Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

Hi @Port Said Red

Bournemouth could be interesting.

I'd have to check their most recent accounts but may well have to do a bit of a firesale? Then again, higher loss limit in the PL of £35m...they've got some good young, saleable assets, Ake and Brooks to name 2 should help ease it off for a year or maybe longer...for each PL season they would be judged on £35m loss limit and I doubt they've exceeded that...lack of clartity as to whether clubs are judsged in-season as they should be for Year 3 or the same prior 3 seasons could also make a difference- £22m of a difference in fact!

I doubt they could be punished for the 2015 overspend- there was a settlement in 2018 after all, don't see how that could be reopened- a part 2 to the fine/larger fine or equity transfer possibly?

Under Harvey no issues surely or indeed for most, but this regime seems a lot more rigorous, possibly pushed into it too by Gibson and his threat of legal action?

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

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi @Port Said Red

Bournemouth could be interesting.

I'd have to check their most recent accounts but may well have to do a bit of a firesale? Then again, higher loss limit in the PL of £35m...they've got some good young, saleable assets, Ake and Brooks to name 2 would help ease it off for a year or maybe longer...

I doubt they could be punished for the 2015 overspend- there was a settlement in 2018 after all, don't see how that could be reopened- a part 2 to the fine/larger fine or equity transfer possibly?

Under Harvey no issues surely or indeed for most, but this regime seems a lot more rigorous, possibly pushed into it too by Gibson and his threat of legal action?

I guess the parachute payments will help, but with their current stadium, the loss of tv money will hit their revenue more than many of the relegated clubs. I think they will need to hope for a quick return.

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

2 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I guess the parachute payments will help, but with their current stadium, the loss of tv money will hit their revenue more than many of the relegated clubs. I think they will need to hope for a quick return.

I know the parachute payments are 3 years if you're in the PL for more than one season, but as you say their crowds, stadium...even with saleable assets, 2 years tops?

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

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I know the parachute payments are 3 years if you're in the PL for more than one season, but as you say their crowds, stadium...even with saleable assets, 2 years tops?

Especially if certain players proviso on signing contracts with them are that they have no relegation clause.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/january/efl-statement-derby-county-charged-with-excess-losses

"Following a review of Derby County’s Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) submissions, the EFL has charged the Club for recording losses in excess of the permitted amounts provided for in EFL Regulations for the three-year period ending 30 June 2018.

The Club will now be referred to an independent Disciplinary Commission, which will hear representations from both the EFL and Derby County.

As these matters are now subject to proceedings, the EFL will be making no further comment at this time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Surely Derby must either have known they were failing, or have only failed the test by a small amount?

I thought the stadium deal had been approved.

Yes but their losses were borderline anyway. I remember Morris making a comment in playoff final regarding it. Either way, why the **** sign Rooney who must be on silly wages.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Surely Derby must either have known they were failing, or have only failed the test by a small amount?

I thought the stadium deal had been approved.

Not only approved, but did not break the rules as the EFL cocked up that bit when formulating the new ffp rules.

HOWEVER, where they MAY have failed is over the stadium valuation at £81m. Even though they could sell the stadium , as they have done, EUFA rules say that sale of any such asset has to be at fair value and I think most of us on this thread were more than sceptical as to Derby's valuation. 

Unless there is another issue we don't yet know about, my guess is that the EFL have had their own valuation carried out on Pride Park. If it is substantially lower than that which Derby applied, then I would then assume they have re-worked the ffp calculation based on the profit ( or otherwise!) based on the lower valuation. If this resulted in losses over the 3 years in excess of the £35m(?) allowed under ffp this would trigger the action now being reported.

P.S. Has the EFL copied and pasted this thread to use as evidence in the case against WR'sDCFC?

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

Great news!! 

Well done to the EFL. I didn't think that their losses to June 2018 took them...perhaps I double counted on some infrastructure spending? Or wrongly classified DCFC Accounts as opposed to Sevco 5112 ones as the right ones for FFP ones?

53 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Not only approved, but did not break the rules as the EFL cocked up that bit when formulating the new ffp rules.

HOWEVER, where they MAY have failed is over the stadium valuation at £81m. Even though they could sell the stadium , as they have done, EUFA rules say that sale of any such asset has to be at fair value and I think most of us on this thread were more than sceptical as to Derby's valuation. 

Unless there is another issue we don't yet know about, my guess is that the EFL have had their own valuation carried out on Pride Park. If it is substantially lower than that which Derby applied, then I would then assume they have re-worked the ffp calculation based on the profit ( or otherwise!) based on the lower valuation. If this resulted in losses over the 3 years in excess of the £35m(?) allowed under ffp this would trigger the action now being reported.

P.S. Has the EFL copied and pasted this thread to use as evidence in the case against WR'sDCFC?

£39m + allowables over 3 seasons. 

That sounds spot on though, about EFL valuation being set against the £81.1m one and the difference being removed from the FFP calculations to cause a recalculation. 

Hopefully the EFL are still weighing up whether Hillsborough worth £60m. I don't think it is, so even if it can be put into accounts, the same should apply...£60m- just for arguments sake say £30m is deemed about par.

You then lop off £27m even from the profit..double adjustment if you like.- just because you get punishment with one aspect, doesn't mean a free pass on the other.

Aston Villa next please...

Shows how inadequate Shaun Harvey was however. Anyone- and I mean pretty well anyone- would have been an improvement on him!

I do wonder if anyone from the EFL has ever read this thread, just out of idle interest on their part.

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

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm intrigued by a 10 year ticket though, that is major loyalty levels for anyone taking one of those on!

It's a bargain! Basically, pay once and you're largely done. Minimum of 10 year, and various free extensions.

Not sure it makes much business sense, given the people likely to buy them would buy a ticket for their club in either the top flight or the Conference, but it does sound like cracking value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

It's a bargain! Basically, pay once and you're largely done. Minimum of 10 year, and various free extensions.

Not sure it makes much business sense, given the people likely to buy them would buy a ticket for their club in either the top flight or the Conference, but it does sound like cracking value.

Not looked at it in any detail but instinct is that its a good deal for the supporter and a short term fund raiser for the club.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it's potentially really good value, especially as the 10 year period doesn't 'activate' until we get promoted to the Premier League. If that never happens you'd never need to buy one again, if you're young enough it could last 30, 40 years. The downside is that the really loyal fans have already purchased a 5 year season ticket which was made available 2 or 3 years ago, so they miss out.

The risk would be trusting that any future owner will continue to honour it if the club changes hands, which seems very likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Edited by Owl Visiting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

It should be spread, but you could have some fun deciding how.

But this is Sheff Wed's accounting principles we are talking about, so.........

 

42 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Indeed.

Good for immediate cashflow....perhaps they have cashflow issues on top?

This is sort of my point. How will it effect their income. and therefore their 3 year periods in future? They could get a big chunk now, but if they fail to get promoted, they could be losing out further down the line. How will they account for it and how will the EFL interpret it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

 

This is sort of my point. How will it effect their income. and therefore their 3 year periods in future? They could get a big chunk now, but if they fail to get promoted, they could be losing out further down the line. How will they account for it and how will the EFL interpret it? 

I’m no accountant, but I believe if you buy something that is over a number of years, then you have to apportion into each year’s accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m no accountant, but I believe if you buy something that is over a number of years, then you have to apportion into each year’s accounts.

I think that would be right, but the period that the amount should be apportioned over seems somewhat flexible according to the rules they have created.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, awbb said:

As far as the 10 year season ticket - Wasn't offering something along those lines, one of the contributing factors into Rangers' financial meltdown?

That rings bells actually, in a way it's like taking out a mortgage and then able to meet the repayments, in this case they are basically mortgaging their income over the next 10+ years.

  • Like 1
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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...