Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

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

Academy spend and infrastructure improvements are not included towards P&S. Disposal of those improvements is included. Our academy spend exceeded £6m a couple of years ago and may be approaching £7m now (£4.5m+ on youth development, plus extra on staff and facilities). By the time you've taken the exclusions out of the consolidated accounts, you're left with something very close to what the headline figure is in the club accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Academy spend and infrastructure improvements are not included towards P&S. Disposal of those improvements is included. Our academy spend exceeded £6m a couple of years ago and may be approaching £7m now (£4.5m+ on youth development, plus extra on staff and facilities). By the time you've taken the exclusions out of the consolidated accounts, you're left with something very close to what the headline figure is in the club accounts.

I know that, about allowable costs. but the EFL have the right as do UEFA for criteria relevant to their competitions to take the full picture into account.

In other words, the Holding Company- the Group. The only truly equitable way otherwise would be that you could actively demonstrate that you do not benefit from the companies- Kieran Maguire has a little graphic of how it all fits together, or did. It's gaining in some areas at least, the benefits while hiding the costs- not illegal at all but questionable under FFP.

Derby-Setup.png?resize=768,370&ssl=1

Credit to Kieran Maguire for the above graphic. From the article below.

https://priceoffootball.com/derby-county-2017-18-say-youll-be-there/

Question- do Derby benefit in terms of their income from the Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited? Logic would dictate yes they do, given the income of Sevco 5112 and Derby over the period has not been dissimilar. Do Derby absorb all the costs? No- this is Sevco 5112 and now possibly Gellaw NewCo 203. For FFP purposes this is arguably inequitable- I accept that Academy costs are rightly excluded.

The question is, whether this is a little out of date as of 2018/19 season.

The debt cancellation? If you exclude that from the calculations, and precedent suggests this is quite possible then it's quite a bit over £9m even allowing for those deductions.

The debt cancellation point aside, what I'm trying to say is that for Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited in particular, if it's just the club that we are assessing then you should exclude these from relevant income as they are not owned by the club- otherwise assess Sevco 5112 as the consolidated results for FFP. This of course seems the more sensible of the two rather than simply disregarding a chunk of income from the club!

Anything else is a bit inequitable.

The Academy thing I'd have to look at in a bit more depth.

One more loan point- been reading the FFP rules a little on Exceptional Items- believe you can exclude the interest from the loan but the loan cancellation itself? Seems dicy.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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

A very convenient conversion?

It appears to be someone at the DM misreporting the truth. Our CEO (former CFO), who is on the EFL Board, was chairing discussions about P&S last week. One of the talking points was the £20m cap. Rather than leading the push, we participated in the talks no more than your own representative on the EFL Board (Mark Ashton).

It may seem hypocritical of us to be pushing for tighter control of wages given we've been charged with breaching P&S, however, since 17/18 we've actively been working on reducing wages and other costs. So much so, that we've named 11 academy graduates in our matchday squads this season, with only Forest giving academy graduates more match time.

We've seen the departures of a lot of high earners: Jerome, Shackell, Weimann, Vydra, Thorne, Johnson, Nugent, Blackman, Butterfield, Pearce, Bryson
Replaced with cheaper alternatives: Malone, Evans, Holmes, Jozefzoon, Marriott, Waghorn, Shinnie, Bielik, (and Rooney).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It appears to be someone at the DM misreporting the truth. Our CEO (former CFO), who is on the EFL Board, was chairing discussions about P&S last week. One of the talking points was the £20m cap. Rather than leading the push, we participated in the talks no more than your own representative on the EFL Board (Mark Ashton).

It may seem hypocritical of us to be pushing for tighter control of wages given we've been charged with breaching P&S, however, since 17/18 we've actively been working on reducing wages and other costs. So much so, that we've named 11 academy graduates in our matchday squads this season, with only Forest giving academy graduates more match time.

We've seen the departures of a lot of high earners: Jerome, Shackell, Weimann, Vydra, Thorne, Johnson, Nugent, Blackman, Butterfield, Pearce, Bryson
Replaced with cheaper alternatives: Malone, Evans, Holmes, Jozefzoon, Marriott, Waghorn, Shinnie, Bielik, (and Rooney).

Matt Hughes is pretty good tbh- doesn't tend to misrepresent but maybe a bit- likewise Matt Lawton, John Percy and though different areas of it, David Conn. All very good regards football finance and the first three seem to be favoured sources regarding FFP and developments . So Derby aren't/weren't quite keen on it then? Only those at the meeting would know for sure- journos though are sometimes only as good as their sources.

I can see that you are moving in the right direction- I can also see that you are pushing youth- I've read before that Mel Morris is quite keen on that. I wonder how cheap some of them are wages wise though- cheaper but some of them perhaps not as cheap as they appear? Can imagine that Rooney aside, Waghorn and Bielik may not be for example. Overall though yes, your wage bill does seem to be on the decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, downendcity said:

Poachers turning gamekeepers?

Not ‘arf.  We had our fun whilst we could, but now we are a bit strapped, let’s level the playing field.  I guess Mel will change his player valuation / amortisation method to fall into line at the same time too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham lost between £3-3.5m first half of this season despite the sale of Adams and Vassell. 6 month accounts don't tend to have a huge amount of detail.

A few unknowns with Birmingham. These figures are in HK Dollars, so the precise date of conversion could make a difference.

Plus, last season some kind of related party sponsorship appeared in UK but not HK accounts. Rent paid for St Andrews vs rent received from Coventry and precisely who it goes to could swing things a bit either way. 

Nottingham Forest and NF Football Investments Ltd both appeared at CH this morning. No later than sometime Wednesday I'd have thought- they might be running it tight in the 3 years to May 2019?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nottingham Forest lost £25m last season.

Think they're fine for FFP, but this loss was after profit on transfers- but before allowable costs. Fine for the 3 years to May 2019, quite likely fine- but close- for the 3 years to May 2020 as the sale of academy products and free transfers is pure profit- may have an issue next season without promotion or further downsizing.

Aston Villa have sent accounts to CH!! For all but NSWE Stadium Limited, which obviously delayed the reporting period- but they are being processed for NSWE UK, NSWE Sports, Aston Villa Limited, Aston Villa Football Club Limited and Aston Villa FC Limited.

Tomorrow, Thursday surely?

In less exciting news, so have Barnsley. Luton too- though I really doubt there's a big FFP story waiting to happen or at least speculation of this with either of them! :thumbsup:

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Aston Villa's accounts due tomorrow, I may well have a look at the valuation or possible valuations/costs/changes of the ground over recent years using what I believe to be relevant data.

Could be a case that even if valuation fine, the profit is a curious number or vice versa- the EFL and PL have to look at the historic and recent context too IMO.

Or it could be the case that it all balances fine...but if they punish Derby and Sheffield Wednesday, then their justification for not at least investigating Aston Villa will be hard for them to make.

We of course don't know if debt cancellation will offset any of the losses in the P&L. I'd suggest there wouldn't be any from what we know, but this again doesn't count towards FFP.

In the simplest terms if it means that Aston Villa lost £68.1m was it, even with or inclusive of say £10m of debt written off, that should be excluded for FFP purposes- I know you also exclude the promotion costs, the FFP costs and Randy Lerner but that would likely be in that scenario a £3m overspend to May 2019- which would in our table mean a possible 3-4 point deduction.

Because a starting point is that any overspend up to just under £2m, gets a side 3 points, if proven.

D2SEpMeX0AI4h7S.png

Intentional breach, that's 3 more points. May get one back because of abiding by soft embargo in summer 2018 but then again this soft embargo wasn't FFP related so it's arguable and may get one back acknowledging that the new owners had to clean house post Xia- both of those are debatable though and the EFL would be keen not to set a precedent on the latter especially.

IF- and it's a big IF, the stadium was overvalued or the profit overstated that's another aggravating factor- 3 more points. Plus any downgrade of either in this scenario would also add to the FFP overspend which may push the original, non aggravating factors tariff back up.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This was Aston Villa's statement- some key bits or parts that I query.

Quote

Exceptional promotion-related costs of £45.8m including a one-off £30m contingent payment to former owner Randolph D Lerner were substantial contributory factors in the £68.9m loss recorded in Aston Villa’s group accounts for the year ended May 31, 2019 published today. 

 

The Club’s ultimate parent company, NSWE SCS, introduced £30m by way of a capital injection to enable the Club to settle the liability when former owner Recon Group Limited defaulted on the payment.

Absolutely fair enough and all in keeping with FFP- but in which section of the accounts does it appear?

Quote

During the year the ownership group introduced £105.7m into the Club all of which was in the form of capital injections which resulted in Aston Villa remaining debt free.

A great thing tbh and clearly very good owners. All in form of capital injections- none appear in the P&L? That would complicate matters if they did.

Quote

Aston Villa can confirm that in the 3-year period ending May 31, 2019, the Club complied with the EFL’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules. After promotion, The Premier League reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with their own policies and procedures.

Aston Villa can confirm it, perhaps even confirm it with their interpretation- but I see no confirmation on the part of the EFL included within this statement.

The second bit also throws light yet shade at the same time. Procedures and policies yes, compliance from a numbers POV maybe but questions on the stadium sale. Value, profit- or even legitimacy as there was talk that the PL hadn't yet ratified it. Distinct lack of clarity though.

Could be a case of initial tests passed- in PL and maybe EFL- yet further investigation can change things- could be a provisional pass I guess, knowing the speed the EFL moved at under Harvey!

Talking of which- not a mention of this in the statement!

On the capital injections point, I'm sure none appear in the P&L account. Don't see how they could.

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

Accounts for Barnsley, Cardiff and Luton are out- as expected nothing really to write home about for FFP but I am surprised Cardiff only made a £2m profit in the PL and their relatively low spending! Sure there's detail in the accounts.

Aston Villa- and let's be honest it's the big one- looks interesting- Kieran Maguire's thread is my starting point.

 

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems they didn't reduce the wage bill at all- I assumed it would've been down by £5-10m but even excluding promotion bonuses it stayed flat at best!

I also assumed- wrongly possibly- that Amortisation of Player Registrations would've come down- nope it increased!

£36.3m profit on Villa Park is curious, given we've been told that it's easily worth what it was sold for...

In the cash flow statements, there is/has been the princely sum of £10,000 received on "Proceeds from disposal of tangible fixed assets".

In fact, further digging suggests that this is all still due.

The rent might be £2.6m per year but it's not explicitly stated as such.

Now as I've mentioned before, UEFA have a rule that would negate all of this. Let's assume rent £2.6m per season?

UEFA with such transactions take 50 years of rental payment unless the ground has been disposed of truly in a genuinely arms length transaction and put that then subtract the profit for FFP purposes...profit negated at best if they eliminate loss on disposal of fixed assets, and a £90-95m loss at worst if you don't!

Seems to be though on early reading, this stadium sale, payable in the form of loans due from NSWE Stadium Limited. ? Seems a bit similar to both Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday from that respect- though I can't see anything wrong with the price or rent in Birmingham's case.

As always, very interested in your thoughts @Davefevs

Bit of a rubix cube this...will be interesting to see what everyone thinks.

Personally speaking at this time, I'm struggling to fathom how the stadium sale is right. It might be that the price is right- it might be that the Profit is right- but I don't see how both can be right.

It just feels out of kilter, one way or another as of now.

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

Nothing to do with Mr. Hollis eh...a certain Mr. Hollis.

Check his past job and check his current job? This is with respect to the HS2 compensation.

I'd say any adjustment to the ground profit or sale price and you're in trouble basically. The EFL have the right to investigate this, 100%- as and when you return IMO.

Check (if you can understand it) that UEFA rule about rent payments x 50 subtracted from fixed asset profit- that generally kills this shit stone dead. I'll provide a link!

How do you account for nothing in the cash flow statement, the very variable swings in fixed asset value.

0_LR-docPNG.png

As we can see, price paid £56.7m. Yet, it is classed in the accounts under "Other Loans Receivable". Not been paid then has it- yet.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

@Mr Popodopolous Why do you keep mentioning UEFA rules when they only apply to teams participating in UEFA competitions? Villa don't play in a UEFA competition so they don't need to concern themselves with their rules.

I'm saying that UEFA have the right idea on this! Especially the stadium rule...and given that a side technically could qualify for UEFA comp from the Championship, some harmonisation would be good.

@Delta Only way it would come into contact I believe is a) If a club from the Championship qualifies via FA/League Cup, or if a club gets promoted to PL and qualifies for Europe in the first 2 years- it's a good rule though.

The £105m by owners is fantastic for debt and balance sheet but doesn't necessarily affect FFP.

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/52009/gambling-with-ffp-–-column

Interesting piece I came across a week or two ago.

This was clearly not factoring in the reduction of the Pride Park sale price but the principle stands- it can kill making such transactions worthwhile stone dead, when combined with fair market rules.

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.

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.

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AnotherDerbyFan

I'm interested in why you're rallying with Villa on this- you've been charged post Investigation, and you should for purposes of equitable treatment want some kind of Investigation for them on their return to the Championship over this 3 year period and this ground sale and leaseback, whenever that might be.

Investigation and guilt/charge are two very different concepts of course. However I'd suggest the EFL have the right to investigate that 3 year period.

In general.

Villa Park, if Other Loans Receivable at £56.7m refers to that, appears surely that it might be getting paid for off the back of loans- could be that it is paid for via loans from the owners but has to be paid back which is curious.

How does FFP at Championship level deal with this?

That's unique among the 5 btw.

Derby and Reading had it appear in their cash flow statement the year of sale.

Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday had it appear in Other Debtors.

Both of these methods imply that the money will be going to the club either now, or later and it will be a true transaction. Price or rent terms or similar are a different matter, some seem more realistic than others.

This though implies that the cash will be loaned to Aston Villa over god knows what time frame- loaned, not paid for a transaction- loans maybe written off sometime in the future but valuation aside, I struggle to see how this is compatible with a £36m profit on disposal in the here and now!

@Coppello @Drew Peacock @martnewts 

You all are strong on accounting IIRC, any ideas??

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@AnotherDerbyFan

I'm interested in why you're rallying with Villa on this- you've been charged post Investigation, and you should for purposes of equitable treatment want some kind of Investigation for them on their return to the Championship over this 3 year period and this ground sale and leaseback, whenever that might be.

Investigation and guilt/charge are two very different concepts of course. However I'd suggest the EFL have the right to investigate that 3 year period.

In general.

Villa Park, if Other Loans Receivable at £56.7m refers to that, appears surely that it might be getting paid for off the back of loans- could be that it is paid for via loans from the owners but has to be paid back which is curious.

How does FFP at Championship level deal with this?

That's unique among the 5 btw.

Derby and Reading had it appear in their cash flow statement the year of sale.

Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday had it appear in Other Debtors.

Both of these methods imply that the money will be going to the club either now, or later and it will be a true transaction. Price or rent terms or similar are a different matter, some seem more realistic than others.

This though implies that the cash will be loaned to Aston Villa over god knows what time frame- loaned, not paid for a transaction- loans maybe written off sometime in the future but valuation aside, I struggle to see how this is compatible with a £36m profit on disposal in the here and now!

@Coppello @Drew Peacock @martnewts 

You all are strong on accounting IIRC, any ideas??

Sales price £56.7m less NBV of £21.1m gives £35.6m profit.  How the proceeds are shown - cash, debtors, loan, is irrelevant to calculating the profit on the sale.

Showing the proceeds is a little unusual, is it shown as a long term loan?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Sales price £56.7m less NBV of £21.1m gives £35.6m profit.  How the proceeds are shown - cash, debtors, loan, is irrelevant to calculating the profit on the sale.

Showing the proceeds is a little unusual, is it shown as a long term loan?

I'm querying the profit and sale price too but that's another debate.

Debtors I can understand, Proceeds as in Derby and Reading in the cash flow statement shows it's been paid I'm guessing but Loans- even for FFP purposes if not accounting regs per'se seems a bit odd.

Could it not mean that Aston Villa are receiving it as a loan as opposed to an actual payment if that makes sense? For FFP I'm unsure that should count as such.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In layman's terms, preparing to get it wrong :laugh:...

I would like to buy someone's car- but I would loan them the money in order to purchase it.

They bank the profit on said sale in their sole trader accounts but are yet to receive the cash- they are yet to receive the cash but will receive it, in the form of a loan.

In other words barring a write off which I dare say will come down the track, I pay someone to take their car off their hands- but I nonetheless want the loan repayments- plus rent of course, Villa Park will have rent- so I receive rent for said car as well!

Rent as loan repayments?

For FFP at least this is a whole new level.

Financing via loans, repayable on demand in exchange for an asset.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not even looked at the consolidated accounts yet but this raises interesting questions.

Couple of million of the profit was related to a grant but....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2015 Tangible Assets- Inclusive of Villa Park etc which became Investment Property.jpg

FAIR Value of the Investment Property on relegation 2015-16..jpg

Explicit classification of what there was and what was stated at FAIR Value..jpg

A further Impairment in 2016-17- no list of property classification changes.jpg

Sudden restatement of Investment Property to Fixed Assets for 2016-17, done in 2017-18.jpg

Profit on Disposal....jpg

...Yet unanswered questions well and truly.jpg

One further note- relating to the Prior Year Adjustment.

The cost therefore shoots up- yet the NBV is far below this, hence the significant profit on sale possibly- this is at Cost not Fair Value which it was until 2017- the latter is exceeded by the Cost which seems unusual based on Precedent?

Curiouser and curiouser?

Prior Year Adjustment.jpg

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In layman's terms, preparing to get it wrong :laugh:...

I would like to buy someone's car- but I would loan them the money in order to purchase it.

They bank the profit on said sale in their sole trader accounts but are yet to receive the cash- they are yet to receive the cash but will receive it, in the form of a loan.

In other words barring a write off which I dare say will come down the track, I pay someone to take their car off their hands- but I nonetheless want the loan repayments- plus rent of course, Villa Park will have rent- so I receive rent for said car as well!

Rent as loan repayments?

For FFP at least this is a whole new level.

Financing via loans, repayable on demand in exchange for an asset.

 

Delta will be posting a reply on this ........

696759705_aboveboard.jpg.9d02d2e51f5a4b0686ce2009610a9af2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The precise wording of that UEFA rule- for comparison purposes if anything!

Quote

h) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets

The profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets (including, but not limited to, a club’s stadium and training facilities) in a reporting period must be excluded from the break-even result with the following two exceptions:

i) If a tangible fixed asset other than a stadium or training facilities is not being replaced, 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 historical cost of the asset which was recognised as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity;

ii) 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 full cost of the replacement asset which is recognised, or to be recognised, as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity;
  •  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.

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/56/20/15/2562015_DOWNLOAD.pdf

All a bit dry but rather watertight I'd say!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems they didn't reduce the wage bill at all- I assumed it would've been down by £5-10m but even excluding promotion bonuses it stayed flat at best!

I also assumed- wrongly possibly- that Amortisation of Player Registrations would've come down- nope it increased!

£36.3m profit on Villa Park is curious, given we've been told that it's easily worth what it was sold for...

In the cash flow statements, there is/has been the princely sum of £10,000 received on "Proceeds from disposal of tangible fixed assets".

In fact, further digging suggests that this is all still due.

The rent might be £2.6m per year but it's not explicitly stated as such.

Now as I've mentioned before, UEFA have a rule that would negate all of this. Let's assume rent £2.6m per season?

UEFA with such transactions take 50 years of rental payment unless the ground has been disposed of truly in a genuinely arms length transaction and put that then subtract the profit for FFP purposes...profit negated at best if they eliminate loss on disposal of fixed assets, and a £90-95m loss at worst if you don't!

Seems to be though on early reading, this stadium sale, payable in the form of loans due from NSWE Stadium Limited. ? Seems a bit similar to both Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday from that respect- though I can't see anything wrong with the price or rent in Birmingham's case.

As always, very interested in your thoughts @Davefevs

Bit of a rubix cube this...will be interesting to see what everyone thinks.

Personally speaking at this time, I'm struggling to fathom how the stadium sale is right. It might be that the price is right- it might be that the Profit is right- but I don't see how both can be right.

It just feels out of kilter, one way or another as of now.

I don’t understand the property stuff in fairness.

But I really would like to see them relegated.

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...