Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

I would change the rules on accounting periods and projections.  The real problem is the lack of up to date information.

Firstly I would force all clubs to have a 31 May Accounting Date.

Secondly you submit your company accounts for 31 May audited and signed off to Companies House and the EFL by 31 July after the end of the season or you don't get to play the next season.  Anyone who says it can't be done has never tried or needs to improve the internal accounting or get a new Auditor.

The EFL can then review in August, apply any penalties necessary and do any investigations before Christmas.

Thirdly any transfer profits or losses you make (in or out) after the end of May but before the close of the summer window can be carried back but as a penalty are spread equally over the three year period, so the effect is reduced.

Fourthly if you are promoted or relegated you are still judged on the above standards and any failings result in the appropriate penalty being applied regardless of where you are currently playing.

 

Job done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Selling players and leasing them back from a same owner club will be the foundation stone of a mockery statue to the FL. Rules should have been in place to enforce punishment long ago. I seem to recall Watford being told you cannot loan more than 7 or so players from a same owner 'sister' club. At that time FFP was not so much in the news or 'in service'. Watford soon adapted. 

Unless automatic relegation of at least one division is the punishment and a clear and precise set of rules are in place to follow the FFP arrangement is not fit for purpose.

We are seeing law suits starting to flow now and I think while Parry was brought in to clean this up so far the evidence suggests he is found wanting.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

Parry inherited a set of circumstances ( Derby, Wednesday, Reading)  caused by the previous regime’s ineptitude in allowing loopholes in the rules when they were drafted. 

To give him his due, at least he has pursued clubs on grounds under which action could be taken, whereas I have little doubt that had Harvey still be in charge he would have simply rolled over and let it go.

I do agree that what these cases have done is expose the gaping holes in ffp rules and the need for a revision, not only to close the loopholes already identified, but to anticipate the areas that clubs will next choose to attack. Perhaps if the punishment(s) are sever enough ( automatic relegation?) then that might be sufficient to cause clubs to comply for absolute fear of the consequences. In that respect, Parry’s stance in taking the action he has thus far will make club’s realise the EFL is no the soft touch they were previously.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, downendcity said:

Parry inherited a set of circumstances ( Derby, Wednesday, Reading)  caused by the previous regime’s ineptitude in allowing loopholes in the rules when they were drafted. 

To give him his due, at least he has pursued clubs on grounds under which action could be taken, whereas I have little doubt that had Harvey still be in charge he would have simply rolled over and let it go.

I do agree that what these cases have done is expose the gaping holes in ffp rules and the need for a revision, not only to close the loopholes already identified, but to anticipate the areas that clubs will next choose to attack. Perhaps if the punishment(s) are sever enough ( automatic relegation?) then that might be sufficient to cause clubs to comply for absolute fear of the consequences. In that respect, Parry’s stance in taking the action he has thus far will make club’s realise the EFL is no the soft touch they were previously.

 

Except for the fact you seem to be suggesting he has inherited rules so his 12 pt deduction is the same Harvey would have and indeed did dish out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

12 PTS for Wed for next season?

The case was taken to the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION by the EFL with Parry in charge.  The decision of the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION was as you state.  That could be appealed by both the EFL and the club.

How is that Parry found wanting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The case was taken to the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION by the EFL with Parry in charge.  The decision of the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION was as you state.  That could be appealed by both the EFL and the club.

How is that Parry found wanting?

Are you implying his hands were tied? If so then perhaps that's another matter. As I understand it 12 PTS have been dished out for the same season before Parry arrived and yet he chaired that meeting and was happy with a deduction next season? 

From where I stand he looks weak.

Feel free to clarify though.

Edited by havanatopia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hxj said:

I would change the rules on accounting periods and projections.  The real problem is the lack of up to date information.

Firstly I would force all clubs to have a 31 May Accounting Date.

Secondly you submit your company accounts for 31 May audited and signed off to Companies House and the EFL by 31 July after the end of the season or you don't get to play the next season.  Anyone who says it can't be done has never tried or needs to improve the internal accounting or get a new Auditor.

The EFL can then review in August, apply any penalties necessary and do any investigations before Christmas.

Thirdly any transfer profits or losses you make (in or out) after the end of May but before the close of the summer window can be carried back but as a penalty are spread equally over the three year period, so the effect is reduced.

Fourthly if you are promoted or relegated you are still judged on the above standards and any failings result in the appropriate penalty being applied regardless of where you are currently playing.

 

Job done.

I agree in principle with a good chunk though and yeah I agree on the Licensing thing- the carry back is an interesting idea for sure.

The only issue is that promoted sides, will the PL enforce penalties? This is genuinely a grey area.

Are Projected Accounts not a basis for charge then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, downendcity said:

Parry inherited a set of circumstances ( Derby, Wednesday, Reading)  caused by the previous regime’s ineptitude in allowing loopholes in the rules when they were drafted. 

To give him his due, at least he has pursued clubs on grounds under which action could be taken, whereas I have little doubt that had Harvey still be in charge he would have simply rolled over and let it go.

I do agree that what these cases have done is expose the gaping holes in ffp rules and the need for a revision, not only to close the loopholes already identified, but to anticipate the areas that clubs will next choose to attack. Perhaps if the punishment(s) are sever enough ( automatic relegation?) then that might be sufficient to cause clubs to comply for absolute fear of the consequences. In that respect, Parry’s stance in taking the action he has thus far will make club’s realise the EFL is no the soft touch they were previously.

 

Parry is taking too long to get his legs under the desk then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Are you implying his hands were tied? If so then perhaps that's another matter. As I understand it 12 PTS have been dished out for the same season before Parry arrived and yet he chaired that meeting and was happy with a deduction next season? 

From where I stand he looks weak.

Feel free to clarify though.

It's tricky. I think he's better than Harvey for a start! Mind you Harvey had been at two clubs who were in administration or similar financial distress on his watch so how he ever got the top job at the EFL is beyond me! Perhaps he was unlucky and then very lucky.

There were complex legal arguments- Sheffield Wednesday (and Derby which is still ongoing) both claimed they had permission, possibly from Harvey himself- with respect to their transactions. I actually credit the EFL with winning the case in those circs! Some legal opinion even suggested Sheffield Wednesday would get away scot-free!

Where I would query is why did they pursue individual charges concurrently with club ones? These are harder to prove, and possibly dragged things out somewhat- to me the club is the priority here- by all means if you win that case, go after or consider going after Chansiri, Meire and Redgate- unless of course legal advice suggested that they needed to make a play of that from early on too, but from what I could see, those particular charges were stuck in deadlock, possibly arbitration for months- I'd argue it took valuable time and potentially resources out of the 12 point deduction for breaching FFP aspect, possibly enabled Sheffield Wednesday to have the 12 points in 2020-21 as opposed to this season.

Parry or the head of the EFL AFAIK doesn't chair the Independent Panel- it's one appointee by the EFL, one by the club and the third, who knows- dunno! Independent legal adviser/QC possibly? I'd have to look in depth but fixed penalties would be a good way forward to expedite certain things in the future. I have the feeling that some of the EFL administration of FFP and implementation is being/has been carried out on the hoof.

I also agree with your post about sale and leaseback to related clubs would be a foundation stone of a mockery statue to the EFL.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying the remark from HxJ about Parry not being on the panel Pop. 

I am rather taken aback there is no fixed penalty for given misdemeanours. It's a recipe for law suit one after the other. Mind boggling in its stupidity.

Parry has his work cut out. I see Championship clubs have rallied around Charlton making Wednesday the pariah... Not their fault they got away lightly though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the fixed penalty point will become easier over time tbh Hav, as precedents are set and easier established, at least with respect to the points per overspend- combined with mitigating and aggravating factors of course would need hearings but a starting point "You overspent in this range therefore it's this number of points"- shouldn't be beyond the EFL to come up with a way to make this stick.

Some interesting snippets on Reading as well!

Seems they are having trouble with respect to signing Ejaria. Good- their expenditure in recent times has been a nonsense. They are trying to negotiate the fee down but this seems interesting...

Quote

Talks are still going on and I understand the League are involved too as they’re keeping an eye on the financial situation at the club.

Hopefully we’ll get some positive news soon.

This actually seems like they are doing their job correctly by now or at least moreso than before- if the League are involved then that is a big step- also reduces the chance quite significantly I'd suggest of some nonsense deals with Beijing Renhe.

On another interesting note, one of their saleable assets, seems that they have turned down a second bid from Sheffield United. John Swift- £4m.

Quote

It sounds like Mr Dai does not want to sell. So I guess unless a silly fee comes in then Reading will fight tooth and nail to keep him.

Remember the transfer window doesn’t close for another two months so this one could run on for quite a while yet at the rate it’s going!

Adds credence to what I say and what I posted I think about a possible disconnect in this area between owner and CEO.

Fine for the transfer window to have two months left but I make them over limits for the 3 years to season just gone.

If they were making £15-20m worth of net cutbacks this season or net combination of profit on disposal of players in genuine transactions and cutbacks I might say fair enough but...

Quote

I would imagine it’s getting on to between £75-100k a week overall.

That’s my best guess!

So we're saying around £3.9-5.2m per financial year/season so far. Not enough, not by a long chalk!

Their losses were increasing, with little regard for the regulations and the like- interesting to know how much though people left, Rafael, Morrison, Adam, Pele, Joao, Puscas and Boye would have added in wages!

These 7 players were of varying age and ability but from a mix of Championship, Serie A and one from Ligue 1- Pele Monaco IIRC- not cheap?

Little bit more on Swift.

Reading have (or more likely their Owner has) ****** things big time though, zero sympathy.

They lost this summer Loader on a free- they turned down a bid from Wolves for him a year ago.

Osho appears to have been an academy product- they could have got money for him but he's gone on a free. Having said that of the two, profit on Loader would've been more likely, as he was more known.

They received a bid from Brighton in summer 2018 for Liam Moore- £10m- they turned it down and promptly gave him a new large contract.

That's before we even get onto the folly of adding Puscas and Joao last summer- not saying they aren't good players- within a month-6 weeks of being released from soft embargo!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to Sheffield Wednesday, it's quite interesting seeing what is left.

Goals FOR in the League last year, 58.

Goals in the League which have left the squad- as it stands, temporarily or otherwise- be it loans expiring, be it out of contract who may yet get renewed under better terms etc but can only go on here and now. Not even bothering to look at assists as this will take some time!

  • Fletcher- 13
  • Forestieri- 2
  • Fox- 2
  • Hutchinson- 1
  • Joao- 1
  • Murphy- 9
  • Nuhiu- 6
  • Wickham- 2
  • Windass- 3
  • Winnall- 1

I make that 40/58 goals gone- as it stands. Amazingly, the one by Joao on opening day aside, Joao of course they sold to Reading by end of summer window, they got ZERO in terms of fee for the rest- mix of loanees and contracts expiring.

Clearly it's not that simple but it's interesting-their top 3 scorers for sure in Fletcher, Murphy and Nuhiu currently not there. At least Birmingham- a good comparable- got some cash for Adams, Jota and co!

A monument to mismanagement?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The only issue is that promoted sides, will the PL enforce penalties? This is genuinely a grey area.

Are Projected Accounts not a basis for charge then?

I agree that the PL need to get on side.  But I see it as a 'no-loss' position for them, it actually helps to stop any outsiders getting in. uphold the integrity of the PL.

The problem with 'projected accounts' is that they are always more open to abuse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hxj said:

I agree that the PL need to get on side.  But I see it as a 'no-loss' position for them, it actually helps to stop any outsiders getting in. uphold the integrity of the PL.

The problem with 'projected accounts' is that they are always more open to abuse.

Nicely put. 

They are indeed but interestingly based on an article by Matt Lawton in March 2019,the ones for Aston Villa worked out roughly in line with reality. 

Stated that losses were approaching £60m. Strip out stadium sale and leaseback, but also strip out payments to Xia and general costs of promotion as when they were put in they were playoff chasing and by no means guaranteed to make it, let alone win and their ones were very much in the right ballpark it'd appear.

The forward projections and backward data can enable a real strong scrutiny under the right Executive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may as well for historical purposes look at the Aston Villa case yet again.

On 22nd March 2019 Matt Lawton wrote- and we know about Derby County and Sheffield Wednesday, the fact they have cases ongoing. One have been docked 12 points, one the case is still dragging but time will tell.

Quote

Villa could have to explain losses believed to total as much as £60million   

That was in the starter bullet points.

Quote

While the clubs declined to comment on Friday, privately insiders insist they will not be found to have breached financial fair play rules. But that will be a matter for interpretation.

Clubs may argue they can allocate certain costs, but the EFL may not accept their explanation and Villa could have to explain losses believed to total as much as £60million.

When Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens took a controlling stake in Villa last year, they were warned that drastic action was needed to avoid issues with profit and sustainability regulations

One solution would have been to sell Jack Grealish, and it could now be that they have to take such an option even if a number of their players are out of contract this summer.

Unclear- does it mean EFL insiders or club insiders? Certainly means that they were wrong about Sheffield Wednesday. May well be wrong about Derby- they were charged and are at the hearing stage.

Remember too this was written under Harvey's leadership, this info came out under his leadership. It does appear also based on a subsequent article by Lawton that the PL would not be minded to enforce embargoes or deductions on a newly promoted club at the request of the EFL. Read differing things on this but the fact they had no points deduction mechanism in place as per Matt Hughes until lately- may still not, as in sliding scale suggests not!

How does that £60million in a season stack up? As we know:

NSWE UK (ie the Aston Villa consolidated accounts) posted losses of £68,884,000.

However, it is worth delving into those figures in a little more depth:

Quote

LOSS- £68,884,000

MINUS- £30,000,000 (XIA PAYMENT TO LERNER)

MINUS- £15,808,000 (Promotion Bonuses)

Loss Before FFP excluded items net of those two above=£23,076,000

However, this loss is of course inclusive of the stadium sale and the HS2.

Add back:

Quote

Loss Before FFP excluded items net of those two above=£23,076,000

Minus- Profit on Disposal of Villa Park- £36,374,000.

Minus Other Operating Income (HS2)- £14,494,000

New Loss Before FFP excluded items but exclusive of Villa Park and HS2=£73,944,000

Add Back HS2- £14,494,000

Revised and Rounded Loss Before FFP excluded items but exclusive of Villa Park=£59,450,000

By the process of elimination, I believe that the HS2 would have been included in the Projected Accounts that were submitted in March and fair enough but not the stadium sale.

Also how can you include as a given promotion bonuses in March of that season- you can't! Goes for both the bonuses and the payment to Lerner- nothing guaranteed in March, especially with not being miles clear at the top- and we all know how unpredictable the playoffs can be.

That means that sometime between the accounts being received and examined by the EFL, say a month, the stadium plan was put into place.

This in turn means that Matt Lawton's article was not far off right! Not far off at all...big hand to the guy! ? Well done that man!

That's pretty commercially confidential info too I'd say- had their accounts to within a very reasonable ballpark, wonder who leaked it??  Nearly spot on as well. 

In terms of the leak, did/does public interest outweigh right to commercial confidentially for Aston Villa and the EFL? Leaks in football are not so uncommon however.

On another note, I see that Reading turned down but it's unclear when, £7m for Loader in January or August 2019! No sympathy, they also turned down a £10m bid for Moore, Liam Moore in August 2019 and gave him a bigger new contract- now they must pay an FFP related price!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading are still under some kind of EFL close monitoring/analysis/involvement. I'm sure they're well over to June 2020. Should also correct myself too, the Moore bid and subsequent new deal was August 2018.

Kieran Maguire's thread on Derby. Things moved on a bit since then, ie the charge is available now.

One of his subsequent Tweets in the thread- not looked at it myself really, the charge.

It seems the charge is over the leasehold- I think. Gellaw Newco 202 owns the freehold ie Pride Park. Do Freeholds and Leaseholds of the same property usually have different Title Numbers?

Bit more light? Detail anyway! ⤵️

EfNKd9TWAAAFI42?format=jpg&name=large

Charge appears to be over the lot.

Although Ryan Conway, the Derby journalist over on The Athletic suggested that they could spend £10m or up to 1/3 of this investment- which I assume is £10m- so what gives??

Indeed, the charge- which I still haven't looked at properly- as confirmed above is over all 8 companies. Still no accounts for the following though:

  • Club DCFC Limited
  • Stadia DCFC Limited
  • The Derby County FC Academy Limitd
  • Sevco 5112
  • The Derby County Football Club Limited
  • Gellaw Newco 203 Limited

The first 3 are under Sevco 5112. The football club is under Gellaw Newco 203 Limited- as is Sevco 5112 inclusive of the first 3.

Quite understand why you cannot yet release the football club accounts and quite possibly Gellaw Newco 203 as the ultimate company- but the other 4??

As for the Gabay related charge, still no sign of that having been cleared yet from Gellaw Newco 202 and Gellaw Newco 204- perhaps this is to clear some of that?

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

On 06/08/2020 at 09:24, Mr Popodopolous said:

I agree in principle with a good chunk though and yeah I agree on the Licensing thing- the carry back is an interesting idea for sure.

The only issue is that promoted sides, will the PL enforce penalties? This is genuinely a grey area.

Are Projected Accounts not a basis for charge then?

I know you quote Kieran Maguire a bunch, but I'm not sure if you also listen along to his podcast. If not, he discussed it when talking about Sheffield Wednesday's points deduction. He said that EFL points deductions wouldn't count in the PL but theoretically a promoted team could possibly face a points deduction should they get relegated back to the EFL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

1.  It seems the charge is over the leasehold- I think. Gellaw Newco 202 owns the freehold ie Pride Park. Do Freeholds and Leaseholds of the same property usually have different Title Numbers?

 

2.  Although Ryan Conway, the Derby journalist over on The Athletic suggested that they could spend £10m or up to 1/3 of this investment- which I assume is £10m- so what gives??

 

1. Yes - they are different assets, one can be disposed of without the other, so have different title numbers.

2. The spare £20 million is probably the cash burnt since the last capital injection.

It does increasing look like Morris has had enough.

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

13 minutes ago, Hxj said:

 

1. Yes - they are different assets, one can be disposed of without the other, so have different title numbers.

2. The spare £20 million is probably the cash burnt since the last capital injection.

It does increasing look like Morris has had enough.

It would be good if he bought Oxford . 
( one for the old fellas there ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Derby County have received a major cash injection from a New York investment bank belonging to American billionaire Michael Dell.

Dell is the owner of MSD Capital and records on Companies House confirm a loan was registered last week.

Owner Mel Morris has been searching for additional funding for over two years having sunk millions of pounds into Bristol City's Championship rivals, hoping to get the club back into the Premier League.

The club are currently awaiting the verdict from an independent disciplinary charge over a battle with the EFL over the sale and leaseback of Pride Park.

Sheffield Wednesday were docked 12 points for a similar charge, however, Derby's relates to the £80million valuation of the stadium, rather than the year it was accounted for.

The Telegraph report that a £30million cash injection has been borrowed against the club's assets.

It is stated that Dell and Derby are talking about a range of financial arrangements, which could include a significant loan, investment or takeover.

 

Dell was listed as the 25th richest man in the world in Forbes last year and has also held talks with a number of other clubs in England outside the top tier.

The cash injection will help towards Derby's efforts of staying within the EFL's Financial Fair Play regulations, having watched Birmingham City and Wednesday lose points for breaches.

It also further highlights the strain placed on all EFL clubs due to the COVID-19 crisis, which has seen very little money change hands since the summer transfer window opened."

 

What assets do Derby have worth £30m to borrow against?

Under FFP are you allowed to borrow money to stay with in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chucky said:

"Derby County have received a major cash injection from a New York investment bank belonging to American billionaire Michael Dell.

Dell is the owner of MSD Capital and records on Companies House confirm a loan was registered last week.

Owner Mel Morris has been searching for additional funding for over two years having sunk millions of pounds into Bristol City's Championship rivals, hoping to get the club back into the Premier League.

The club are currently awaiting the verdict from an independent disciplinary charge over a battle with the EFL over the sale and leaseback of Pride Park.

Sheffield Wednesday were docked 12 points for a similar charge, however, Derby's relates to the £80million valuation of the stadium, rather than the year it was accounted for.

The Telegraph report that a £30million cash injection has been borrowed against the club's assets.

It is stated that Dell and Derby are talking about a range of financial arrangements, which could include a significant loan, investment or takeover.

 

Dell was listed as the 25th richest man in the world in Forbes last year and has also held talks with a number of other clubs in England outside the top tier.

The cash injection will help towards Derby's efforts of staying within the EFL's Financial Fair Play regulations, having watched Birmingham City and Wednesday lose points for breaches.

It also further highlights the strain placed on all EFL clubs due to the COVID-19 crisis, which has seen very little money change hands since the summer transfer window opened."

 

What assets do Derby have worth £30m to borrow against?

Under FFP are you allowed to borrow money to stay with in it?

Borrowed it seems against the leasehold for Pride Park, plus given that the charge seems to cover all of the companies within the group.

Think borrowing can take a club up to acceptable equity limits ie the 3 year difference between £15-39m but the rest doesn't count under FFP. If it even hits the P&L all that much, feels more like cashflow to me.

Businesses borrowing is one thing but loss making businesses borrowing is quite something! Could in theory lead to more investment, a take-over but the FFP limits remain the FFP limits. 

Seen mentioned/speculated on their forum that it could be a plan to put into place a cheap takeover.

As in default and Dell gets the lot as that is what would happen I believe If Derby defaulted, hence the security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chucky said:

"Derby County have received a major cash injection from a New York investment bank belonging to American billionaire Michael Dell.

Dell is the owner of MSD Capital and records on Companies House confirm a loan was registered last week.

Owner Mel Morris has been searching for additional funding for over two years having sunk millions of pounds into Bristol City's Championship rivals, hoping to get the club back into the Premier League.

The club are currently awaiting the verdict from an independent disciplinary charge over a battle with the EFL over the sale and leaseback of Pride Park.

Sheffield Wednesday were docked 12 points for a similar charge, however, Derby's relates to the £80million valuation of the stadium, rather than the year it was accounted for.

The Telegraph report that a £30million cash injection has been borrowed against the club's assets.

It is stated that Dell and Derby are talking about a range of financial arrangements, which could include a significant loan, investment or takeover.

 

Dell was listed as the 25th richest man in the world in Forbes last year and has also held talks with a number of other clubs in England outside the top tier.

The cash injection will help towards Derby's efforts of staying within the EFL's Financial Fair Play regulations, having watched Birmingham City and Wednesday lose points for breaches.

It also further highlights the strain placed on all EFL clubs due to the COVID-19 crisis, which has seen very little money change hands since the summer transfer window opened."

 

What assets do Derby have worth £30m to borrow against?

Under FFP are you allowed to borrow money to stay with in it?

This is likely to be cash flow.....won’t impact FFP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This is likely to be cash flow.....won’t impact FFP.

Amazing that the EFL can deduct points from S/Weds but delay it until the new season thus saving them from relegation, at the same time not announcing the points deduction for Derby who also broke the rules.Are they waiting for the cash injection so that they can avoid deductions? My understanding of the rules is that FFP is based on turnover /trading rather than external investments to muddy the debt waters . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, davidoldfart said:

Amazing that the EFL can deduct points from S/Weds but delay it until the new season thus saving them from relegation, at the same time not announcing the points deduction for Derby who also broke the rules.Are they waiting for the cash injection so that they can avoid deductions? My understanding of the rules is that FFP is based on turnover /trading rather than external investments to muddy the debt waters . 

Referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission. Once that happens, the timescale seems out of EFL's hands somewhat.

Case is either ongoing or the verdict is being deliberated on. 

Unlikely, given that the 3 year period that they are in the dock for relates to the 3 years to June 2018!

It is. Profit and loss basically, turnover trading all that. The only FFP benefits I can see are if Morris isn't sticking in the upper limits of equity.

Even that's only a potential gain but the lower limits are £15m (no equity), £39m in 3 years upper limits (that's if all put in) and I guess anything between £15m and £39m- so £5m equity in 3 years means allowed to lose £20m instead of £15m say.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Stoke have slashed Butland's asking price down to £8-10m.

Gambled, kept hold...and failed and now in danger of failing FFP?

Meanwhile, expanding the Stoke FFP question marks.

In other FFP related news, read- perhaps it was reiterated- that Reading owner is refusing to sell Swift- they've got to be either really close to having failed or having failed in any case surely.

Are the EFL working with them quietly, maybe enabling them to backdate sales as Howe is on the board and they don't want the embarrassment of yet another club with a board member having failed? Their two years leading into 2019/2020 were appalling financially speaking. Mind you, that didn't stop them from charging Derby! They- ie Reading- were under a soft embargo until late June 2019 so clearly on the edge of it then!

That idea of EFL quietly working with, is pure idle throwaway speculation- but it seems odd that they are still complying- or at least haven't been charged.

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...