Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Here is a club who could be heading for it.

Stoke's accounts apparently sent to Companies House today. Once they're up, I'll post some of the key figures.

They won't have failed it to June 2019 in that 3 year period but the 3 seasons to June 2020, this could be very interesing.

Their projected accounts for 19/20 will be interesting indeed!  Might just scrape in, but be massively hamstrung next season. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @Davefevs will read it a bit later.

28 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

The relegation clauses need to be far more aggressive in terms of wage loss. The reductions are clearly nowhere near severe enough. Even better get rid of parachute payments, and spread amongst all of the EFL teams the same money. Players lose 75% of wages on relegation (just as they expect them increase on promotion). The parachute payments are creating the problem not solving it. 

They're usually about 1/3 to 50% aren't they? In that range anyway, I'm unsure how realistic anything much above that range is.

Nonetheless, the system needs reform and no mistake. The precise course of action, it's harder to say IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks @Davefevs will read it a bit later.

They're usually about 1/3 to 50% aren't they? In that range anyway, I'm unsure how realistic anything much above that range is.

Nonetheless, the system needs reform and no mistake. The precise course of action, it's harder to say IMO.

@Coppello is the man for this.  I used to think it was 40%, but learned that they often sign two contracts, one for each division.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Just read the article and will doubtless read it again.

One thing for sure, with Butland and Allen- and I'd argue that Martins Indi and at times though younger Etebo, well they certainly should be much higher! Squad they've got, must be a terrible culture there.

Appointing Rowett in summer 2018 set a tone I'm think...a manager with a similar ethos to say a Bielsa, or a Jokanovic- or though he did it and is doing it with many less established players, a Wilder.

In short, appointment of a more positive and attack minded manager, who is used to dominant play, that would've raised their level  suspect.

Ironically, Rowett maybe would've been better in January 2018, relegation scrap, more counterattacking then rebuild from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will get onto the parachute debate in full later, but without you're talking a 75-85% reduction in wage bill in one year? Ain't happening, in all reality. IMO anyway.

I'd have to look at figures in more depth but given clubs in Championship earn from TV and solidarity payments the % that PL clubs earn from TV, the 75% figure sounds a bit on the light side!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Stoke.

They lost about £15.4m. However that was inclusive of an £18m or so profit on transfers. Without it their true loss would've been £33m or thereabouts. Would have to look in more depth though. 

Their media revenue well basically TV isn't it, fell by £49m, that's obviously factoring in parachute payments, about 49% fall basically.

Wage bill fell by around £38.1m or about 40%, not bad going. They clearly do have some kind of relegation related wage clauses. Possibly quite reasonable ones at that?

One other interesting note. The Brittannia Stadium was impaired, valuation wise. By about £600-700,000. Makes Aston Villa's size and margin of their impairment in their relegation season look very interesting indeed.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more note- and I'm certainly interested in this bit. We've discussed it at length @Davefevs

Wonder if the fact Stoke are making plans now is an indicator that the EFL are exploring how best to implement the Projected Accounts with potential for in-season penalties, as was originally meant to be the case but never materialised.

The Telegraph article did say they had discussions with Rick Parry. Maybe he intends to see if it's properly feasible to enforce.

Perhaps him, Jevans plus most importantly the compliant majority of clubs saw Aston Villa going up as they did being the final straw and want to try and ensure that this kind of thing won't happen again. 

God knows what Shaun Harvey was doing in his final year especially, in charge!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at Stoke's accounts, I'm struggling to see where their "allowed" losses are included just yet.

I know FFP vs basic accounting figures are only known by the clubs and the League, but given that a lot of their property/infrastructure is owned or seems to be owned by a company named Stoke City Property Ltd, I wonder how much of their accounting losses can truly be written off for FFP.

Stoke City Holdings might provide some answers but seems it only gives the consolidated accounts this year, even though they're basically the same as Stoke City FC ones. Probably Stoke City FC + Stoke City Property.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/12/2019 at 23:32, Davefevs said:

@Coppello is the man for this.  I used to think it was 40%, but learned that they often sign two contracts, one for each division.

Sorry, I've only just responded to this. It's been a busy week and OTIB isn't the best place to be after two successive losses! 

It tends to vary by player/club but 40% is about correct. I haven't seen two contracts signed as it's usually included as a clause within their contract but I've only worked in the Premier League. 

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

I saw something interesting, when re-reading some pieces by Mike Thornton, will post links later.

One thing that perhaps might have/had been overlooked in FFP...

Quote

1.1.4 Cash Losses means aggregate Adjusted Earnings Before Tax after:

(a) write back of:

(i) amortisation and/or impairment of Players’ registrations; and

(ii) profit or loss on the transfer of Players’ registrations; and

(b) inclusion of net cash flow in respect of transfers of Players’ registrations.

That last bit seems a new one! OTOH, I'm not altogether sure how many clubs it'll benefit- could well tighten the pass/fail margin if anything! Seems a bit odd possibly, to include both ii) and b)?

Unless cash flow is included in the overall headline figures? :dunno:

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this earlier.

http://dunlopheywood.com/wigan-athletic-0-valuation-office-1/

I wonder how this will impact upon the expected rent for certain sale and leaseback clubs- even if they don't pay it in reality, might it become a factor for FFP purposes?

I also wonder, whether this should lead to some fresh analysis of the Aston Villa £44.8m I think it was, impairment of Villa Park in relegation season- as part of the Investigation into their sale and leaseback at the back end of 2018/19.

Would seem that it was ruled that Relegation was NOT deemed a "Material Change of Circumstances" when it came to determination of rateable value. Precedent?

If the rateable value therefore did not swing by a large %, might that not go for an Impairment- like with Villa Park?

@Davefevs @downendcity @Coppello  you might all find this interesting?

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

Couple of notes- Birmingham City and Blackburn Rovers accounts are due- but curiously they run to March, for the full picture it might need the club accounts but Venkys London Limited appears to be the parent/holding/group company.

Doesn't make for pretty reading either way for Blackburn- courtesy of, and credit to Kieran Maguire!

Birmingham, interestingly have not yet released their Accounts. Whether it's delayed like Sheffield Wednesday, or whether it's just a few days late due to the Christmas Period we shall see- a few days isn't a huge difference.

What will be interesting to see though- and they as a club and the Birmingham Finance, Ownership etc guy named Al Majir also seems to think this, but they think FFP isn't and won't be a problem, will be three things:

  • a) Whether there is a change to Reporting Period.
  • b) Whether their mooted stadium sale appears in their accounts to  30th June 2019.
  • c) Whether the sale of Che Adams does.
  • d) Whether there are any material and significant differences to their Hong Kong released Birmingham accounts to 30th June 2019!

I hope the EFL are keeping a close eye here. Because I'd suggest that d) Would be a cause for closer scrutiny! That said, Kieran Maguire said a while ago that Hong Kong Accounting Standards don't include RPTs such as e.g. selling St Andrews to Birmingham City Stadium Ltd...

It's also interesting to see that they never, ever miss their HK Listing deadlines. 3 months after for annual accounts, 2 months after for half-year- I'm assuming some of the regulations over there for Accounting are really quite stringent- any ideas @Coppello  or @Davefevs? Certainly if what Maguire said was right about Stadium sale not appearing in HK accounts was right here, then that does sound quite exacting, standards wise. Probably also quite tough in terms of listings for Hong Kong Stock Exchange too- like I've noted, they've never dared miss a deadline for HKSE.

I'd be surprised if Blackburn fail, simply because they failed under the old system. so they know first hand that the consequences of it aren't good- they got a lengthy embargo last time out aqnd that was under the old, softer regime!

Was only 4 years ago they failed under the old regs, same owners- that's the only reason I'm assuming they won't fall foul and will sell big if necessary.

They'll likely sail close to the wind but quite possibly they will need to sell in January...assumed their losses would fall a bit from League One though, not increase!!

Maybe worth testing Blackburn's mettle a bit in January- they clearly have some decent players, some low ball bids for any that may either improve the squad, team or that can be sold on at a profit?

EDIT: Blackburn have a Category One academy apparently. That costs and as with academy etc expenditure,is excluded from FFP- like I say they can't go splashing the cash but I'm unsure that they'll breach....yet.

Also worth noting that Johnson, Holtby and Downing arrived on free transfers- that of course means that if any are sold, pure profit.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham though is possibly of more interest right now- not least as they were the first team to fail FFP under the current system!

Worth reiterating what those 2018/19 accounts as submitted in HK looked like...helpfully they were segmented unlike 2017/18, separating the Football Club from the Parent/Holding/Group Company's other activities. It's in HK$ BUT exchange rate would I believe be apt as per 30th June 2019. Pick an average I guess?

As for their neighbours...the PL should be really tight on them! The ground sale is questionable and as such, there should be a big asterix about their January spending

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50894893

Saw this on Twitter- @Davefevs @downendcity and @Coppello will surely be interested! Some others too, @29AR @martnewts @chinapig and @Drew Peacock

Quote

Relegation would be a disaster. The financial ramifications of an enormous wage bill back into the Championship and Villa are certain to face scrutiny from the EFL over whether spending under former owner Xia broke their Profitability & Sustainability rules. [john percy] #avfc

Will post a bit more on Birmingham later in the week probably. I don't have such a major issue with them atm given a) They got punished b) They sold Jota, Adams- lost Morrison and Mahoney and seem to be moving towards sustainability of some sort c) There are many more pressing priorities in terms of clubs with FFP questions atm.

 

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

Very interesting @Mr Popodopolous seems villa intend trying to spend to stay up but if that doesn’t work you’ve got to expect severe penalties on relegation surely to the extent of further relegation to league 1 or below. Even if they stay up you have to hope that premier league penalties would be very severe otherwise what’s the point of the rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming it's a one-off, holiday related or linked to Investment that is expected not yet being there.

I mean, last season Reading's wages were late over Easter IIRC but it seems not to have happened again. Sheffield Wednesday in November, there was some story about only 50% of wages appearing in a month...or some % below 100 anyway!

Glitch, or something more serious? Only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sign of Birmingham's accounts yet.

No sign of their mooted ground sale on Land Registry yet, or at least not last time I had a look before Christmas...maybe info unavailable.

Technically I suppose they have 9 months...but it's worth reiterating that they never miss an HK deadline, and listed as PLC at CH tends to mean end of December or carries over to early January. Granted, it could just be from the past and end of March could make sense.

They've had their AGM and confirmed their results in Hong Kong though...the plot thickens? ?

Funnily enough, such is our laxity in submissions dates that we could in theory see their half year results for this season before we see the final ones for 2018/19 at CH, possibly...they're due at end of February- 9 months to get accounts done is a laugh!

Then again, guidance seems to on a brief look over there suggests something different in terms of filing etc..but in HK BSH seem not to miss deadlines!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL really didn't enforce their own rules and regulations correctly, did they- looking again at them!

Quote

2 Profitability and Sustainability

2.1 Rules 2.2 to 2.9 shall apply with effect from Season 2016/17.

2.2 Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Executive:

2.2.1 copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Executive) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditor’s report(s) on those accounts;

2.2.2 its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:

(a) be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and

(b) be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and

2.2.3 if Rule 2.5 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in a form approved by the Executive from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is set out in Appendix 1.

Quote

2.3 The Executive shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Executive shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

In particular, 2.3- should they have not got in Independent valuers etc AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION- if it even appeared in the Projected Accounts that was? Which in most cases, I really doubt they did!

Quote

2.4 The Executive shall not exercise its power set out in Rule 2.3 without first having given the Club  reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to:

2.4.1 whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or

2.4.2 what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

2.5 If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule 2.3, then the Club must submit to the Secretary the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2.

2.6 If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to the Lower Loss Threshold (calculated in accordance with Rule 3), then the Executive shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to fulfil its obligations as set out in Regulations 16.19.8(a), (b) or (c).

2.7 Where the Executive determines, in its reasonable opinion and having considered any information provided to it by the Club, that the Club may not be able to fulfil its obligations as set out in Regulations 16.19.8(a), (b) or (c), the Executive shall have the powers set out in Regulation 16.20.

2.8 If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss that exceeds the Lower Loss Threshold, then the following shall apply:

2.8.1 the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the 2006 Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information;

2.8.2 the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Executive considers sufficient; and

2.8.3 if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule 2.8.2, the Executive shall have the powers set out in Regulation 16.20.

2.9 If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss that exceeds the Upper Loss Threshold (calculated in accordance with Rule 3) then:

2.9.1 the Executive may exercise its powers set out in Regulation 16.20;

2.9.2 the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly The League shall refer the breach to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with section 8 of the Regulations.

Secure funding appears a bit of a red herring here.

Essentially this means checking the accounts afresh after adjustment if necessary.

Quote

4 Duty of Disclosure

4.1 The Executive may require a Club to provide such further information as the Executive deems necessary (acting reasonably) for the purposes of enabling the Executive to assess whether a Club has met (as applicable) the Profitability and Sustainability Rules or not.  By way of example, and without limitation, additional information may be requested where:

Quote

4.1.1 any submission is incomplete;

Fair's fair, they did eventually with Sheffield Wednesday!!

Quote

4.1.2 there are insufficient assumptions; or

A good example would be Butland and Gray- assuming this was in Birmingham's Projected Accounts for 2017/18, as in we'll fail BUT Butland and Gray sell on clauses will save us, for this 3 years at least. When that didn't happen, they were in trouble.

Quote

4.1.3 additional evidence is required to support certain assumptions.

Absolutely the case here...what proof is there that the transfer will take place- is there a deal in place, paper trails etc?

Quote

4.2 Any such request shall be made in writing (including by email to the Finance Director or equivalent) and shall be responded to in full within 5 Normal Working Days of any such request being made.

Standard.

Quote

4.3 Without prejudice to the right of The League to refer any breach of rules to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with section 8 of the Regulations, where any Club is in breach of any requirement of these Rules relating to the provision of information, the Executive may refuse any application by that Club to register any Player or any new contract of an existing Player of that Club.

Shouldn't the soft embargo for Aston Villa that was apparently there in May 2019 have continued until compliance guaranteed? At bare minimum.

Quote

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

Well Middlesbrough suing is a bit of a breach, but the bolded bits...*cough* *looks away* *whistle,  snort* etc That's a laugh!

Am interested in the thoughts especially of @Davefevs @downendcity @chinapig and @Coppello

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

On 03/01/2020 at 11:01, Mr Popodopolous said:

No sign of Birmingham's accounts yet.

No sign of their mooted ground sale on Land Registry yet, or at least not last time I had a look before Christmas...maybe info unavailable.

Technically I suppose they have 9 months...but it's worth reiterating that they never miss an HK deadline, and listed as PLC at CH tends to mean end of December or carries over to early January. Granted, it could just be from the past and end of March could make sense.

They've had their AGM and confirmed their results in Hong Kong though...the plot thickens? ?

Funnily enough, such is our laxity in submissions dates that we could in theory see their half year results for this season before we see the final ones for 2018/19 at CH, possibly...they're due at end of February- 9 months to get accounts done is a laugh!

Then again, guidance seems to on a brief look over there suggests something different in terms of filing etc..but in HK BSH seem not to miss deadlines!

Think Brum’s sale of Adams might get them through.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The EFL really didn't enforce their own rules and regulations correctly, did they- looking again at them!

In particular, 2.3- should they have not got in Independent valuers etc AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION- if it even appeared in the Projected Accounts that was? Which in most cases, I really doubt they did!

Secure funding appears a bit of a red herring here.

Essentially this means checking the accounts afresh after adjustment if necessary.

Fair's fair, they did eventually with Sheffield Wednesday!!

A good example would be Butland and Gray- assuming this was in Birmingham's Projected Accounts for 2017/18, as in we'll fail BUT Butland and Gray sell on clauses will save us, for this 3 years at least. When that didn't happen, they were in trouble.

Absolutely the case here...what proof is there that the transfer will take place- is there a deal in place, paper trails etc?

Standard.

Shouldn't the soft embargo for Aston Villa that was apparently there in May 2019 have continued until compliance guaranteed? At bare minimum.

Well Middlesbrough suing is a bit of a breach, but the bolded bits...*cough* *looks away* *whistle,  snort* etc That's a laugh!

Am interested in the thoughts especially of @Davefevs @downendcity @chinapig and @Coppello

I don't think Middlesborough suing is a bit of  breach. Unless Im misreading, the rules in question relate to club's conduct and actions with regard to the financial rules. Their suing the EFL is not them not behaving in good faith towards the league over their own financial conduct, but taking legal action against the EFL because the EFL failed to take appropriate action against clubs that have, or appear to have, not behaved in good faith towards other clubs and the EFL under those financial rules.

As for your first sentence, then I think we have all thought the EFL have been inept/useless/scared over the stadium sales, but that they were in a difficult position, given the cock up they themselves made when drafting the new ffp rules.

Until now it seems that Derby and Wednesday's defence is that they consulted the EFL with their proposals to "sell" Pride Park and Hillsborough and ,in effect,  are now saying that because the EFL were made aware, they can do nothing about it now.  However, seeing rule 2.3 is a bit of an eye opener, as it means that at the very least, any suspicions the EFL had about fair valuations could and should have been addressed immediately, although I can also see that this would be a potential can of worms, with both sides arguing that their valuations are the correct ones.

More importantly, had the EFL been aware of their own rule 2.3, the surely when clubs approached them to discuss stadium sales. they should have been notified that any sale profit could only be based on a fair valuation,  but that the club's valuation should be referred to, and agreed by the EFL before the profit could then be applied to the clubs' accounts for ffp consideration.

Once again it seems that either the EFL were inept, or that they knew the rule full well, but were not prepared to risk confrontation with "big" clubs, as I suspect the EFL knew full well that the clubs were in need to substantial amounts of profit to avoid ffp sanctions - and a breach of ffp, with the potential penalties available, could present an even more difficult and embarrassing confrontation.

The good news is that rule 2.3 gives the EFL something for which they can go after clubs. That is , of course, providing they have the will to do so. Even if they do take action, it makes a mockery of the new ffp rules, that we understood were meant to make it so that breaches of ffp could be identified and the appropriate penalties be applied during the same season. We are now half way through the following season and the issues still don't seem to be resolved. I bet Mel Morris obtained his professional and independent valuation of Pride Park in the time scale he demanded, and certainly much quicker than 6 months! 

 

 

 

Edited by downendcity
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I don't think Middlesborough suing is a bit of  breach. Unless Im misreading, the rules in question relate to club's conduct and actions with regard to the financial rules. Their suing the EFL is not them not behaving in good faith towards the league over their own financial conduct, but taking legal action against the EFL because the EFL failed to take appropriate action against clubs that have, or appear to have, not behaved in good faith towards other clubs and the EFL under those financial rules.

As for your first sentence, then I think we have all thought the EFL have been inept/useless/scared over the stadium sales, but that they were in a difficult position, given the cock up they themselves made when drafting the new ffp rules.

Until now it seems that Derby and Wednesday's defence is that they consulted the EFL with their proposals to "sell" Pride Park and Hillsborough and ,in effect,  are now saying that because the EFL were made aware, they can do nothing about it now.  However, seeing rule 2.3 is a bit of an eye opener, as it means that at the very least, any suspicions the EFL had about fair valuations could and should have been addressed immediately, although I can also see that this would be a potential can of worms, with both sides arguing that their valuations are the correct ones.

More importantly, had the EFL been aware of their own rule 2.3, the surely when clubs approached them to discuss stadium sales. they should have been notified that any sale profit could only be based on a fair valuation,  but that the club's valuation should be referred to, and agreed by the EFL before the profit could then be applied to the clubs' accounts for ffp consideration.

Once again it seems that either the EFL were inept, or that they knew the rule full well, but were not prepared to risk confrontation with "big" clubs, as I suspect the EFL knew full well that the clubs were in need to substantial amounts of profit to avoid ffp sanctions - and a breach of ffp, with the potential penalties available, could present an even more difficult and embarrassing confrontation.

The good news is that rule 2.3 gives the EFL something for which they can go after clubs. That is , of course, providing they have the will to do so. Even if they do take action, it makes a mockery of the new ffp rules, that we understood were meant to make it so that breaches of ffp could be identified and the appropriate penalties be applied during the same season. We are now half way through the following season and the issues still don't seem to be resolved. I bet Mel Morris obtained his professional and independent valuation of Pride Park in the time scale he demanded, and certainly much quicker than 6 months! 

 

 

 

in fairness, perhaps I was being pedantic and overcautious. Okay Middlesbrough not a breach but actually trying to get things enforced.

Agreed...Shaun Harvey a big part of the issue IMO.

Agreed...can of worms, but I'd be interested to know if it was in the Projected Accounts.

Yep- spot on. EFL valuation takes precedence. Also feel that the correct valuation method must be ascertained...I'm unconvinced on either score, for example selling for Housing or Commercial Land would differ to DRC or Value in Use IMO.

Yep, agreed- Derby I still think were closest of them to compliance, at least for in-season 2017/18 due to player sales- 2018/19 a different matter of course, but Derby hard to say because more than maybe the others they seemed to be spending on Infrastructure, so it depends but if adjusted their 3 years to 2018/19 could be in q I think.

Yep, makes a mockery as you say...but perhaps they have questions over certain things which could complicate things further but certainly delay- DM will be incoming, a friend found it one day and if they could, hopefully the EFL would. Could be something and nothing, or could be interesting.

I'm sure he got his independent valuation as and when required!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to one of the Pride of Football podcasts at work- fell out of the loop a bit over Christmas.

Says there is- and this was done before Christmas so it may only have been Pellegrini- but there is/was a PL club who were lookng to sack a manager, but couldn't as they were in discussions with the PL over FFP, or investigations as to whether there was a breach or if they're in breach.

?

Imagine...imagine the EFL had such Governance last season- and the PL's isn't perfect, but as I'm sure @Coppello would confirm that the PL's is quite significantly higher than the EFL under Harvey.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Listening to one of the Pride of Football podcasts at work- fell out of the loop a bit over Christmas.

Says there is- and this was done before Christmas so it may only have been Pellegrini- but there is/was a PL club who were lookng to sack a manager, but couldn't as they were in discussions with the PL over FFP, or investigations as to whether there was a breach or if they're in breach.

?

Imagine...imagine the EFL had such Governance last season- and the PL's isn't perfect, but as I'm sure @Coppello would confirm that the PL's is quite significantly higher than the EFL under Harvey.

I'd agree that the Premier League is significantly higher and their governance team is quite strong. The only slight caveat is that each club has a lot of FFP headroom in the Premier League so there hasn't been any breaches. I'd be interested to see what happens if there was a breach but I would imagine the Premier League would conduct their duties appropriately. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I'd agree that the Premier League is significantly higher and their governance team is quite strong. The only slight caveat is that each club has a lot of FFP headroom in the Premier League so there hasn't been any breaches. I'd be interested to see what happens if there was a breach but I would imagine the Premier League would conduct their duties appropriately. 

Thanks.

Had a funny feeling their Governance would be quite a bit better- think we all had it, but yeah £35m x 3 (unsure if that £35m includes the allowable costs as with others or if it's £35m + allowables), but either way it strikes me as very difficult to fail when we factor in the limit, the TV money, the Revenue Streams- fact that PL to PL transfers seem quite high when there are sales between PL sides.

I think, though I'm no expert, that the only club at risk of breach in the PL might be Aston Villa in terms of a carry over from Championship, aligned...I wonder if e.g. the EFL were not happy with the ground sale and requested a soft embargo this January say, as a precursor to an investigation, whether the PL might enforce. Morally they should I think, but that's merely a personal view.

I also think that had the EFL had a similar standard of Governance to the PL, an agreement to enforce between the two divisions might be watertight and binding...properly harmonised, contractually speaking. I'm assuming it isn't as watertight as it could be and I largely blame Shaun Harvey but I hope I'm wrong!

On an FFP note at this level,Birmingham's accounts are at CH...says available in 5 days so will be interesting to see.

I do note however given I'm looking through it now, that they have Profitability and Sustainability and seemingly the Projected Accounts- T, T-1 and T-2...and the fair value thing for RPTs.

The fact that the Aston Villa issue has not yet quietly gone away and keeps reappearing in the media via reasonably reliable sources- Matt Lawton, Matt Hughes and John Percy- does make me wonder...because between them they are 3 of the foremost journalists for FFP related news, or have been in recent times.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2020 at 11:53, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not City or even Championship related but I see that Chelsea- Chelsea- one of the top clubs in England and CL regulars- lost nearly £100m last season, according to Reports!!

?

Well according to one report I read, Tammy wants them to up his wages to match Hudson-Odoi’s 128k a week! That’s 19 year old Callum Hudson-Odoi! If true it’s obscene...

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

Aston Villa fans some of them on Villatalk seem to believe that it resets on promotion.

I am quite sure that this is NOT the case. They should read E.60.

Quote

E.60. The sum set out in Rule E.59 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1
and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League.

Looks like potentially harmonised regs to me...shame a soft embargo cannot be enforced this January as part of a holding pattern, to stabilise and prevent further breaches...or can it?

I still can't help but feel that Shaun Harvey wouldn't have cut the best deal on it.

One thing I will say, is that the PL HandBook seems to set it out in a more user friendly and is less lengthy and wordy, possibly unnecessarily wordy, than the EFL site in this area! About FFP (or to give it the most updated name, P&S).

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Aston Villa fans some of them on Villatalk seem to believe that it resets on promotion.

I am quite sure that this is NOT the case. They should read E.60.

Looks like potentially harmonised regs to me...shame a soft embargo cannot be enforced this January as part of a holding pattern, to stabilise and prevent further breaches...or can it?

I still can't help but feel that Shaun Harvey wouldn't have cut the best deal on it.

One thing I will say, is that the PL HandBook seems to set it out in a more user friendly and is less lengthy and wordy, possibly unnecessarily wordy, than the EFL site in this area! About FFP (or to give it the most updated name, P&S).

Yes, it’s £35m for a Prem season, £13m for a Champ season.  So if they come straight back down it will be £61m (35+13+13) plus the further issue that they only get 2 years PPs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, it’s £35m for a Prem season, £13m for a Champ season.  So if they come straight back down it will be £61m (35+13+13) plus the further issue that they only get 2 years PPs. 

I was thinking more of a points deduction this season for failing in the 3 years to May 2020...wouldn't that be great if Projected Accounts submitted in March, prior 2, problem with the ground valuation and then 10-20 points off- bang- down they do!

That Impairment of 2016 of nearly 50% on relegation- and we all know it's an accounting trick- but in terms of actual justification, set against standards, tests etc, well it's never been properly explained or justified IMO...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
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...