The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[DerbyFan]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh I don't like the ground sale at all- Aston Villa certainly the worst of the 4 likely big FFP botherers- by far, but this is a very good post.

Agreed.

The thing about Derby and where they differ to other clubs- by which I mean Aston Villa, Birmingham and seemingly Sheffield Wednesday- we don't know either way yet as still no accounts for 2017/18- was the first team and squad players they sold- seemed like a move to buy time for a restructuring rather than a big FFP dodge/cheat to me- but then it comes down to which accounts used for Derby's FFP submissions as well, is it the Derby County ones or the Sevco 5112 Limited?  

If the latter then yes FFP failed for sure without it, if it was the former then there's a small chance they pass. I've looked over their 3 year figures for Derby 2015/16-2017/18 and it really wouldn't have been a done deal that they fail to June 2018 with the DCFC accounts- grey area. Sevco 5112 though, absolutely it was FFP related! I hope they have to go through some austerity times though, if not fall foul of FFP.

It isn't right I agree- he's usually a good listen though.

@DerbyFan Thanks- will take a listen. The bit about events bringing in £12m per season sounds notable, like you are looking to stick strictly within the regulations in the future. Also do you know if it is "The Derby County Football Club Limited" or Sevco 5112 that is used for FFP submissions?

I've got no idea which accounts are used for the FFP submissions.

I've said before, the club have been saying for the last few years that we need to get our costs in line, we are reducing our costs for the future, the players bought in will be on less than the ones leaving, that will start to come to fruition now that a lot of contracts are ending in a few days time, then there will be a few more this time next year.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Alas, seems it is within the updated regs.

People call it a loophole but actually seemingly it's one enabled by the club owners, the EFL- did 18/24 vote for this then? 

Will have to look through the new regs- first I've seen a lot of those actually. Part 2 onwards would appear to be the updated/most recent/relevant.

I still wonder if the ground sale and leaseback might be challenged and adjusted- not excluded but adjusted- for FFP purposes what with Gibson's. Would need a full and far reaching inquiry though. 

Example A- Reading. Their ground was worth around £20m, income from sale and leaseback to owners £26.5m- that's about 32.5% profit margin. Bear in mind Madejski built similar time to Pride Park and adjusted for inflation, £50m to build today.

Example B- saw a rumour that Hillsborough gross figure was £30m- profit margin about 1/3.

To me either of those might pass the "smell test"- I don't approve of any of it but it feels like 25-35% uptick what with post 1992 developments of grounds, new builds, further work, property rises and inflation adjustments- might be within the bounds of normal. Double though, or as good as double? Just struggle to see it, given valuation in 2007 was £55m- unclear what revaluation in 2013 might have been- but for subsequent revaluation I've been taking £55m as a starting point, adding on extra work i.e. additions under Tangible Fixed Assets and subtracting depreciation.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[DerbyFan]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Alas, seems it is within the updated regs.

People call it a loophole but actually seemingly it's one enabled by the club owners, the EFL- did 18/24 vote for this then? 

Will have to look through the new regs- first I've seen a lot of those actually. Part 2 onwards would appear to be the updated/most recent/relevant.

I still wonder if the ground sale and leaseback might be challenged and adjusted- not excluded but adjusted- for FFP purposes what with Gibson's. Would need a full and far reaching inquiry though. 

Example A- Reading. Their ground was worth around £20m, income from sale and leaseback to owners £26.5m- that's about 32.5% profit margin. Bear in mind Madejski built similar time to Pride Park and adjusted for inflation, £50m to build today.

Example B- saw a rumour that Hillsborough gross figure was £30m- profit margin about 1/3.

To me either of those might pass the "smell test"- I don't approve of any of it but it feels like 25-35% uptick what with post 1992 developments of grounds, new builds, further work, property rises and inflation adjustments- might be within the bounds of normal. Double though, or as good as double? Just struggle to see it, given valuation in 2007 was £55m- unclear what revaluation in 2013 might have been- but for subsequent revaluation I've been taking £55m as a starting point, adding on extra work i.e. additions under Tangible Fixed Assets and subtracting depreciation.

I mentioned this in post 678, I actually quoted that particular section of the rules! (1.1.2 and (a))

The old rules (from the first tweet) are the ones in Part 1 on the EFL website, they relate to 2015/16. The new rules (from the second tweet) are the ones in Part 2 they relate to 2016/17 onwards.

The old rules seem to only be there as a reference because the year 2015/16 was included in the 3 year rolling period leading to 2017/18.

[Mr Popodopolous]

59 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I mentioned this in post 678, I actually quoted that particular section of the rules! (1.1.2 and (a))

The old rules (from the first tweet) are the ones in Part 1 on the EFL website, they relate to 2015/16. The new rules (from the second tweet) are the ones in Part 2 they relate to 2016/17 onwards.

The old rules seem to only be there as a reference because the year 2015/16 was included in the 3 year rolling period leading to 2017/18.

Thanks- I'll have a look at them in depth later, they do ring a bell actually from this thread.

Still unconvinced by the valuation personally- seems sale and leaseback in the regs, but £81.1m just feels too high- always had it in the bracket of £40-50m, maybe £55m- still think the profit size should be challenged by EFL- their own independent valuers etc. Paid for by the EFL of course.

Reading- value around £20m, sale pride £26.5m. Margin/ratio about 1/3.

If rumours to be believed- Hillsborough sold for £30m- shown in accounts as a 2013 revaluation of £22.25m, margin/ratio about 35%.

Well aware that Pride Park is bigger than Madejski Stadium and a fair bit better, more modern than Hillsborough, plus property prices in Derby so therefore land value higher than Sheffield but I'm thinking about £40-55m about right- based on 2007 valuation which was just that. Add on the additions to Tangible Fixed Assets which presumably represents work being done on it, subtract the depreciation- would property price rises shunt this up to £81.1m?

Using historic figures and benchmarking etc, it just "feels" too high- not the fact there is an uptick but double!!

Edited June 27, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Alas, seems it is within the updated regs.

People call it a loophole but actually seemingly it's one enabled by the club owners, the EFL- did 18/24 vote for this then? 

Will have to look through the new regs- first I've seen a lot of those actually. Part 2 onwards would appear to be the updated/most recent/relevant.

I still wonder if the ground sale and leaseback might be challenged and adjusted- not excluded but adjusted- for FFP purposes what with Gibson's. Would need a full and far reaching inquiry though. 

Example A- Reading. Their ground was worth around £20m, income from sale and leaseback to owners £26.5m- that's about 32.5% profit margin. Bear in mind Madejski built similar time to Pride Park and adjusted for inflation, £50m to build today.

Example B- saw a rumour that Hillsborough gross figure was £30m- profit margin about 1/3.

To me either of those might pass the "smell test"- I don't approve of any of it but it feels like 25-35% uptick what with post 1992 developments of grounds, new builds, further work, property rises and inflation adjustments- might be within the bounds of normal. Double though, or as good as double? Just struggle to see it, given valuation in 2007 was £55m- unclear what revaluation in 2013 might have been- but for subsequent revaluation I've been taking £55m as a starting point, adding on extra work i.e. additions under Tangible Fixed Assets and subtracting depreciation.

Of course it's enabled by club owners, some of whom wanted to further water down the regime recently.

I am confident that over time the rules will only be held together by the holes in them. The EFL can then claim they have proper controls knowing full they are a fig leaf so irresponsible owners can carry on as usual.

[chinapig]

It seems Villa Park is worth rather less than Pride Park. Should have got Derby's 'independent' valuer in.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-villa-park-ffp-16504236

[downendcity]

 

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It seems Villa Park is worth rather less than Pride Park. Should have got Derby's 'independent' valuer in.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-villa-park-ffp-16504236

Don't need any "qualified " or "independant" valuer.

You or I could perform the task, as the only information required is the amount the club needs to achieve as "profit" o the sale transaction in order to avoid breaching ffp and that's the figure that goes on the bottom of the valuation report.

The fact that there is no active or open market in football stadia means that there is little chance of any comeback on a valuer in terms of him/her being required to justify their valuation figure.

 

 

[phantom]

Not sure if this has been shared yet? 

How villa got around FFP

https://offthepitch.com/a/new-filing-reveals-aston-villa-sold-stadium-owners-5-weeks-ago

[downendcity]

33 minutes ago, phantom said:

Not sure if this has been shared yet? 

How villa got around FFP

https://offthepitch.com/a/new-filing-reveals-aston-villa-sold-stadium-owners-5-weeks-ago

So if the sale of Villa Park to the owners went through 5 weeks ago, what were the figures on their projected accounts submitted to the EFL at the end of March?

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, downendcity said:

So if the sale of Villa Park to the owners went through 5 weeks ago, what were the figures on their projected accounts submitted to the EFL at the end of March?

Doesn't matter. The EFL will have seen Aston Villa on the cover of the accounts then rubber stamped them.

[nickolas]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

It seems Villa Park is worth rather less than Pride Park. Should have got Derby's 'independent' valuer in.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-villa-park-ffp-16504236

Well it is an ageing sh1thole!!!

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, nickolas said:

Well it is an ageing sh1thole!!!

True, but in England's second city. I would expect land values to be higher than in Derby.

[downendcity]

12 hours ago, chinapig said:

True, but anywhere else in England's second city. I would expect land values to be higher than in Derby.

 

[Lrrr]

13 hours ago, phantom said:

Not sure if this has been shared yet? 

How villa got around FFP

https://offthepitch.com/a/new-filing-reveals-aston-villa-sold-stadium-owners-5-weeks-ago

Interesting that nswe stadium Co is outside the clubs group of companies, that could get real messy if the owners ever look to sell or a takeover approach 

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, hodge said:

Interesting that nswe stadium Co is outside the clubs group of companies, that could get real messy if the owners ever look to sell or a takeover approach 

The potential asset stripping won't bother Villa fans, they're living the dream and so on.

For it's long term benefit football needs a club behaving like this to crash and burn.

[Lanterne Rouge]

14 hours ago, chinapig said:

Doesn't matter. The EFL will have seen Aston Villa on the cover of the accounts then rubber stamped them.

Or they opened the envelope and several more smaller envelopes tumbled out...………...

[GreedyHarry]

So in theory, a club or owner could sell their stadium on every season to a new company, and cover their losses? They could even get the club to buy each stadium owning company for a pound before repeating the trick over and over. No point in FFP at all now if this is the case, as it is completely meaningless.

Edited June 29, 2019 by GreedyHarry
Phat Phingerz

[Sturman 1]

I would be interested in seeing how we look in regards to FFP after this window, £14mill made on transfers but for players on a low(ish) wage in comparison to the new additions coming in that I would imagine be on top £££.

 

[chinapig]

31 minutes ago, GreedyHarry said:

So in theory, a club or owner could sell their stadium on every season to a new company, and cover their losses? They could even get the club to buy each stadium owning company for a pound before repeating the trick over and over. No point in FFP at all now if this is the case, as it is completely meaningless.

Like the fit and proper test, FFP is an attempt to look like there is proper governance.

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 hours ago, GreedyHarry said:

So in theory, a club or owner could sell their stadium on every season to a new company, and cover their losses? They could even get the club to buy each stadium owning company for a pound before repeating the trick over and over. No point in FFP at all now if this is the case, as it is completely meaningless.

Taxman/HMRC may have something to say about it.

Pretty sure they'd have more than FFP to worry about then- definitely couldn't happen like that IMO.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

So Aston Villa have as mooted sold the stadium then?

Few thoughts:

• Given parachute payments too, nearly £90m in 3 years- wow how dislikable they increasingly are. Had the benefit of that and still needed to do this?? Derby at least sold Grant-Christie-Hughes-Ince-Hendrick-Vydra-Weimann. Birmingham got stung but have now sold Adams and Jota as a result. Who did Aston Villa sell of note?? Not talking foreign players who would have wanted out on relegation, but of note which first team or near first teamers did they sell? Same can be said of Sheff Wed- Jack Hunt the only one, but they didn't have all those parachute payments to help.
• On that note, Parachute Payments really should be conditional on a club making significant efforts to help to balance the books IMO. Aston Villa did not therefore under my system would be fined a proportion of their parachute payments- obviously FFP would still apply as it would to everyone else.
• The ground went for £56.7m right. Was that "gross" or "profit"- if it was the latter it'd be interesting- because only the profit on such sales, as opposed to the total transaction would be of use in this instance- especially if an internal transfer such as this. Anyway their accounts appear to in terms of 
• Villa Park- unsure how much it's worth. They probably did sell it for enough to get through FFP.  80-90% profit maybe? Again- questionable.
• This must surely call into fresh question the Pride Park deal. Reading ground worth £20m, goes for £26.5m- though only 24k capacity, similar modern build and 1998 was its completion date as opposed to Pride Park which was 1997. The next bit is a RUMOUR- but Hillsborough apparently gross sale price around £30m-  current value based on 2013 valuation around £22-22.25m. Margin about 1/3 on each.
• EFL or perhaps I have more faith in club owners with hefty resources and proper business nous need to get some sort of inquiry going- to challenge the valuation, the profit based on benchmarking, hire some high end valuers and lawyers- these things can be legally challenged but it ain't easy!

Someone mentioned projected accounts. It's possible that they had this in their projected accounts- highly unlikely but possible that they had it as a fallback plan in these in case of no promotion.

8 hours ago, Sturman 1 said:

I would be interested in seeing how we look in regards to FFP after this window, £14mill made on transfers but for players on a low(ish) wage in comparison to the new additions coming in that I would imagine be on top £££.

 

Fine I reckon. Not saying we can go nuts- we cannot- but the profit on Flint and the academy lot, the savings on amortisation on some others- all a big help. The Kelly sale likely would fall in the 2018/19 accounts, the savings this season to date would be there but not huge- Fielding, Marinovic, Pisano wages and possibly a small profit on Eisa. However our 3 year position is decent but again that £24m loss in 2017/18- before allowables-has to be kept in mind. OTOH we should've made a profit last season, the Kelly sale making absolutely sure- the bigger the profit the more we can spend in the subsequent window or 2. As I say can't go nuts but by the end of this season, that aforementioned £24m loss- so summer 2020 basically, June 1st 2020 this will drop off and our new starting point will be summer 2018 and the restructure.

I don't have any particular concerns about breaching it with SL, MA and LJ at the helm.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some uncertainty about Sheffield Wednesday.

Apparently their new free transfer signings were spotted at their pre-season event called "Owls in the Park". Odubajo-Borner-Harris. Not bad range of free transfers- think first and third are good and Borner good experienced CB late 20s, Bundesliga 2 and useful on the ball. Bruce would like 4 more apparently. Also extended Westwood-Palmer-Lee- wasn't aware you could under an embargo?

The uncertainty comes because a) Obviously they have not been unveiled officially b) They are apparently under a soft embargo c) Unless anything new has happened in secret which it could well have, the EFL may well lack their accounts from season just gone and d) The big one- no accounts at CH- for 2017/18!!

Originally made up to May 31st 2018, extended to July 31st 2018- these were due on February 28th latterly April 30th 2018- this surely, is there nothing that smacks of aggravated breach here?

Haven't even explored the prospect they may have breached FFP- I'd say there is a reasonable chance they have but we shall see, Jack Hunt aside, who have they sold??

Said it before, any club not getting accounts to EFL by deadline, full summer embargo- end of. Let alone the lack of 17/18 accounts to CH!! Possible of course that ground thing going through, some say accounts not signed off by auditors- either way they should not be in a position to sign anyone at all or even negotiate for frees IMO, while in this position.- hope the EFL have tied up loose ends and refuse to register them for as long as it goes on and if they unveil them while a) 2018-19 accounts with EFL- which they might be now tbf- or b) 2017/18 accounts not with CH, EFL hearing Birmingham style I'd suggest.

Probably just a few isolated idiots, certainly not in the Aston Villa League (Begley excepted of course), but yeah I hope it evolves into a full embargo and maybe a disciplinary hearing at the EFL.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Promised I'd come onto it and come onto it I will.

@Begley

On the Webster thread you declared that you had to do something to avoid breaching FFP. While I totally get it from a business, technical, regulatory and of course financial POV- from reality, for integrity of the competition it makes a total mockery. Absolute mockery. Other clubs appear to have done sale and leaseback but the big 3 here are yourselves, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday. Birmingham seem to have done a mix of the 2- stupidity but now the sale of Adams and Jota. If St Andrews sale in 2018/19 period and Adams sale too, well they're on one year periods until 2019/20 so they'd still be hamstrung even with a ground sale but would surely avoid FFP sanctions for 2018/19. Reading sold a ground worth £20m to owners for £26.5m, which is strikingly low and doesn't help their FFP all that much.

What else could Aston Villa have done- let's think shall we.

1. Sell Grealish
2. Keep Grealish but sell say Chester, Adomah, Kodjia- it all can help.
3. Sign cheaper loanees.
4. Not replace Snodgrass-Grabban with El Ghazi-Bolasie-Tammy.
5. Not sign Kalinic and Guilbert in Jan for a combined added amortisation of £1.1m.
6. Utilise YOUTH more- utilise it more to help make up shortfalls.
7. Utilise squad players more- fair enough if some you loan out help make up a shortfall and you sign cheaper ones making a net profit but you did not in the main.
8. Oh yeah, not even mentioned your January loans for Mings-Hause-Carroll!!

Looking at your many, many signings last season the ones I'd say were acceptable from a moving towards compliance POV were as follows:

• Nyland- Not a huge wage probably.
• McGinn- Not a huge wage probably.
• Hause- loan
• Tuanzebe loan- Maybe. Man Utd connection to Bruce perhaps helps with wages- or maybe his wages just are not so high?

Maybe some younger and cheaper loanees- certainly less proven on top.

Now I'm not saying that saves you entirely from FFP but it does what parachute payments are intended to do- and these steps would all be seen as very concrete with potential for significant mitigation, in terms of a point penalty or similar.

What yourselves have done- and Derby, and though there are zero accounts, Sheffield Wednesday is essentially tried to cheat the competition albeit within the revised regs!! Disgusting basically- ******* disgusting. I take back some of what I said about Mel Morris too. 

EFL have a hell of a lot to answer for, I actually think clubs should look at legal action against the EFL themselves- mind you why clubs agreed to it as an 18/24 god knows. They certainly kept it very quiet.

Your club has got a lot more dislikable- no personal dig at you, you're a good poster in good faith obviously, but your club since last summer- looking from the outside your new owners seem a lot less likable than Xia, and Purslow? Liverpool fans didn't much like him apparently.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Those clubs that do the sale and leaseback to a related party, especially with a lack of first team, key departures are cheats- albeit not in a technical sense which is a very important distinction to draw.

In the last few years- in no apparent order and off the top of my head:

US

1. Kodjia
2. Flint
3. Bryan
4. Reid
5. Kelly

Leeds

1. Wood
2. Vieira
3. Clarke

Middlesbrough

1. Gibson
2. Traore
3. Bamford

Norwich

1. Maddison
2. Murphy

Nottingham Forest

1. Burke
2. Assombalonga
3. Brereton

Sheffield United

1. Brooks

Then there are smaller, or less financially rich but nonetheless compliant clubs- Brentford sell aplenty and have a brilliant system. Preston sold Hugill, Wigan sold Grigg last season which probably helps just keep it ticking over a bit

Like I say it's disgusting. Shameless...EFL changing that rule quietly is morally- but in no way whatsoever legally I must stress- speaking aiding and abetting, enabling.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Lrrr]

Don't sit on the fence there @Mr Popodopolous tell us how you really feel

[downendcity]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Promised I'd come onto it and come onto it I will.

@Begley

On the Webster thread you declared that you had to do something to avoid breaching FFP. While I totally get it from a business, technical, regulatory and of course financial POV- from reality, for integrity of the competition it makes a total mockery. Absolute mockery. Other clubs appear to have done sale and leaseback but the big 3 here are yourselves, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday. Birmingham seem to have done a mix of the 2- stupidity but now the sale of Adams and Jota. If St Andrews sale in 2018/19 period and Adams sale too, well they're on one year periods until 2019/20 so they'd still be hamstrung even with a ground sale but would surely avoid FFP sanctions for 2018/19. Reading sold a ground worth £20m to owners for £26.5m, which is strikingly low and doesn't help their FFP all that much.

What else could Aston Villa have done- let's think shall we.

1. Sell Grealish
2. Keep Grealish but sell say Chester, Adomah, Kodjia- it all can help.
3. Sign cheaper loanees.
4. Not replace Snodgrass-Grabban with El Ghazi-Bolasie-Tammy.
5. Not sign Kalinic and Guilbert in Jan for a combined added amortisation of £1.1m.
6. Utilise YOUTH more- utilise it more to help make up shortfalls.
7. Utilise squad players more- fair enough if some you loan out help make up a shortfall and you sign cheaper ones making a net profit but you did not in the main.
8. Oh yeah, not even mentioned your January loans for Mings-Hause-Carroll!!

Looking at your many, many signings last season the ones I'd say were acceptable from a moving towards compliance POV were as follows:

• Nyland- Not a huge wage probably.
• McGinn- Not a huge wage probably.
• Hause- loan
• Tuanzebe loan- Maybe. Man Utd connection to Bruce perhaps helps with wages- or maybe his wages just are not so high?

Maybe some younger and cheaper loanees- certainly less proven on top.

Now I'm not saying that saves you entirely from FFP but it does what parachute payments are intended to do- and these steps would all be seen as very concrete with potential for significant mitigation, in terms of a point penalty or similar.

What yourselves have done- and Derby, and though there are zero accounts, Sheffield Wednesday is essentially tried to cheat the competition albeit within the revised regs!! Disgusting basically- ******* disgusting. I take back some of what I said about Mel Morris too. 

EFL have a hell of a lot to answer for, I actually think clubs should look at legal action against the EFL themselves- mind you why clubs agreed to it as an 18/24 god knows. They certainly kept it very quiet.

Your club has got a lot more dislikable- no personal dig at you, you're a good poster in good faith obviously, but your club since last summer- looking from the outside your new owners seem a lot less likable than Xia, and Purslow? Liverpool fans didn't much like him apparently.

This is the thing that grates with Villa and Derby.

Both clubs knew the new ffp rules, and that they would come into effect this spring , as did every other club in the division. In Villa's case they had 3 years in which to adjust to financial life in the championship, during which time parachute payments would help make the transition more manageable. Despite this they seemed to carry on as though nothing had changed, paying big money recruiting players that  they thought would secure a quick return too the premier league. When this didn't happen, like a desperate gambler , they chased their losses by buying more players and if reports are to be believed they even borrowed in advance of their final year parachute payments. 

With all of this, to now say that "they had to do something to avoid breaching ffp" as though it justifies the sale of Villa Park, is putting 2 fingers up to the EFL and every other club that has done something to avoid breaching ffp - namely, managing their affairs to bring costs in line with income.

Similarly, Mel Morris justifies Derby's sale of Pride Park on the basis of it being very difficult to remain competitive, i.e. Derby found it difficult to be as competitive if they had to reduce costs in line with income, thereby reducing the quality of their playing squad, i.e. doing all the things that other championship clubs have been doing in order to avoid breaching ffp.

It now seems that what they both did is allowed within the new rules. The irony is that it would not have been under the previous ffp rules, and this being the case I can't for the life of me think why the EFL made this change. Having said that I agree with you that this summer has shown the eFL to be almost impotent when dealing with big clubs over the application of ffp. I can't help but think that at this early stage they need to review and overhaul the rules at the same time as deciding exactly what they want ffp to achieve, because at the moment ffp seems to be a moving target and it is the clubs that keep moving it.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

This is the thing that grates with Villa and Derby.

Both clubs knew the new ffp rules, and that they would come into effect this spring , as did every other club in the division. In Villa's case they had 3 years in which to adjust to financial life in the championship, during which time parachute payments would help make the transition more manageable. Despite this they seemed to carry on as though nothing had changed, paying big money recruiting players that  they thought would secure a quick return too the premier league. When this didn't happen, like a desperate gambler , they chased their losses by buying more players and if reports are to be believed they even borrowed in advance of their final year parachute payments. 

 With all of this, to now say that "they had to do something to avoid breaching ffp" as though it justifies the sale of Villa Park, is putting 2 fingers up to the EFL and every other club that has done something to avoid breaching ffp - namely, managing their affairs to bring costs in line with income.

 Similarly, Mel Morris justifies Derby's sale of Pride Park on the basis of it being very difficult to remain competitive, i.e. Derby found it difficult to be as competitive if they had to reduce costs in line with income, thereby reducing the quality of their playing squad, i.e. doing all the things that other championship clubs have been doing in order to avoid breaching ffp.

 It now seems that what they both did is allowed within the new rules. The irony is that it would not have been under the previous ffp rules, and this being the case I can't for the life of me think why the EFL made this change. Having said that I agree with you that this summer has shown the eFL to be almost impotent when dealing with big clubs over the application of ffp. I can't help but think that at this early stage they need to review and overhaul the rules at the same time as deciding exactly what they want ffp to achieve, because at the moment ffp seems to be a moving target and it is the clubs that keep moving it.

  

Agree with all of this. Impotent at dealing with big clubs...or maybe morally speaking colluding?

Derby is an odd case, I am trying to work out if they breach or not- based on the DCFC as opposed to Sevco 5112, without the ground thing. They're somewhere between player sales and ground sales- I'm adding up losses, but subtracting what I assume to be infrastructure spending i.e. spending on, additions to fixed assets-then the youth, community etc expenditure, depreciation. I agree the EFL removing that rule is and was madness.

If I was to give an order of ground sales and their culpability to date ethically etc then right now the disreputability table would look like this IMO:

1. Aston Villa- the winners.
2. Derby- The ground transaction, but at the same time a number of first team players solid- which leads me onto...
3. Sheffield Wednesday- So far no ground transaction reported yet- but no accounts either so we don't know- lack of sales could easily see them and Derby swap places!
4. Birmingham- Yes they breached, yes they were ignorant and arrogant but ground sale combined with Adams, Jota out and Morrison their captain gone on a free, Monk- catching up with them yet in reality it was one shocking Redknapp season that took them over.
5. Reading- Under a soft embargo, may well have breached. Yet the ground sale and leaseback profit only £6.5m, which is oddly low indeed. The least bad of the 5, not least as it appears not to have helped them much. Incompetence as with 4 and maybe 3??

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree with all of this. Impotent at dealing with big clubs...or maybe morally speaking colluding?

Derby is an odd case, I am trying to work out if they breach or not- based on the DCFC as opposed to Sevco 5112, without the ground thing. They're somewhere between player sales and ground sales- I'm adding up losses, but subtracting what I assume to be infrastructure spending i.e. spending on, additions to fixed assets-then the youth, community etc expenditure, depreciation. I agree the EFL removing that rule is and was madness.

If I was to give an order of ground sales and their culpability to date ethically etc then right now the disreputability table would look like this IMO:

1. Aston Villa- the winners.
2. Derby- The ground transaction, but at the same time a number of first team players solid- which leads me onto...
3. Sheffield Wednesday- So far no ground transaction reported yet- but no accounts either so we don't know- lack of sales could easily see them and Derby swap places!
4. Birmingham- Yes they breached, yes they were ignorant and arrogant but ground sale combined with Adams, Jota out and Morrison their captain gone on a free, Monk- catching up with them yet in reality it was one shocking season that took them over.
5. Reading- Under a soft embargo, may well have breached. Yet the ground sale and leaseback profit only £6.5m, which is oddly low indeed. The least bad of the 5, not least as it appears not to have helped them much. Incompetence as with 4 and maybe 3??

Could Reading's sale and leaseback profit  be only £6.5 m because it could be based on a proper commercial valuation? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Could Reading's sale and leaseback profit  be only £6.5 m because it could be based on a proper commercial valuation? 

You see, I wondered that- and it is the view that definitely makes sense by far.

My take on Derby's ground sale is that £50-55m, maybe around £56m "feels" about right. Rumours were that Sheffield Wednesday sold for £30m, ground value around £22-22.25m. No idea on Birmingham, whether they've got their act together on it is debatable. Still trying to work out Aston Villa's NBV as they have a certain amount of non-depreciable land.

The recurring theme though, certainly with Reading and if the rumours were true, Sheff Wed is that the profit is somewhere between 25%-35%- that somehow feels right what with additions to tangible fixed assets, land value rises minus depreciation- oh and in 2007 Pride Park was valued at £55m as per their own accounts- my method with it admittedly loose method was take that valuation, take additions and subtract depreciation- not yet got into looking at land prices in that area of Derby etc since 2007.

It's benchmarking after all- something the EFL need to look into as a matter of urgency, well they should have as soon as Derby approached with the proposal tbh. Valuation needs challenging.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

On 29/06/2019 at 09:33, chinapig said:

The potential asset stripping won't bother Villa fans, they're living the dream and so on.

For it's long term benefit football needs a club behaving like this to crash and burn.

My thoughts for a long time.  One big club to go to the wall, or Sky / BT to start paying less.

We are positioning ourselves sensibly.

@Mr Popodopolous pretty sure Kelly will be in 18/19s accounts....and that’s not just because it happened on 18th May.  Think the England u21 tournament was a reason for getting it done and dusted (not pending).