Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

One note.

Seems Birmingham's Business Plan related charge has been dismissed by the Independent Disciplinary Commission. I still wonder about whether their ground sale should count as profit given the nature of that arrangement but I've not been so bothered about Birmingham for a few reasons. Price seems fine, rent seems commercial- over 5% so in a sense...

Structure of ground sale and leaseback though. Would need a flow chart but a list will have to do for now.

  1. Birmingham City PLC or is it Birmingham City Football Club PLC owned/own St Andrews.
  2. Birmingham City Football Club PLC are controlled by Birmingham City PLC.
  3. Birmingham City PLC are controlled by Paul Suen.
  4. Stadium was sold by 1 or 2 to Birmingham City Stadium Ltd- which is based in the UK but...
  5. Birmingham City Stadium Ltd seems to have controlling party listed as Birmingham Sports Holdngs Ltd- Paul Suen seems to run this too, though there is some doubt about that. Birmingham Sports Holdings Ltd is listed on HKSE and is based in the Cayman Islands.

My question is, can it not cancel out in the UK most senior party ie Birmingham City PLC as opposed to be classed as profit- or is it a case that sale of an asset from one UK based subsidiary to another, the purchasing party which is controlled by the HKSE listed company, while Birmingham City PLC itself is directly controlled by the head of BSH, Paul Suen- is it fine therefore to stick that through as profit for Birmingham City PLC, provided that it cancels out in the BSH ones- which it appears to have?

Seems not to have been listed as being owned by Birmingham City Stadium Ltd as yet though.

Also no cash paid for it yet, owed to them- Other Receivables.

However, it seems fine.

They also sold Adams, Jota, Vassell, lost Mahoney, Morrison- look to be changing tack in general. Sacking Monk and replacing him with Clotet surely a bit of downsizing.

The EFL have to appeal this ruling though as the Business Plan one, could set a precedent if upheld?

Dismissal by the Disciplinary Commission actually can work in the EFL's favour in this instance as it can add strong proof off the back of that, that decisions aren't just an EFL led whitewash and appealing it would also show useful governance. 3 points in the grand scheme at most is nothing for a midtable side, but it could pose an issue in the future,

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done a little alternative way of calculating Hillsborough's value. Simplistic but here goes...

Take the 2014 valuation under DRC method at £22.25m and stick it in an RPI calculator inputted to come out in 2018.

Take all subsequent additions since then, and stick in the same RPI calculator as above inputted for 2018.

Eliminate Depreciation on Disposal- and that Depreciation clock started again in 2014 on revaluation at DRC.

Certainly don't see how it's anything much above £30m at most and quite likely less. About £29-29.5m through this, once Depreciation gone and that's assuming that all of the Additions for Freehold Property and Plant and Machinery were for Hillsborough.

Was carried at cost until 2015 or 2016, but that cost was not much less than the valuation in 2014 and can probably work it out what it would've been using 2015 as a starting point.

EDIT- Seems I was using a normal Inflation calculator, maybe RPI would throw up some different outcomes...

https://www.erikasgrig.com/calculators/rpi-calculator-inflation

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It inspired me to look at the 5 deals again.

Birmingham- Price seems fine, rent seems fine. Rent 25 years at £1.25m per season, price it sold for was £22-23m- nothing to see here tbh. Later than 5 years also sees it stack up.

Derby- and I found this courtesy of Kieran Maguire and a tweet by him last year, sells for £81.1m which we all know was overstated- or a matter of interpretation in terms of valuation methods perhaps- rent per year was around £1.1m per year. One bit I never really looked at but noticed that Rent- ie total once added up in the no later than 1 year, more than 1 but no more than 5 and 5 upwards seemed to add up to no more than £23m in the long run...bit out of kilter with sale price?

Then again, given the downgrade to around £50m, maybe not! ?

Reading- Again seems to do what it said on the tin. Bit low at £750,000 per season for a £26.5m transaction but nothing to get worked up about as it stands...seems to be about £19m in total rent due, laid out like Birmingham.

Sheffield Wednesday. This one is really fun. Likely overvalued, possibly wrong Reporting Period- it's what the whole EFL charge is about. At least the rent reflects £60m though, right? Er...no. Seems to make the rent due to Mel Morris look like a great yield!

Unless it is still to come of course, it appears to be bundled under a finance lease as it stands.

£271,000 in Year 1- between 2 and 5 it is maybe £280-290k per season. What a laugh! Peppercorn, by standards of a fairly big club!!

Aston Villa is of course the most interesting.

As we know, £2.6m per season. Between 2 but no more than 5 it rises to £10.4m in total.

Suppose my questions would be why do Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday not have anything beyond 2-5 years-plus as per the £81.1m sale price (ha!) why was Derby's fairly low, even though it had in excess of 5 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the EFL need to be alert for any possible questionable tricks from Stoke in order to meet them head on.

Saw this on Twitter just now.

Bit more too...

Quote

Tony, would you agree Championship is different from the one Stoke was promoted from in 2008?
TS: Yes, it certainly feels different.

We are a team that’s come down and that’s very different, but we do have a better stadium and infrastructure than we had then, but that probably applies across the league.

It feels like a Premier League 2 because something like 19 out of the 24 clubs in our league have been in the Premier League.

Of the five who haven’t four are in the top eight.

The league doesn’t get the income to match its appeal and the fact it’s the third highest attended in Europe.

We also have rules which go against investing in clubs too.

Now, in the league, I feel some clubs are desperate to attack other clubs for breaking rules and trying to get them punished.

Think he's got some valid points, especially the first bolded bit- however he knows the regulations. Maybe some clubs are desperate to attack other clubs for breaking rules but that's because those clubs make big sacrifices and big efforts to try and stick within those rules, those principles.

Quote

How do you combat the penalties of Financial Fair Play?
TS: It’s something that occupies our mind all the time.


We don’t like the rules, we think the rules are ill conceived, we think they make you dumb down.

What the league should be doing is encourage the clubs to invest and get as close to the Premier League as we possibly can.

You will never see us criticising another club in relation to those rules and it’s unseemly when you see another club trying desperately to see another club get docked points.

We are lobbying to try and change the rules and if we don’t then we have to operate within the structure.

JC: I don’t think a set of rules which has a number of clubs, with nine games to go, under threat of a points deduction is good.

I believe those rules need to be changed.

He's got a point about the timing though, tbh! That said if Projected Accounts are/were enforced correctly in previous seasons even that would be moot.

I think Stoke are or will be the right side of the FFP line this season but next season could pose some big issues.

One more line- not directly related to FFP and possibly benign...but EFL should be keeping half an eye on them even so.

Quote

Is next season do-or-die for promotion because of parachute payments ending?

JC: We are continuing to support the club however we are able to do it, that’s all I can say.

One thing that is clear is that Parachute Payments plummet in Year 3, and so does the allowable loss limit...like I say fine for this season due to mix of loans out, smallish losses last year after allowable costs and quite a big 2nd year of PP but I don't see how if rules enforced correctly, they can drag on in Year 3 without significant sales and cutbacks.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting line from Sheffield Wednesday's case.

Sheffield Wednesday stalling...doesn't sound like they have much of a case if they are looking to drag it out?

Isn't this the biggest potential hurdle to ffp really working?

It's ironic that there is so much at stake financially, so If a club finds that potential ffp penalties will jeopardise it's future, by taking away promotion, or hastening relegation, then they will employ the best legal brains money can buy. Not necessarily to win their case, but to tie the EFL in knots sufficiently ( sadly proven to be not too difficult to do) that it will cause chaos as this article implies.

Wednesday might not have much of a case, but they also know that if their barrister can muddy the waters sufficiently , and certainly beyond the season's end, then the disruption to promotion and relegation could cause the EFL massive problems. If the EFL sees the knock on effect as being too problematical, then there has to be a strong likelihood that rather than pushing for points deduction that could relegate Wednesday, they will settle for a big financial penalty, which I guess the club would happily take if it enables them to avoid relegation. 

If this does happen then ffp can have no credibility as it currently administered, as every other club will be able to point to Wednesday's case as a precedent for a fine rather than points deduction.

The EFL needs to get it's act together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Isn't this the biggest potential hurdle to ffp really working?

It's ironic that there is so much at stake financially, so If a club finds that potential ffp penalties will jeopardise it's future, by taking away promotion, or hastening relegation, then they will employ the best legal brains money can buy. Not necessarily to win their case, but to tie the EFL in knots sufficiently ( sadly proven to be not too difficult to do) that it will cause chaos as this article implies.

Wednesday might not have much of a case, but they also know that if their barrister can muddy the waters sufficiently , and certainly beyond the season's end, then the disruption to promotion and relegation could cause the EFL massive problems. If the EFL sees the knock on effect as being too problematical, then there has to be a strong likelihood that rather than pushing for points deduction that could relegate Wednesday, they will settle for a big financial penalty, which I guess the club would happily take if it enables them to avoid relegation. 

If this does happen then ffp can have no credibility as it currently administered, as every other club will be able to point to Wednesday's case as a precedent for a fine rather than points deduction.

The EFL needs to get it's act together.

It is...

They need to find a way to expedite the process, legally speaking. Arbitration is what it appears to be stuck in.

Agreed, and clubs who go down might then look at claims against the EFL- mahjor potential issues as you say. There was talk of a deadline for points deductions for the current season but this is a grey area.

Fine vs points...but Birmingham then can point to their 9 points and through the season transfer restrictions, so I'm not sure the EFL can take that approach.

There is a good bit of news, if true though...

No cut off point in the season for Disciplinary decisions it seems.

@havanatopia

Hav, yep John is son of Peter. Tony Scholes CEO or similar I believe.

Agree, we all have to adhere to them- if breaches are suspected they must be reported and dealt with accordingly- and punished if there is a case proven.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Pops.. JC presumably is John Coates son of Peter? Who is Tony S ?

I think Coates is being extremely disingenuous. Rules are rules and it is absolutely bang on if a club, seeing another break those rules, reports the malfeasance.

If they don't like the rules, they always take their club and find another league to play in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I find frustrating regarding the almost shambolic way ffp hs unfolded in the last 18 months - 2 years, is the almost deafening silence from the majority of clubs that have presumably been working hard, and properly within the rules, to comply even if it has compromised their competitiveness on the pitch.

Apart from Steve Gibson sticking his head above the parapet, and getting shot at for so doing, no one has said boo to a goose. when seeing clubs riding roughshod over the spirit of ffp rules, even if they did not actually break the rules - if you know what I mean.

1 minute ago, bcfc01 said:

Sounds as if Stoke are getting their equaliser in before the EFL score..

Getting their retaliation in first?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

One thing I find frustrating regarding the almost shambolic way ffp hs unfolded in the last 18 months - 2 years, is the almost deafening silence from the majority of clubs that have presumably been working hard, and properly within the rules, to comply even if it has compromised their competitiveness on the pitch.

Apart from Steve Gibson sticking his head above the parapet, and getting shot at for so doing, no one has said boo to a goose. when seeing clubs riding roughshod over the spirit of ffp rules, even if they did not actually break the rules - if you know what I mean.

Probably a case of not throwing stones whilst in a glass house..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/06/2019 at 17:14, Begley said:

Interesting debate and nice to see fans from different clubs chatting. Villa fan in peace here.

There are a few mentions of Villa selling their ground to themselves (like Derby) to pass P&S. Although this is not against the rules albeit not in the spirit of P&S, it is not the case that Villa has sold Villa Park. Since buying Villa NSWE have been putting a lot of money into the club and with each investment Xia's shareholding is further diluted, apparently he now owns less that 20% of AVFC whereas he had 45% the day the sale went through. The name of the Villa Park holding company was changed and the directors of the holding company were also changed. It went from Recon (A Xia owned company) to Aston Villa (an NSWE owned company) with Xia removed as a shareholder. There was no sale of Villa Park, it was simply a further dilution of Xia's equity on AVFC 

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling our stadium as Villa has,  because BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then surely Villa were in the same position

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

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

10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling sell our stadium as BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then the same situation would then have applied to them.

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

Very much looking forward to @Coppello 's take here and on the overall situation!

It's a curious one, but I think Aston Villa Limited owned Villa Park.

I still wonder about that sale and leaseback, seems the hardest to pinpoint of the 5 clubs who have done it- whether it was right or wrong.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling sell our stadium as BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then the same situation would then have applied to them.

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

We report our Football stuff under Bristol City Holdings which encompass BCFC and Ashton Gate Ltd, so I assume (I’m no expert)  should we sell our ground to Lansdown or Pula, the profit from that sale would come under AGLtd and therefore under the reporting of BCH for FFP purposes?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very much looking forward to @Coppello 's take here and on the overall situation!

It's a curious one, but I think Aston Villa Limited owned Villa Park.

I still wonder about that sale and leaseback, seems the hardest to pinpoint of the 5 clubs who have done it- whether it was right or wrong.

Could well have been the case, but it's interesting  that a Villa fan, with I presume a bit of financial savvy and knowledge of Villa's financial affairs, categorically states that Villa Park was not sold, as would be allowed within ffp and that he also states that VP was previously owned by Recon, not the football club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Could well have been the case, but it's interesting  that a Villa fan, with I presume a bit of financial savvy and knowledge of Villa's financial affairs, categorically states that Villa Park was not sold, as would be allowed within ffp and that he also states that VP was previously owned by Recon, not the football club.

Would be worth digging into.

Aston Villa's structure is interesting- here are the basics using CH below...

  • NSWE UK- owned directly by the owners since July 2018, ie the takeover- prior to that it was Xia and it was called Recon Group.
  • Aston Villa Limited- significant contorl by NSWE UK since April 2016, obviously before then NSWE UK was Recon Group.
  • NSWE Stadium Limited- owned by the owners, but according to CH until 16th May 2019 it was owned by AVL. From that date, it was owned directly by the owners.
  • NSWE Sports Limited- significant control, NSWE UK (formerly Recon Group).
  •  Aston Villa Football Club Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited.
  • Aston Villa FC Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited.

One thing that I cannot fathom is why a variety of the company names kept switching and changing under Xia and to an extent the new owners- seems odd. Not saying any wrongdoing but he did love switching names at times! Bit curious, not least as it is the company number that is key here I think.

Each company will show a history of names and dates that name was valid.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We report our Football stuff under Bristol City Holdings which encompass BCFC and Ashton Gate Ltd, so I assume (I’m no expert)  should we sell our ground to Lansdown or Pula, the profit from that sale would come under AGLtd and therefore under the reporting of BCH for FFP purposes?

You could be right Dave.

As I've previously said Im no corporate finance expert, and Recon may well have been the holding company for the football club. Even so, it's confusing that Begley states "There are a few mentions of Villa selling their ground to themselves (like Derby) to pass P&S. Although this is not against the rules albeit not in the spirit of P&S, it is not the case that Villa has sold Villa Park"

Again there might well be a simple explanation from an accounting standpoint, of which I am unaware . The only thing I can think of is whether this is the corporate equivalent of transfer of equity in residential property, such as might occur following divorce, when a couple transfer the matrimonial home from joint names into the sole name of one spouse, who then pays his/her partner a sum for their share of the equity in the property.

However, even if that was the case,  the new owners would be paying Xia, not AVFC, to reduce his equity stake in the football club, so I confess Im still confused.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Would be worth digging into.

Aston Villa's structure is interesting- here are the basics below...

  • NSWE UK- owned directly by the owners since July 2018, ie the takeover- prior to that it was Xia and it was called Recon Group.
  • Aston Villa Limited- significant contorl by NSWE UK since April 2016, obviously before then NSWE UK was Recon Group.
  • NSWE Stadium Limited- owned by the owners, but according to CH until 16th May 2019 it was owned by AVL. From that date, it was owned directly by the owners.
  • NSWE Sports Limited- significant control, NSWE UK (formerly Recon Group).
  •  Aston Villa Football Club Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited.
  • Aston Villa FC Limited- Controlled by Aston Vailla Limited.

One thing that I cannot fathom is why a variety of the company names kept switching and changing under Xia and to an extent the new owners- seems odd. Not saying any wrongdoing but he did love switching names at times!

confused.jpg.cbd2754b522ac02727781a751f517f2e.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting aside ownership changes, it appears that:

Quote

NSWE UK.

From 12th May 2016 to 13th July 2017 was Recon Sports Limited.

From 13th July 2017 to 9th October 2019 was Recon Group UK Limited.

Obviously is now NSWE UK, new owners etc- maybe it heralded the end of Xia's involvement in any capacity there? Those two names were under Xia.

Quote

NSWE Sports Limited.

13th July 2017 to 9th October 2017  was Recon Acquisitions Limited.

9th October 2017 to 9th October 2019 was Recon Sports Limited.

As above, NSWE- new owners etc.

Quote

Aston Villa Limited

Inherited as Aston Villa Limited and stayed that way until...

7th August 2017 to 9th October 2017 was Recon Sports Limited.

9th October 2017 to 23rd March 2019 was Recon Football Limited.

On 23rd March 2019 it reverted back to Aston Villa Limited- and so it remains.

Quote

NSWE Stadium Limited

Incorporated on 25th July 2017 as Vilden Limited

Name changes to Aston Villa Limited on 7th August and stays that way until 23rd March 2019.

From 23rd March 2019 to 13th May 2019, changes to Recon Football Limited.

As above, NSWE new owners etc.

What I don't get is why all the name changes- the last two in March 2019 fell into it a bit when new owners owned but Xia was still involved.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling our stadium as Villa has,  because BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then surely Villa were in the same position

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

I do not post anything with "glee".  Let's get that straight.  I try to post facts in a constructive manner.  I may not post what you all want to read but nevertheless, the arguments are constructive.

I don't believe that there was any need to dilute Xia's shareholding - He was finished at the club the day NS & WE took over.  I also don't believe that Begley was/is correct.  The accounts show that VP was sold by the club (Aston Villa Ltd) to NSWE stadium Ltd.  Without that transaction taking place, Villa would have fallen foul of FFP and that is the reason the ground was sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thought on the overall FFP system. Maybe it already works like this or should, but the EFL have not been enforcing it properly,

Once the precedent set ie points off, for a club, then it is relatively easy in theory to dock points for in-season 3rd year  failures. Simply point at the tariff and sliding scale- aggravating and mitigating factors are less clear cut but if a club is over by x, do you even need an Independent Disciplinary Commission? Just dock them the points in line with their FFP adjusted overspend between 1st March and the end of the season. Also a rule that all such transactions ie ground sales etc have to be in place by the time of the submission dates wouldn't go amiss either. I just wonder why they generally happened quite late in the Reporting Period, in all 3 cases- I say 3, there were 5 but neither Birmingham or it seems/I assume Reading have bothered or needed to register the sales.

Overspend in Projected Accounts is or should be treated as being in breach verbatim.

If Projected Accounts are demonstrably proven to be false after the event, then severe penalties should follow for any club submitting knowingly false projections, in addition to the FFP one- IMO of course.

Worth reading the blogger Al Majir from 2018, he seems or seemed to know things about what was going on behind the scenes with FFP. Had snippets anyway.

We do know though in general that Shaun Harvey wasn't that interested in- or maybe capable of- serious governance at the EFL. You only have to look at the number of clubs charged with not paying wages now...well it happened often last season too and what did the EFL headed up by him do about it?? That alone is a major difference.

That's the strange thing though, I've seen him described periodically as a talented and capable administrator who knows the business significantly or words to that effect- understanding his inaction or poorly handled actions/bungling on many issues is difficult based on that- then again Leeds in admin twice, Bradford once, he was Secretary at Scarborough too- wonder if anything went wrong there under him!!

Talented and capable at leading sides into administration! ?

I suppose with his track record he should at least know how way around the process, any port in a storm etc.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/03/2020 at 15:46, Mr Popodopolous said:

They need to find a way to expedite the process, legally speaking

No idea of the legality but could they change it so burden of proof is on proving you've complied rather than being found to have broken? I'm sure clubs would act a hell of a lot quicker if there was a deadline for having to prove they've complied or the EFL can punish them based on what they accuse them of having done (ie exceeded FFP by x million over 3 years)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

We report our Football stuff under Bristol City Holdings which encompass BCFC and Ashton Gate Ltd, so I assume (I’m no expert)  should we sell our ground to Lansdown or Pula, the profit from that sale would come under AGLtd and therefore under the reporting of BCH for FFP purposes?

we cant sell our ground we have already done it so if the club folded the ground is still ours but not sure after the rebuild:dunno: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, reddoh said:

we cant sell our ground we have already done it so if the club folded the ground is still ours but not sure after the rebuild:dunno: 

I'd have to double check of course :dunno:

Lot of accounts to go through, but was it sold as such or was it an asset transfer? Which one we report as our FFP figures to the EFL I'm also unsure on- BCFC Holdings in some ways would make sense but...

The latter point, surely as the ultimate company ie the consolidated accounts, such a transaction can cancel out ie no net gain- maybe that's old rules though?

Asset transfer tends to be at book value or no profit- don't think we profited at all from it but again accounts would reveal all...

Very quick look tells me that it happened sometime in 2005/06 season- Bristol City Football Club Limited accounts made up to 31st May 2006.

Transferred to Ashton Gate Limited- on Bristol City Football Club Limited accounts for that season, check note 8 on Page 13.

Unlike ANY of these transactions, we made zero profit- it was transferred at the price it was on the books. As it should be, unless of course accounting regs stipulated something different then vs now- by which I mean could do it then but not now, would have to be at fair value etc.

Course there's Pula Sport and Pula Limited but I'm just focusing on the easily accessible by CH- was an asset transfer, not a sale as such.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, reddoh said:

we cant sell our ground we have already done it so if the club folded the ground is still ours but not sure after the rebuild:dunno: 

We could sell our ground to any Tom, Dick or Harry, surely?  I don’t believe we have sold it, just transferred it into a different part of the company structure as @Mr Popodopolous states above.

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...