onto the big 2 plus possibly Birmingham and the thread as a whole later, maybe this evening.

Seems Hillsborough has not been sold- other rumours on there that it has been sold but there are problems getting it through as Chansiri is trying to backdate it to 2017/18 accounts or similar. 

1514559736_Capture22.thumb.JPG.effdf3cd3

I half wonder and only partly jokingly if he, given he seems to have run them badly to say the least thought "Ah! Great idea Mel Morris- I'll sell it to myself and avoid sanctions." Even though that accounting period had long since passed, i.e. if he had got no proper independent valuation etc but just charged in before the end of accounts, no planning.

The main thing I jokingly wonder about is given the no show of the accounts even after a 2 month shift in reporting period- and it sounds ridiculous but so is some of his chairmanship- is if he thinks that because the Accounting Period for 2017/18 ends July 31 2018, he therefore has until the end of July 2019! It's a ridiculous idea but an amusing one, that I hope is somehow true! :laughcont:

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

In terms of FFP- no change apparently. That doesn't necessarily mean that Aston Villa e.g. aren't being investigated or that maybe even Derby are- though by the time they've worked it out both (and probably Birmingham and even Sheffield Wednesday) will be safely in PL!  :grr: :ranting:

On a general note, regardless of stance on whether FFP is a good, bad or indifferent thing, the lack of clarity, guidance and general leadership from the EFL is a disgrace IMO- especially but far from exclusively on this!

Incidentally, on the Aston Villa thing just thought of something- if the PL won't transfer a points penalty across, then do the QPR thing- when their results come out in March 2020 and if they show a major breach as is anticipated, simply impose a punishment when they're still in the PL for their Championship return. Whenever that might be.

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

One quick note on Derby, before I come back to the main substance of the debate, in the coming days.

Looking at their accounts briefly, they did spend £5.8m in 2015/16 and £4.2m 2016/17 on Infrastructure (which I believe largely to be youth and youth related expenditure)- I'm still wondering therefore whether FFP was kept within regardless of ground transaction.

Then there's Depreciation of tangible assets. Women's Football, Community Expenditure. I don't know if I am double counting at all between Infrastructure expenditure and Depreciation of Tangible Assets but it isn't impossible they passed regardless.

Now IF they used the Sevco 5112 accounts, then I think they fail without the ground transaction, absolutely.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rapax said:

Villa have not breached FFP accordingly to their chief executive at a fans meeting yesterday. The football league expected to confirm this apparently. 

hallelujah-the-secret-30224016-500-366.jpg.cf12743b33c3ff2603ba2b30a608396d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a serious note, their accounts in March 2020 will show how they passed- or "passed".

Wonder if other club owners will be so happy to take this at face value?

The other possibility of course is that as we kind of guessed, EFL aren't bothering with projected accounts now and only the 3 prior years actual accounts will be the period that's judged.

Or maybe the £3m assumed for HS2 was in fact some other form of land sale and a huge HS2 compensation took them over the line this time.

Because I struggle to believe they raised a net £25-30m through a combination of sales and wage reduction.

@Rapax You sure you're a City fan? Only I looked at your posts and there's a lot pro Aston Villa in there.

Which is only a good thing- other fans on this board only adds to the perspective and the quality of debate, but some kinda dual interest? 

Regardless of how they somehow passed, never in my 21 years as a City fan have I seen such an odious entitled fanbase in any division we've played in (PL will have a lot)- not all of course but if social media a gauge, in one and only one way- if they fudged FFP good- I'm glad to be rid of them, just hope they don't come back.

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

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azed said:

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Good question- one which I believe @Coppello best placed to deal with, but I believe a Nicholas Craig to be their Governance and Legal Director. He's been a lawyer in excess of 10 years.

Aston Villa, I wonder if in March 2019 when their full accounts are published this issue will become live again- projected accounts barring exceptional items cannot show a pass, surely! Their losses should be very high but bear in mind that promotion bonuses which will show in the wages but not necessarily as a separate item, will not count as FFP expenditure. Same presumably goes for the upgrade to the McCormack contract and the payment to Randy Lerner- all comes under "cost of promotion" which is excluded for FFP purposes. Would also include e.g. fees due to clubs in event of promotion being achieved. Even taking all that into account though, they surely failed without some curious exceptional item.

Birmingham's hearing had Charles Flint QC overseeing it. James Seagan acting for EFL vastly experienced.

Here it is in full actually!

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

I think the EFL have made a mess of things overall though- the flip-flopping over projected accounts the big one. Precedent set- can only be judged on the 3 prior years of existing accounts unless the rules voted to be changed by the clubs. If they try to stop promotion now barring a fully voted for change of rules, first stop the CAS IMO.

Plus- on Aston Villa. Also possible that they put "sale of Grealish" on projected accounts.

IF no such sale transpired in that scenario as they went up, that's a seriously aggravated breach. No way should if that was the case EFL declare them as having passed, as seemingly requested by Aston Villa- they should release a statement to the effect of "Passed- As it stands, pending further material change of circumstances and if applicable, investigation".

The gall, the entitlement of Aston Villa wanting a statement released by EFL about them having passed- hate them!

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azed said:

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Theses the EFL committee that deals with FFP breaches......

1346044523_hearnoevil.jpg.f21feabb3f7425a0958d0a96da4bf38a.jpg

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Theses the EFL committee that deals with FFP breaches......

1346044523_hearnoevil.jpg.f21feabb3f7425a0958d0a96da4bf38a.jpg

One thing I have noticed though.

Wasn't (yet) confirmed by EFL that Aston Villa passed- it's that Purslow has declared it and also asked them to release a statement to the effect that they have passed.

Will be interesting to see if this statement is forthcoming. Regardless of pass/fail it certainly shouldn't be but their entitlement knows no bounds.

Here we go, found it in full.

D822E1ZWwAAn2kJ.jpg

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting debate and nice to see fans from different clubs chatting. Villa fan in peace here.

There are a few mentions of Villa selling their ground to themselves (like Derby) to pass P&S. Although this is not against the rules albeit not in the spirit of P&S, it is not the case that Villa has sold Villa Park. Since buying Villa NSWE have been putting a lot of money into the club and with each investment Xia's shareholding is further diluted, apparently he now owns less that 20% of AVFC whereas he had 45% the day the sale went through. The name of the Villa Park holding company was changed and the directors of the holding company were also changed. It went from Recon (A Xia owned company) to Aston Villa (an NSWE owned company) with Xia removed as a shareholder. There was no sale of Villa Park, it was simply a further dilution of Xia's equity on AVFC 

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

Sheffield Wednesday are too apparently- albeit for different reasons, seemingly once you don't submit your accounts and a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic soft embargo.

It could well be one with conditions i.e. no fees, frees and loans alright within a certain wage pattern, Sheffield Wednesday that is.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheffield Wednesday are too apparently- albeit for different reasons, seemingly once you don't submit your accounts and a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic soft embargo.

It could well be one with conditions i.e. no fees, frees and loans alright within a certain wage pattern, Sheffield Wednesday that is.

Yet it has been reported, allegedly coming from Sheff Wed themselves, that they have agreed a fee for Turnbull.

If that were to happen I would definitely despair of FFP. Though it looks more and more like a fig leaf to me anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

 Yet it has been reported, allegedly coming from Sheff Wed themselves, that they have agreed a fee for Turnbull.

 If that were to happen I would definitely despair of FFP. Though it looks more and more like a fig leaf to me anyway.

Possible that they're waiting for Hillsborough sale and leaseback reported to be on the cards to come through- though it is also equally possible they're doing a Birmingham and signing a player while under soft embargo- Pedersen which should if precedent set see a referral to disciplinary commission.

Though last I read on it, said sale and leaseback has not happened or had not at that stage- unsure about fig leaf given Birmingham 9 points and varying stages of embargo. PL won't apply penalties on Aston Villa- if and when they return, EFL might- under pressure from at least 20 clubs I'd have thought- have a penalty waiting.

One thing to watch though it sounds small might be whether EFL declare Aston Villa to have passed. Purslow seemingly declared it as a fans forum last week, and their odious fans seem or seemed to think that an EFL Statement was  on the cards confirming this. Obvious what Purslow is up to there and I don't think even the EFL will fall for it- if they declare publicly they have passed, I don't see how they can re-open it.

Therefore either: a) They declare they have passed "as it stands"- in much more legalese obviously. or b) They don't say anything.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Possible that they're waiting for Hillsborough sale and leaseback reported to be on the cards to come through- though it is also equally possible they're doing a Birmingham and signing a player while under soft embargo- Pedersen which should if precedent set see a referral to disciplinary commission.

Though last I read on it, said sale and leaseback has not happened or had not at that stage- unsure about fig leaf given Birmingham 9 points and varying stages of embargo. PL won't apply penalties on Aston Villa- if and when they return, EFL might- under pressure from at least 20 clubs I'd have thought- have a penalty waiting.

One thing to watch though it sounds small might be whether EFL declare Aston Villa to have passed. Purslow seemingly declared it as a fans forum last week, and an EFL Statement was apparently on the cards confirming this. Obvious what Purslow is up to there and I don't think even the EFL will fall for it- if they declare publicly they have passed, I don't see how they can re-open it.

Therefore either: a) They declare they have passed "as it stands"- in much more legalese obviously. or b) They don't say anything.

The fact that big clubs appear to thumb their noses at FFP with impunity makes it a fig leaf for me.

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

I predict that within a year the rules will be relaxed to the extent that they will become irrelevant.

Edited by chinapig
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/04/2019 at 19:07, Coppello said:

They say that they have had the stadium independently valued by experts which is interesting. I'd struggle to see how the stadium valuation of £80m has been ascertained using the depreciated replacement cost method given that it's not brand new and it's in Derby, not the most expensive area of the country. I'm currently working on a stadium valuation at the moment in a more affluent area of the country and I'd be amazed if it comes out at 75% of the fee. I do wonder if we will see a wave of Championship and Premier League clubs following this method which would be absolutely ridiculous. It throws FFP rules into complete disrepute. The fact that it has been audited is a bit of an embarrassment to Smith Cooper (their audit firm) who has signed this off.

As a side note, it is commonly stated that the football club do not own the stadium which is a little misleading. Yes, it's not held in the same legal entity as the footballing activity but it is held in a company that Bristol City Holdings Ltd own 100% of. It doesn't really change things in the grand scheme of things because if it was held in Bristol City Football Club Ltd, Lansdown could still asset strip the football club and sell off Ashton Gate. It's just slightly easier now it's in a separate entity as he could effectively sell shares in it but the Bristol City group still 100% own the stadium. 

 Someone must be telling lies. Everybody knows we are Bristol City (1982) plc Ltd as the faithful and true continually try to remind us. 82.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The fact that big clubs appear to thumb their noses at FTP with impunity makes it a fig leaf for me.

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

I predict that within a year the rules will be relaxed to the extent that they will become irrelevant.

It's an interesting one.

I think the rules have loopholes that would be easily amended. See the Derby ground sale as case study a. Some people suggest that fixed asset sales mean it's aok, but others rightly point out an inconsistency which basically reads that if depreciation on fixed assets doesn't count against FFP costs, then sale of assets shouldn't either- certainly not to related parties in a leaseback! Before we even get onto what might have been true value. That's just one example.

Agreed- Birmingham a lot lower profile.

We'll see. I think there are medium and big clubs in favour too. To name 3, Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest. Then you have a majority of medium and smaller clubs who have stuck to standards and want no more than equal treatment under the regs regardless of club size. Need 18/24 having a vote in favour to have them so watered down tbh- dynamics could change of course but I'm not sure I see an appetite among enough clubs to scrap them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Are the EFL planning on buying their own board room table off themselves?

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

42 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Since nobody backed Gibson I think we can conclude that they don't give a toss about FFP.

Still, are Derby about to move on to their, (ninth is it?), manager under Morris? What with that and selling off the family silver, a stable, well run club, and an example to us all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

It wasn't that Blues were an easy target. They failed P&S for the period '15/'16 through to '17/'18 and were punished with a soft embargo. Then in '18/'19 they broke the rules again. Persistent offending will result in severe punishment. Comparing them to Derby is ridiculous as Derby have not broken the P&S rules

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Since nobody backed Gibson I think we can conclude that they don't give a toss about FFP.

Still, are Derby about to move on to their, (ninth is it?), manager under Morris? What with that and selling off the family silver, a stable, well run club, and an example to us all!

If you actually look at the situations at the time there was one (McClaren) in place in May 2014 when he bought a minority (22%) stake in the club, then there was another (Clement) in place in September 2015 when he bought the rest of the club (source), since then we've had four permanent managers (Pearson, McClaren MKII, Rowett and Lampard), one interim (Wassall - after Clement) and one caretaker (Powell - after Pearson). Sam Rush, ex CEO, left in May 2017, when Rowett was in charge.

So while you may say the next one will be the ninth under Mel Morris, it's not as simple as that, it rarely is.

For all the manager changes we've actually not finished below ninth in that time, and we've finished in the play offs for four out of the last six seasons, there's worse clubs to be.

Anyway, at least when Frank goes we'll have made around £6m in compensation from the last two, better than having to pay them off!

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...