Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Olé said:

 

 

Thanks for posting. Predictable silence from the EFL. In the wake of the Bolton and Bury situations you would think they would be concerned about more reckless financial management but they have proved themselves incompetent at every step.

And of course the football media cries crocodile tears over Bolton and Bury but shows no interest in other clubs risking their future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember pointing out the differential in ground sale prices months ago. I am glad Kieran Maguire has re-emphasised, published and highlighted the fact.

One possible solutions

Set Madjeski Stadium as a benchmark- it appeared to be the first after all. Net book value was around £20m, sale price about £26.5m. 

By benchmarking in this instance I mean for FFP purposes as a % of the current NBV. Reading's was a (roughly) 32.5% profit. Set that specifically OR set in a 25-35% range- you have what you like on paper but as per related party sponsorship you simply set this bracket.

I'm sure there are others as well but EFL should've done this the moment Reading's transaction occurred.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/08/2019 at 01:57, OwlsonlineAdmin said:

Genuine question Mr P,  have you seen Bristol City FCs accounts to Oct 18?

A P&L £120m overdrawn isn't very FFP friendly is it? 

The club has a 60m negative Balance Sheet, by rights you're a massive GC issue.

You can't sell the ground as it is outside the football club assets.... How can you be so pious? 

Presumably you mean the debt to ownership in that? Not so relevant to FFP.

A lot of this will be infrastructure related expenditure IMO but will look again at this in due course, these areas a big note closely. I recall there was a large debt write off in League One in Jan 2014. £35m as per a BBC Article.

This isn't relevant to FFP.

FFP is something as a club we take very seriously- at times this is to the chagrin of some of our fans!

Could probably amend the ground sale issue to make it possible if we were so minded.

There are other fixed assets on our books that we can inflate in a transaction to a related party if necessary.

We know all clubs at this level are financially reliant on their owner to a lesser or greater degree- doesn't mean there aren't loss limits within this however.

Let's look at YOUR club in some detail shall we.

1. You extend accounting reporting period from May 31 2018 to July 31 2018- the due date from February 28 2019 to April 30 2019. That's fine, all legal within company laws.

2. Your owner says at a fans forum in JANUARY 2019 that if there us no promotion you'd be in BIG trouble.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-wednesday-owls-chairman-dejphon-chansiri-admits-wednesday-need-to-solve-financial-worriesa-to-avoid-future-problemsa-183808?amp

3. He mentioned a breach by 8 figures.

4. The accounts that were already due by April 30th 2019 didn't actually appear until a month on and later still.

5. 11th July 2019 on your website- JULY!?

6. 16th July 2019 at CH.

7. At least they were dated and signed by due date yeah? Err- no! June 21st 2019- well past CH revised let alone initial due date!!

8. Any sign of it at Land Registry yet? Last time I heard there was not.

9. What definitive proof is there that this transaction was completed within, or at least began within the correct reporting period? Eg up to May 31 2018 or if revision accepted July 31 2018. EFL shouldn't accept it if not.

10. Does it show in the Cash flow statement in its entirety as a once off move? Derby's did, Reading's did. Can't say I saw it on first glance but will look again of course. Aston Villa's should in 2018/19 accounts...

I'm no fan of the Derby ground sale and leaseback but set against your clubs actions in this sense, they look a model of pure probity and have a halo above their head. Only club worse at this level financially speaking IMO were Aston Villa.

The one thing, you've FINALLY sold a striker, finally- Joao for several million. Non renewal of contracts also helps but you've signed a number of players too albeit on frees- loans from PL last season can't have been freebies. Lazaar, Aarons and Onomah I believe.

Rhodes was off the books which helps and a loan fee inbound too, but now back on and presumably on full wage. Management compensation- still though it's a nonsense tbh overall.

As for us.

Academy products sold for big cash represent pure profit. Lloyd Kelly £13.5m up front- that's £13.5m to offset losses. Bryan was around £6m, offsets very nicely. Reid- that had addons but offsets. Flint probably had a sell on fee to give part of and some remaining amortisation to offset against but a profit nonetheless. BIG Webster profit but then again sell on fee and remaining NBV- add ons too, add ons which may or may not have been hit last season, could complicate.

Overall we're compliant and we seem to have done this in the correct manner.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Presumably you mean the debt to ownership in that? Not so relevant to FFP.

A lot of this will be infrastructure related expenditure IMO but will look again at this in due course, these areas a big note closely. I recall there was a large debt write off in League One in Jan 2014. £35m as per a BBC Article.

This isn't relevant to FFP.

FFP is something as a club we take very seriously- at times this is to the chagrin of some of our fans!

Could probably amend the ground sale issue to make it possible if we were so minded.

There are other fixed assets on our books that we can inflate in a transaction to a related party if necessary.

We know all clubs at this level are financially reliant on their owner to a lesser or greater degree- doesn't mean there aren't loss limits within this however.

Let's look at YOUR club in some detail shall we.

1. You extend accounting reporting period from May 31 2018 to July 31 2018- the due date from February 28 2019 to April 30 2019. That's fine, all legal within company laws.

2. Your owner says at a fans forum in JANUARY 2019 that if there us no promotion you'd be in BIG trouble.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-wednesday-owls-chairman-dejphon-chansiri-admits-wednesday-need-to-solve-financial-worriesa-to-avoid-future-problemsa-183808?amp

3. He mentioned a breach by 8 figures.

4. The accounts that were already due by April 30th 2019 didn't actually appear until a month on and later still.

5. 11th July 2019 on your website- JULY!?

6. 16th July 2019 at CH.

7. At least they were dated and signed by due date yeah? Err- no! June 21st 2019- well past CH revised let alone initial due date!!

8. Any sign of it at Land Registry yet? Last time I heard there was not.

9. What definitive proof is there that this transaction was completed within, or at least began within the correct reporting period? Eg up to May 31 2018 or if revision accepted July 31 2018. EFL shouldn't accept it if not.

10. Does it show in the Cash flow statement in its entirety as a once off move? Derby's did, Reading's did. Can't say I saw it on first glance but will look again of course. Aston Villa's should in 2018/19 accounts...

I'm no fan of the Derby ground sale and leaseback but set against your clubs actions in this sense, they look a model of pure probity and have a halo above their head. Only club worse at this level financially speaking IMO were Aston Villa.

The one thing, you've FINALLY sold a striker, finally- Joao for several million. Non renewal of contracts also helps but you've signed a number of players too albeit on frees- loans from PL last season can't have been freebies. Lazaar, Aarons and Onomah I believe.

Rhodes was off the books which helps and a loan fee inbound too, but now back on and presumably on full wage. Management compensation- still though it's a nonsense tbh overall.

As for us.

Academy products sold for big cash represent pure profit. Lloyd Kelly £13.5m up front- that's £13.5m to offset losses. Bryan was around £6m, offsets very nicely. Reid- that had addons but offsets. Flint probably had a sell on fee to give part of and some remaining amortisation to offset against but a profit nonetheless. BIG Webster profit but then again sell on fee and remaining NBV- add ons too, add ons which may or may not have been hit last season, could complicate.

Overall we're compliant and we seem to have done this in the correct manner.

Academy products amounted to around 30m (Reid, Kelly, Bryan).

Plus Flint 7m, Magnússon 2m, Eisa 2m (?), Webster 22m (some say 20m up front). So around 30m+ from those transfers.

60m+ from outgoing transfers.

Offset by incomings and expenses of course, and the club needs to keep an eye on wages and the amount of players we now have, but it would be difficult to see City in any sort of FFP bother especially given the increasing rises to off field income to take into account as well.

Not sure why the Sheffield lad thinks otherwise ?

Edited by bcfc01
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bcfc01 said:

Academy products amounted to around 30m (Reid, Kelly, Bryan).

Plus Flint 7m, Magnússon 2m, Eisa 2m (?), Webster 22m (some say 20m up front). So around 30m+ from those transfers.

60m+ from outgoing transfers.

Offset by incomings and expenses of course, and the club needs to keep an eye on wages and the amount of players we now have, but it would be difficult to see City in any sort of FFP bother especially given the increasing rises to off field income to take into account as well.

Not sure why the Sheffield lad thinks otherwise ?

Is that inclusive of add ons though, the £30mish figure.

Thought the Reid fee had an element of add ons. Don't forget possible sell on clauses for Flint and Webster will subtract from it.

However these are small details- the thrust of your post I fully agree- we're in no FFP issues and while we have SL, MA and LJ at the helm this will not be a concern for us IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is that inclusive of add ons though, the £30mish figure.

Thought the Reid fee had an element of add ons. Don't forget possible sell on clauses for Flint and Webster will subtract from it.

However these are small details- the thrust of your post I fully agree- we're in no FFP issues and while we have SL, MA and LJ at the helm this will not be a concern for us IMO.

I didn't include add-ons or sell-ons nor any other historical sell-ons in our favour such as Bolasie or Adomah (if any).

Just the fees in the public domain.

It all probably evens out or thereabouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is that inclusive of add ons though, the £30mish figure.

Thought the Reid fee had an element of add ons. Don't forget possible sell on clauses for Flint and Webster will subtract from it.

However these are small details- the thrust of your post I fully agree- we're in no FFP issues and while we have SL, MA and LJ at the helm this will not be a concern for us IMO.

We aren’t in FFP trouble because we aren’t spending all of the transfer income / profit we make.

Some basic figures, approx figs:

- Income £25.0m

minus

- Wages £25.0m (think it’s likely to be nearer £30.0m)

- Operations Costs £10.0m

- Amortisation of Player contracts £11.0m

Profit...cough....loss:

- £21.0m 

take off £5.0m for ffp allowances means our starting position is about £16.0m loss.  “Little” Income streams, e.g. loaning players out, or Freeman sell-on money all help.

Now, some of that £11.0m amortisation is because we have bought players, so a bit chicken and egg.  £21.0m spent on recruitment is costing us £5.5m in Amortisation for those new players.

Of course had we spent nothing on improving our squad, we’d be in a fantastic financial position, but we’d probably be heading towards League 1 ?

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

8 hours ago, chinapig said:

Thanks for posting. Predictable silence from the EFL. In the wake of the Bolton and Bury situations you would think they would be concerned about more reckless financial management but they have proved themselves incompetent at every step.

And of course the football media cries crocodile tears over Bolton and Bury but shows no interest in other clubs risking their future.

In the link I posted above the EFL chairperson briefly discusses the sale of stadia to owners and says,

Jevans touches on other issues, inevitably financial, such as the loophole of clubs selling grounds to their owners to improve the look of the books. “I wouldn’t use the word loophole, no, but what I do think is important is there is absolute clarity over the sale of fixed assets. We are sitting down with the Premier League, and looking at the wording of those rules. It’s noted.” Any risk of a breakaway from the Championship to form a Premier League 2? “No, not right now, there’s no desire from the clubs, the FA or the Premier League.”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

In the link I posted above the EFL chairperson briefly discusses the sale of stadia to owners and says,

Jevans touches on other issues, inevitably financial, such as the loophole of clubs selling grounds to their owners to improve the look of the books. “I wouldn’t use the word loophole, no, but what I do think is important is there is absolute clarity over the sale of fixed assets. We are sitting down with the Premier League, and looking at the wording of those rules. It’s noted.” Any risk of a breakaway from the Championship to form a Premier League 2? “No, not right now, there’s no desire from the clubs, the FA or the Premier League.”

Thanks for pointing out. A pretty limp response by Jevans though, waffle about clarity and looking at the wording doesn't come close to adequate.

The only true part is that it's not a loophole, it's a rule specifically introduced to allow clubs to act recklessly because that's what some of them wanted to be free to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Thanks for pointing out. A pretty limp response by Jevans though, waffle about clarity and looking at the wording doesn't come close to adequate.

The only true part is that it's not a loophole, it's a rule specifically introduced to allow clubs to act recklessly because that's what some of them wanted to be free to do.

I do believe she represents an improvement on Harvey though...

That's not hard however!

On this, presumably there's some coordination with PL required? I'm still puzzled ad to how the change was given the green light and when..by whom as well!

Certainly not announced with any great fanfare. The League 1 and 2 regs don't, UEFA ones appear not to.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Presumably you mean the debt to ownership in that? Not so relevant to FFP.

A lot of this will be infrastructure related expenditure IMO but will look again at this in due course, these areas a big note closely. I recall there was a large debt write off in League One in Jan 2014. £35m as per a BBC Article.

This isn't relevant to FFP.

FFP is something as a club we take very seriously- at times this is to the chagrin of some of our fans!

Could probably amend the ground sale issue to make it possible if we were so minded.

There are other fixed assets on our books that we can inflate in a transaction to a related party if necessary.

We know all clubs at this level are financially reliant on their owner to a lesser or greater degree- doesn't mean there aren't loss limits within this however.

Let's look at YOUR club in some detail shall we.

1. You extend accounting reporting period from May 31 2018 to July 31 2018- the due date from February 28 2019 to April 30 2019. That's fine, all legal within company laws.

2. Your owner says at a fans forum in JANUARY 2019 that if there us no promotion you'd be in BIG trouble.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-wednesday-owls-chairman-dejphon-chansiri-admits-wednesday-need-to-solve-financial-worriesa-to-avoid-future-problemsa-183808?amp

3. He mentioned a breach by 8 figures.

4. The accounts that were already due by April 30th 2019 didn't actually appear until a month on and later still.

5. 11th July 2019 on your website- JULY!?

6. 16th July 2019 at CH.

7. At least they were dated and signed by due date yeah? Err- no! June 21st 2019- well past CH revised let alone initial due date!!

8. Any sign of it at Land Registry yet? Last time I heard there was not.

9. What definitive proof is there that this transaction was completed within, or at least began within the correct reporting period? Eg up to May 31 2018 or if revision accepted July 31 2018. EFL shouldn't accept it if not.

10. Does it show in the Cash flow statement in its entirety as a once off move? Derby's did, Reading's did. Can't say I saw it on first glance but will look again of course. Aston Villa's should in 2018/19 accounts...

I'm no fan of the Derby ground sale and leaseback but set against your clubs actions in this sense, they look a model of pure probity and have a halo above their head. Only club worse at this level financially speaking IMO were Aston Villa.

The one thing, you've FINALLY sold a striker, finally- Joao for several million. Non renewal of contracts also helps but you've signed a number of players too albeit on frees- loans from PL last season can't have been freebies. Lazaar, Aarons and Onomah I believe.

Rhodes was off the books which helps and a loan fee inbound too, but now back on and presumably on full wage. Management compensation- still though it's a nonsense tbh overall.

As for us.

Academy products sold for big cash represent pure profit. Lloyd Kelly £13.5m up front- that's £13.5m to offset losses. Bryan was around £6m, offsets very nicely. Reid- that had addons but offsets. Flint probably had a sell on fee to give part of and some remaining amortisation to offset against but a profit nonetheless. BIG Webster profit but then again sell on fee and remaining NBV- add ons too, add ons which may or may not have been hit last season, could complicate.

Overall we're compliant and we seem to have done this in the correct manner.

Don't you just hate someone who can respond to a question by using rational argument based on factual information and without resorting to personal attacks on the poster or the use of unsubstantiated rumours or just by shouting ever louder?

In other words , a right clever dick!  :)

Seriously, in the murky and complex world of football club finances and ffp rules I do enjoy reading your posts and the way you are able to make the issues more understandable.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One interesting thing to note for @OwlsonlineAdmin

One of those companies set up by your owner was liquidated fairtly sharpish.

To be expected of course that one of them might be.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12062155/insolvency

If I had my way, I'd not allow FFP creative owners- especially Aston Villa's new ones if and when they return and yours and maybe the Rooney deal too Mel Morris into AG. I'd also make clear how such clubs have gained an advantage, should be in the programme notes, the website notes. Probably against some regulation or something but ethically speaking etc...

Are the bulk of fans aware? I'm not sure, but they certainly should be! Not just at City but Leeds, Millwall, Nottingham Forest etc etc- indeed at any club who has done it right! Would add some spice to atmosphere would it not?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFP, interesting at Sheffield Wednesday.

Not read the thread myself yet but...

The accounting period did not appear to be 2017/18 season on first glance! Only just made it into 2018/19 season too...

Can someone advise how this is a kosher transaction for that season??

Is it alright to backdate into a prior accounting period basically- or does Post Balance Sheet event cover it?

@OwlsonlineAdmin

Your club make Derby look positively angelic, some of these antics. I don't even approve of Derby's transaction!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read something quite interesting.

Villa Park? Registered as an asset of community value. Didn't realise this.

Under the LAW- not FFP, the LAW, such a transaction needs a 6 month window to be purchased by the community before any private buyer can do so.

Such a transaction done in the manner it was seems to break both the spirit of FFP and of quite a bit more importance, potentially it may break the law. Amazing. Had a 5 year deal on it as of January 2018...

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

On 30/08/2019 at 22:29, phantom said:

20190830_171224.jpg

IMG_20190830_165923.jpg

IMG_20190830_165920.jpg

 

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Read something quite interesting.

Villa Park? Registered as an asset of community value. Didn't realise this.

Under the LAW- not FFP, the LAW, such a transaction needs a 6 month window to be purchased by the community before any private buyer can do so.

Such a transaction done in the manner it was seems to break both the spirit of FFP and of quite a bit more importance, potentially it may break the law. Amazing. Had a 5 year deal on it as of January 2018...

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/08/2019 at 10:39, Mr Popodopolous said:


“Over the past 10 years or so the club’s average finishing position in the Championship was around 12th and the wage bill when Andrea first came here was in line with that,” Kinnear says. “We’ve done a lot of analysis of this.

“There’s always the odd exception but, in general, a wage bill of £15 million or £16 million will get you a mid-table place. A wage bill of £25 million will get you into the play-offs. And over £30 million will get you promoted.”

How much is our wage bill ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Read something quite interesting.

Villa Park? Registered as an asset of community value. Didn't realise this.

Under the LAW- not FFP, the LAW, such a transaction needs a 6 month window to be purchased by the community before any private buyer can do so.

Such a transaction done in the manner it was seems to break both the spirit of FFP and of quite a bit more importance, potentially it may break the law. Amazing. Had a 5 year deal on it as of January 2018...

It would all depend upon how the deal was done. The first step would be does the transaction even fall within one where the option to community group needs to be conferred - s.96 of Localism Act 2011, and I believe there is actually only a 6 week initial moratorium, which goes to 6 months only if there is an interested bidder. 

Plus there is are exemptions, including for transfers between group companies. I'd be surprised if there was something here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 29AR said:

It would all depend upon how the deal was done. The first step would be does the transaction even fall within one where the option to community group needs to be conferred - s.96 of Localism Act 2011, and I believe there is actually only a 6 week initial moratorium, which goes to 6 months only if there is an interested bidder. 

Plus there is are exemptions, including for transfers between group companies. I'd be surprised if there was something here. 

Thanks.

Unconvinced they did it in 6 weeks though- they needed to rush it through in order to avoid breaching FFP, would be surprised if it was so long in the planning.

Good point- transfers for between group companies. Is a transfer between group companies applicable as a cash/or paper transaction then? Makes perfect sense from a tax POV though I reckon.

I really, really really dislike that club though, the last 12 months or so!

https://www.astonvillanewsandviews.co.uk/villa-sell-villa-park-to-themselves-for-56-7-million-why-so-cheap/

Quote

 

The same principle applies when accounting for transactions between group companies, as below:

 

Selling company Purchasing company Group impact
Records the sale and the profit and reduces inventory. Records the purchase and increases inventory. Inventory moves from one company to another but remains in the group so there is no overall change.
Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final bit on it for now.

Burges Salmon are a reputable firm correct?

Assuming it was an asset transfer:

Carrying value, surely means zero profit or loss- the two cancel each other out no? Book value would be whatever it was at the time of transfer, which was undoubtedly <£56m! £56m may well have been double or nearly double the book value which appears to have been around £28m in terms of value minus accumulated depreciation, while factoring in revaluations or similar.

Seems to depend on the circs though.

Quote

5. Business/asset transfers

Business/asset transfer agreements will be used to transfer businesses/assets from those companies which are being eliminated to the companies which are being retained in the group structure.

  • Price: These transfers normally take place at book value using the carrying value shown in the company’s accounts (assuming that the company transferring the assets has distributable reserves). In other circumstances the transfer must take place at market value. Advice should be taken as to what value is used for each transfer.
Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/09/2019 at 10:43, Major Isewater said:

How much is our wage bill ? 

Reckon it'll be somewhere between £25-30m.

I'm not sure how much the position to place theory holds at this time tbh- certainly at the top end, I think there are probably quite a few wage bills of £25m+. More than 6 in other words, but we should be playoff contenders!

Just take a look at Sheffield Wednesday accounts for 2017/18! Granted that was a 14 month period but even once adjusted for that...think they finished 15th. Nottingham Forest I think had £25m that season and were 17th.

Let alone Birmingham and Reading who nearly went down, plus Sunderland who did!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was just thinking earlier.

What if..."sliding doors moment"- What if when Gibson put his vote to the EFL 75% of Championship clubs had voted for it by the required margin, ie the 18/24. Because let's face it about that ratio seem to comply!

Might Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday have been docked points?

A creative solution might have been that if clubs said clubs had got awkward legally, a vote of Championship clubs whether to allocate them any fixtures. Not expulsion but suspension.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well well well well well!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/TimesSport/status/1169311409609613314

Shows how inadequate a CEO Mr. Harvey was but things could be getting interesting.

The irony of course, is that procedurally and in terms of loss offsetting, their transaction seems the least offensive of the 3 in many ways.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well well well well well!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/TimesSport/status/1169311409609613314

Shows how inadequate a CEO Mr. Harvey was but things could be getting interesting.

The irony of course, is that procedurally and in terms of loss offsetting, their transaction seems the least offensive of the 3 in many ways.

@DerbyFan this looks interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

By the EFL's standards they have moved with breathtaking speed. Not that I have any confidence in the outcome.

In a sense this is about the time of the year.

Last year actual sanctions threats first came to light for Birmingham late August, early September. 

In 2014 when QPR were the first big ones to be stung by it for 2013/14 results, was looking back at it, first arose around September time.

Add in the fact Jevans appears to be an upgrade on Harvey- mind you who isn't- and it could be interesting.

Here's what I think happens. If an inflation is found to have taken place, then the ground transaction profit gets readjusted to whatever the independent valuers decide. RPTs you can do that with if applicable 

The one puzzling aspect of the article is that it mentions Reading and Sheffield Wednesday too.

Which is great but one notable side is missing- the worst of the lot, Purslow's Aston Villa!! I guess until they come back down?

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

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In a sense this is about the time of the year.

Last year actual sanctions threats first came to light for Birmingham late August, early September. 

In 2014 when QPR were the first big ones to be stung by it for 2013/14 results, was looking back at it, first arose around September time.

Add in the fact Jevans appears to be an upgrade on Harvey- mind you who isn't- and it could be interesting.

Here's what I think happens. If an inflation is found to have taken place, then the ground transaction profit gets readjusted to whatever the independent valuers decide. RPTs you can do that with if applicable 

The one puzzling aspefr of the article is that it mentions Reading and Sheffield Wednesday too.

Which is great but one notable side is missing- the worst of the lot, Purslow's Aston Villa!! I guess until they come back down?

Possibly passed on to PL to investigate....out of EFL jurisdiction at the mo?

Just imagine if it’s valued less that £40m ???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In a sense this is about the time of the year.

Last year actual sanctions threats first came to light for Birmingham late August, early September. 

In 2014 when QPR were the first big ones to be stung by it for 2013/14 results, was looking back at it, first arose around September time.

Add in the fact Jevans appears to be an upgrade on Harvey- mind you who isn't- and it could be interesting.

Here's what I think happens. If an inflation is found to have taken place, then the ground transaction profit gets readjusted to whatever the independent valuers decide. RPTs you can do that with if applicable 

The one puzzling aspefr of the article is that it mentions Reading and Sheffield Wednesday too.

Which is great but one notable side is missing- the worst of the lot, Purslow's Aston Villa!! I guess until they come back down?

I have been rooting for Villa's opponents every week and will continue to do so! Naturally I was distressed about their disallowed goal at Palace.:whistle:

  • Like 3
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...