The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nah....too soft.

If deemed to be “cooking the books” and the punishment is for a retrospective season, and that season resulted in unfairly in gaining promotion, they should take the points penalty and not be able to use any of their Parachute Payments over any years they they are entitled to receive them.

Yeah agreed- was also thinking about what clubs might vote for too though, balancing idealism with realism.

However yeah I'm inclined to agree- get up unfairly, lose your Parachute Payments as well as take the points penalty would seem to fit the crime.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/02/27/championship-clubs-propose-salary-cap-20-million-force-drastic/

Sadly this is behind a paywall so I can't see the full article but this is a proposal, doubt it has the required 2/3 majority yet and they want the EFL to conclude their ongoing cases vs Birmingham, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday before any talk of changes.

No agreement on any changes reached however- but it's quite a radical proposal!

Edited February 27, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Really I shouldn't extrapolate fans and their mindset from forums but Villa can just reek of entitlement- at least in their online offerings- see the bolded bit.

Quote

I'm not an expert on the situation re Derby, but from what I can gather they are in trouble for overpricing their stadium to the tune of double it's worth.

We have done nothing of the sort so I don't fear us being persecuted by the EFL, they should be so lucky to have us in their league. Especially if West Brom and Leeds go up....

I don't want to go down but if we do I have absolutely no doubt we will start next season in a much much much better situation then 4 seasons ago, and when we come back we will come back to the PL a much much much stronger squad than the one that will go down.....

Overpricing double? More like 2/3 or 60%.

They also fail to factor into their calculations the Impairment of Villa Park in 2015/16 and justification of it, let alone a possible reversal or partial reversal.

Now this may or may not be decisive but they might look at the whole picture?

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Really I shouldn't extrapolate fans and their mindset from forums but Villa can just reek of entitlement- at least in their online offerings- see the bolded bit.

Overpricing double? More like 2/3 or 60%.

They also fail to factor into their calculations the Impairment of Villa Park in 2015/16 and justification of it, let alone a possible reversal or partial reversal.

Now this may or may not be decisive but they might look at the whole picture?

I see irony & tongue in cheek are not your strong points.

You have campaigned for us to sell assets in order to comply.  We have sold assets - Just not the ones that YOU wanted us to sell.  Rules are in place to satisfy FFP, not the warped vengence of the Bristol City fans who seem to make the rules up as they go along.  Since when has selling an asset been a loophole?  Just because you never thought about selling a ground before, does not make it a loophole.

Oh and he was wrong - If we go down, we'll come back up with a much weaker squad as Grealish, Mings & McGinn would all likely leave.

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, Delta said:

I see irony & tongue in cheek are not your strong points.

You have campaigned for us to sell assets in order to comply.  We have sold assets - Just not the ones that YOU wanted us to sell.  Rules are in place to satisfy FFP, not the warped vengence of the Bristol City fans who seem to make the rules up as they go along.  Since when has selling an asset been a loophole?  Just because you never thought about selling a ground before, does not make it a loophole.

Oh and he was wrong - If we go down, we'll come back up with a much weaker squad as Grealish, Mings & McGinn would all likely leave.

Hmmmm. With respect, and again online vs reality differ I get this- but your fanbase seem to have an entitled element...it's hard to tell online especially if there is irony & tongue in cheek.

Value vs Impairment...still a debating point! Not saying definitely guilty or innocent but it's a debating point! Can't deny that. 

You might want to read how UEFA deal with Sale and Leaseback type transactions...they basically exclude it from the calculations- it's a loophole because the EFL possibly ****** it when implementing the new rules- had they applied UEFA ones correctly then they might have continued to exclude fixed asset profits or losses from transactions.

Think he means stronger than you had 4 years ago in 2016/17- clearly you'd be weaker than this season but would still suspect you to be playoff contenders at worst.

According to a QPR blogger too, they have a specific method if it isn't excluded from the calculations:

Quote

It would be inherently wrong for any football authority to dictate to clubs that they cannot sell any of their assets, including their ground, and, of course, these sales have to be recognised correctly in their published accounts. However, the authorities do have plenty of leeway when it comes to the FFP submissions and the solution to this ridiculously short-sighted thinking is quite simple. Rather than recognise the whole of the profit gained by selling their main asset, clubs should have to deduct the cost of 50 years leasing back the stadium. By simply adding that clause to their FFP regulations the EFL would stop this ill-conceived practice overnight.

Quote

As much as I’d like to take the credit for this idea, it is already in place in UEFA’s FFP regulations which state that “If a club demonstrates that it is replacing a sold fixed asset, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement can be taken into account as a relevant income up to: ……….. the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the present value of 50 years’ minimum lease payments in respect of the replacement asset to be used by the club under a lease/rental arrangement.”

If this criteria was applied to Derby, who I understand are leasing Pride Park back at £1.1 million per season, their £39m profit from selling Pride Park (it was sold for £80m less its value in their books of £41m) would actually show a loss of £16m for FFP purposes. I can’t begin to envisage what possessed the EFL decided to leave this very sensible safeguard out of their FFP regulations.

Okay so basically in layman's terms I take that as meaning.

Say your Profit on Sale was £30m- ie £56.7m-NBV of £26.7m so that's a £30m profit.

Your minimum lease payment is I don't know, £600,000 per year.

I'm plucking figures out of the air here, with the sale price the starting point to illusrate my example then under UEFA regs it would be Profit-50 x minimum Lease- which is £30m-£30m.

Voila- as if by magic, no FFP profit! UEFA clearly are much better at this than Shaun Harvey was! 

That's a little bit of genius actually...makes a ground sale and leaseback to a related party automatically not worth it in all but the most exceptional cases!!

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

https://www.avfc.co.uk/News/2020/02/28/financial-results-villa-2019

[Mr Popodopolous]

The full accounts will give a proper picture.

But that means- before exceptional costs granted- that Aston Villa's losses were £68.9m and that's even with the stadium sale- Jesus!!

Granted, those exceptional costs wouldn't have arisen.

The bit about EFL and PL confirming compliance- fine on the face of it but not necessarily decisive, still could treat with caution solely because Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- and in Europe Man City, thought they were fine but as we can see it's not the case. Investigations under a new regime can be reopened!

It also suggests that the initial sign off in terms of raw numbers is made and then the details investigated later. Derby back in September declared that they were compliant with FFP regs but that proved not to have been the case, as the EFL charged them.

Those accounts will be an interesting read when they arrive at CH. Provided the allowable costs still the same, a mere £7-8m adjustment to the sale price by my rough calculations could take Aston Villa over in the period to May 2019- and any breach at all is 3 points.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The full accounts will give a proper picture.

But that means- before exceptional costs granted- that Aston Villa's losses were £68.9m and that's even with the stadium sale- Jesus!!

Granted, those exceptional costs wouldn't have arisen.

The bit about EFL and PL confirming compliance- fine on the face of it but not necessarily decisive, still could treat with caution solely because Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- and in Europe Man City, thought they were fine but as we can see it's not the case. Investigations under a new regime can be reopened!

It also suggests that the initial sign off is made and then the details investigated later. Derby back in September declared that they were compliant with FFP regs.

Those accounts will be an interesting read when they arrive at CH.

Jesus what?  £30m was a promotion clause owed to Lerner that Xia failed to honour - Nothing to do with wages, transfers, cheating etc.

Villa claim that the PL have Ok'd everything.  The EFL appear to have not done so yet.

No matter what is in those accounts, you will no doubt continue to point the finger.  Thankfully, the EFL are not as biased. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Delta said:

Jesus what?  £30m was a promotion clause owed to Lerner that Xia failed to honour - Nothing to do with wages, transfers, cheating etc.

Villa claim that the PL have Ok'd everything.  The EFL appear to have not done so yet.

No matter what is in those accounts, you will no doubt continue to point the finger.  Thankfully, the EFL are not as biased. 

Okay that's fine and I am already excluding this- but it tells me that the losses without the stadium sale would've been at least £90m- but that also includes cost of promotion and the Xia clause.

Well maybe the PL ok'd it and then went back to re-investigate? Like I say investigations can be reopened into FFP as the EFL and UEFA have shown.

Not necessarily- but I will raise questions, unless it shows beyond reasonable doubt that FFP was truly complied with and everything was fully justifiable in accounting terms. Because those Impairments and swinging values are fairly striking with respect to football stadia, promotion, relegation etc.

They will be interesting certainly- the Promotion Bonus projections were clearly understated in predictions too as Off The Pitch suggested last year it was £6-7m. Whereas the cost of promotion- includes bonuses, contingent fees, option to buy etc I'm sure and rightly excluded- were over £15m but again that doesn't seem excessive.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

Beyond reasonable doubt in whose book?  Yours or the EFLs?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well if the EFL say it's alright then we have to accept it I guess...Shaun Harvey for example was fairly useless- see my post about how UEFA don't allow these sorts of transactions to count towards FFP.

However Rick Parry seems to take a much tougher line and it wouldn't surprise me if he wants the EFL to revisit this case as and when you return. He was on the UEFA FFP Committee, an ex PL CEO...I trust him a lot more than I did Harvey!

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Looking back at past FFP issues, I still struggle as to how Sevco 5112 Limited accounts for 2015/16 and by extension 2016/17 and Derby ones show different profits on player sales/disposal of player registrations.

The Reporting Periods did differ ie Sevco 5112 accounts to 31st August 2016 to reflect that Mel Morris completed it all ie the takeover around that time, but was then reset to June 30th inline with the club- but I wonder if that could've helped to bolster their profit in a given period- will post the screenshots later. 

Also in 2017/18, Derby used Residual Values- but did Sevco 5112 use it to 31st August 2016? The two figures do balance in terms of profit on sales over the two years, pretty much but it's an interesting comparison.

EDIT- In fairness, they did seem to in Sevco 5112 accounts to 31st August 2016- but it's a funny one and only a small part of the jigsaw admittedly.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One other note on Aston Villa in their headline report.

They appear not to have made reference to or otherwise mentioned the sale and leaseback which is curious.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Last but not least, and I certainly am not sure if this is a red herring.

Looking at the Land Registry transactions for the stadia- the ones that appear on there, which are Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- those for Birmingham and Reading don't even appear on there as they sold to parent/group/subsidiary which is another issue that I hope is being looked at.

All 3 of these are categorised as an "Additional Price Paid" Transactions. Derby's was clearly overvalued and so too was that of Hillsborough surely- but we don't know what the EFL appointed valuer gave that one, or if it was fione, why it was valued so low since redevelopment post 1989 began to 2014 valuation and subsequent carrying at that until 2015- which means that even if the sale price is in fact right, the profit is open to adjustment for FFP purposes. 

I digress- is "Additional Price Paid" at all relevant here, as that is the type of transaction it was classified as- or is it a red herring?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Didn't take long for their gloating idiots to start up.

Quote

The accounts are out apparently and it’s very good news. I couldn’t get logged in to the official site but from the comments I read we have no FFP worries and have released a very strong set of accounts. 

A positive story before Wembley and I would imagine very disappointing for the children that make up FFP and financial melt down stories at the Brum Mail Comic. 

Haha, how does that work- would love to see his workings.

Idiots like that make me hope that Aston Villa drop and then maybe Grealish would need to be sold to comply- but then gets an 18 month freak injury slipping out of the bath just before the transfer window opens- or within a timeframe before the end of next season but out for a year and a half.

Would be a shame, wouldn't it.

Serious note, I don't actually wish injury on anyone or any player but it's the case that freak injuries can happen and scupper any backup plans that may or may not be in the offing. Idiots like that make me go to extremes on clubs.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Didn't take long for their gloating idiots to start up.

Haha, how does that work- would love to see his workings.

Idiots like that make me hope that Aston Villa drop and then maybe Grealish would need to be sold to comply- but then gets an 18 month freak injury slipping out of the bath just before the transfer window opens- or within a timeframe before the end of next season but out for a year and a half.

Would be a shame, wouldn't it.

Serious note, I don't actually wish injury on anyone or any player but it's the case that freak injuries can happen and scupper any backup plans that may or may not be in the offing. Idiots like that make me go to extremes on clubs.

Is it any worse than idiots who say:

"The EFL are scared of Villa"
"Villa are carrying on with no regard to FFP"
"Villa won't be punished because of Prince William"
"Villa should sell Grealish if offered £3m"
"Villa should be docked points AND lose their parachute money"

The only thing missing is "off with their heads".

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Delta said:

Is it any worse than idiots who say:

"The EFL are scared of Villa"
"Villa are carrying on with no regard to FFP"
"Villa won't be punished because of Prince William"
"Villa should sell Grealish if offered £3m"
"Villa should be docked points AND lose their parachute money"

The only thing missing is "off with their heads".

• Well tbh, that was the case for much of last season- it was only in mid May where the ground sale was scrambled together or at least appeared like this at CH. Signs of restraint throughout would've been an indicator of treating it seriously.
• Depends- was it cash flow or FFP related? If Xia really couldn't pay the bills pre investment then that may have had to have happened or been considered simply for solvency reasons.  Arrogant idiots on social media drive some of the more extreme reactions- and Villa seem to have a lot!
• IF a case was proven, why shouldn't that happen- not just for you but ANY side who would go up having breached if proven in a case should get points and forfrit their parachute payments- in other words you can't dock the PL season money but you can stop what happens after- think of it like proceeds of crime act?

My compromise solution to the Parachute Payments issue is to dock a % based on the overspend.

One interesting side note- for you, the whole division and any other clubs relegated this summer.

IF- and I think it very unlikely indeed, a new £20m wage cap for this level came in, clubs relegated from the PL freshly would have contract cutting clauses but the amount of firesale just to shift the wages or loans away- would be very interesting to see!

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

• Well tbh, that was the case for much of last season- it was only in mid May where the ground sale was scrambled together or at least appeared like this at CH. Signs of restraint would've been an indicator of treating it seriously.
• Depends- was it cash flow or FFP related? If Xia really couldn't pay the bills pre investment then that may have had to have happened or been considered simply for solvency reasons.
• IF a case was proven, why shouldn't that happen?

Wrong - It was only last May when the penny dropped for YOU about the ground sale.  Villa would have been aware of it from day 1.  They didn't just stumble across it 3 weeks before disaster.  The fact that we remained solvent means that we would never have had to sell Grealish for under fair market value (a term that is thrashed out on here regularly when convenient).

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, Delta said:

Wrong - It was only last May when the penny dropped for YOU about the ground sale.  Villa would have been aware of it from day 1.  They didn't just stumble across it 3 weeks before disaster.  The fact that we remained solvent means that we would never have had to sell Grealish for under fair market value (a term that is thrashed out on here regularly when convenient).

By Day 1, are we sure on that one? Xia even- or do you mean Day 1 of new owners?

The Impairment was not justified in the 2015/16 accounts so far as I could see- Accounting Regulations suggest that this is required.

Quote

Impairment of assets 1AC.20 Provisions for impairment of fixed assets (including fixed asset investments) must be disclosed separately in a note to the financial statements if not shown separately in the income statement. (Schedule 1, paragraph 19(3)) Paragraph 27.32(a) addresses similar requirements. 1AC.21 Any provisions for impairment of fixed assets that are reversed because the reasons for which they were made have ceased to apply must be disclosed (either separately or in aggregate) in a note to the financial statements if not shown separately in the income statement. (Schedule 1, paragraph 20(2)) Paragraph 27.32(b) addresses similar requirements.

It still appears to be a live issue IMO.

Operating Loss Note 3, 2015/16 Accounts for Aston Villa's ultimate group:

Quote

"The Impairment of tangible and intangible assets has been recognised to write down the assets to their recoverable amount.

Perhaps it was reversed- but in accounting terms I'm pretty sure these need to be justified- and if not necessarily in the accounts then certainly to the EFL/FFP/UEFA for FFP!

The rest would make for a stupidly big post so fill your boots!

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/e1d6b167-6cdb-4550-bde3-f94484226fbd/FRS-102-WEB-Ready-2015.pdf

Page 201/384, Section 27- Impairment of Fixed Assets!

Paragraph 27.33A seems quite pertinent.

Quote

27.33A An entity shall disclose a description of the events and circumstances that led to the recognition or reversal of the impairment loss.

Can't say I saw any in your 2015/16 accounts! There was no description of the events or circs when it came to the recognition- unless I missed it.

What were the events and circumstances that led to this 2015/16 Impairment? Reversal or partial reversal might be justified in the event of promotion but given that the plan was in place before then, from Day 1 in fact- then that again is open to scrutiny.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

Day 1 of the new regime - I accept that Xia gambled recklessly with our club.  Clearly, parachute payments give you 2 good seasons but by the third, the figure is a lot lower.  It's noteworthy that our deficit is there or thereabouts our shortfall in parachute payments compared to the previous season.  Once Xia's 2 seasons ran out, there was no plan B as he had promised.

Where are you looking at the impairment?  I'll have a look.

[Delta]

I am seeing "exceptional impairment" at note 3

Relegation perhaps and the financial impact/loss?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Aston Villa has quite a lot of companies- I've been frequently focusing on what was Reform Acquisition Limited.

I see that Note 3 under Aston Villa Limited mentions an exceptional Impairment charge. I'm unsure if Villa Park is in that one because under Tangible Assets, it only shows Leasehold Land and Buildings- no Impairment stated, cost of £201,111.

Unless Villa Park was included under Investment Property...that'd be different, not many clubs do! Could be the case I suppose but almost certainly whichever club accounts I've looked at, a stadium is either listed standalone or included under Tangible Assets/Tangible Fixed Assets?

Surely wouldn't be under Fixed Asset Investments, or would it?

On the Exceptional Impairment Note 3, it also states:

Quote

"The exceptional impairment charge has been recognised to write down amounts owed by group undertakings to their recoverable amount."

That might well be debt write offs or similar by Lerner? Cutting his losses in order to make a sale easier.

Anyway FFP aside, I like a good mystery, bit of a rubix cube this!

Companies I can see that might be relevant here- and they've changed name or switched around names in recent times which adds to the fun and games, would be:

• Aston Villa FC Limited
• Aston Villa Football Club Limited
• Aston Villa Limited
• NSWE Sports Limited
• NSWE Stadium Limited
• NSWE UK Limited

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

VP is classed as an investment property along with BMH and the Holte Hotel (Note 17).

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now there is something very interesting in the Aston Villa Limited accounts for 2017/18.

Note 7 under Tangible Assets.

Prior Year Adjustment- and restatement.

There seems to be some blurring of the lines however. This is a significant and material change.

This is pretty well unprecedented among clubs- and if it's adjusted to that then why is it not reflected as such in the NSWE UK ie the consolidated accounts?

Whether innocent, guilty or otherwise there are certainly legitimate questions and factors worthy of investigation IMO!

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Because IF that £36m was fair value when classified as an investment property then there are questions about how it shoots up a couple of years on.

Possible on the flipside that the restatement of Tangible Assets right. Effect on the profit on sale possible. Such a large estatement not appearing in the consolidated accounts?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thinking about it.

One other thing we still don't know as tbh we cannot at this juncture. However, in terms of Aston Villa's headline losses in the P&L was there any debt written off?

The reason I ask is not because I have an issue with debt write offs. It's fine and actually good for business.

As we know though, from an FFP standpoint income or profit from this doesn't count as income - or shouldn't. QPR tried to write off £60m in a promotion season but didn't escape further scrutiny- quite rightly it isn't income for FFP purposes - if that £68.9m loss eg included debt write off reducing the size of  the loss, then this would further complicate the picture.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 28/02/2020 at 13:32, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looking back at past FFP issues, I still struggle as to how Sevco 5112 Limited accounts for 2015/16 and by extension 2016/17 and Derby ones show different profits on player sales/disposal of player registrations.

The Reporting Periods did differ ie Sevco 5112 accounts to 31st August 2016 to reflect that Mel Morris completed it all ie the takeover around that time, but was then reset to June 30th inline with the club- but I wonder if that could've helped to bolster their profit in a given period- will post the screenshots later. 

Also in 2017/18, Derby used Residual Values- but did Sevco 5112 use it to 31st August 2016? The two figures do balance in terms of profit on sales over the two years, pretty much but it's an interesting comparison.

EDIT- In fairness, they did seem to in Sevco 5112 accounts to 31st August 2016- but it's a funny one and only a small part of the jigsaw admittedly.

We sold Hendrick to Burnley in August 2016. Hence why the £10m profit appears in the Sevco accounts (period ending 31 August 2016), and not in the club accounts (period ending 30 June 2016). 

Use the club accounts for P&S purposes. The P/L figures in those accounts are less than £1m out over a 3 year period, yet vary much more in the Sevco accounts.

[Mr Popodopolous]

54 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

We sold Hendrick to Burnley in August 2016. Hence why the £10m profit appears in the Sevco accounts (period ending 31 August 2016), and not in the club accounts (period ending 30 June 2016). 

Use the club accounts for P&S purposes. The P/L figures in those accounts are less than £1m out over a 3 year period, yet vary much more in the Sevco accounts.

Thanks- that makes sense. Like I say it all pretty well evened out over the 2 years anyway so no real big deal.

For transfer profits perhaps, but consolidated accounts can be used for P&S purposes- often are.

An issue I've read about online a while ago was did Derby benefit from e.g. deductions on Infrastructure spending, youth, community etc in the club accounts but sticking the costs away in Sevco 5112 or elsewhere?

Think Kieran Maguire a while back also posed the question of whether Derby benefited from certain revenues in the club accounts but the costs for these were stuck in the consolidated ones. Unsure how for example as it was published on your site, a £9m P&S loss was obtained in 2015/16. Putting aside the fact that debt cancellations doesn't count towards FFP in terms of either profit or income, so the Exceptional Operating Income is a matter of debate, for FFP purposes.

I'd have to look in depth but I don't see how a debt cancellation should count towards income as such.

As for the other point.

Quote

Almost £6m was invested on operational functions across both Pride Park Stadium and the Training Centre in partnership with the University of Derby. Developments included; new undersoil heating, a top class pitch and LED floodlights at the stadium and the completion of further significant pitch and infrastructure improvements at the Training Centre.

This was surely included in the consolidated accounts but the club ones? There's Additions but what about Disposals?

Edited March 2, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One other interesting thing about Derby that I just discovered- this is quite the conversion!!

A very convenient conversion?

Quote

 DERBY LEAD PUSH FOR £20M CHAMPIONSHIP SALARY CAP

Derby County led the push to introduce a salary cap of £20 million in the Championship at a meeting of the 24 clubs this week at St George’s Park, where they encountered fierce resistance from rivals as the civil war that has beset the second tier in recent years shows no signs of abating. 

Derby’s conversion to the merits of wage restraint is rather belated given they have been charged with breaching the Football League’s spending rules and are facing the prospect of a points deduction. 

However, rival Championship clubs suspected an attempt to wriggle out of the existing profit and sustainability regulations and refused to countenance any change until Derby, along with Sheffield Wednesday and Birmingham City, have been punished. 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One other interesting thing about Derby that I just discovered- this is quite the conversion!!

A very convenient conversion?

 

Poachers turning gamekeepers?