Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

Some comparables in terms of Pride Park. The first one has some similarities- but also some differences! Similar bit of the world, both have hosted concerts, KP Stadium is listed as having a Restaurant, listed as having undersoil heating- capacity not dissimilar either? Is a bowl so the corners issue might differ. Assume it has Executive seating- many grounds do. There is a hotel right by it too!

I can certainly accept that KP Stadium might be worth less than Pride Park but not the figures stated!

KP Stadium- 'cost' at time of addition- £19,106,000. Listed as Historic cost.

Remained like this until 2009 when it was valued in May of that year. I say remained at that, basically remained at the 'Cost' net of Depreciation.

May 2009- now £41,463,000. This is inclusive of non-depreciable freehold land to the value of £4,777,000.

Accordingly, the Revaluation Reserve was now £24,701,000- near enough equal to the uplift in valuation. The methodology used was 'an existing use basis' this differs to Pride Park's valuation I believe?

In May 2014, in accordance with their Revaluation policy a further Revaluation was carried out- £41,582,000. This eliminated the depreciation as there was a surplus on the initial Revaluation and was a small uptick.

In May 2017, there was an interim valuation carried out. £45,808,000- this was compared with the depreciated carrying value inclusive of relevant assets known as fixtures of fittings of £45,528,000. In the initial valuation, this includes some £9,555,000 of freehold land. Doesn't appear to state the basis for the valuation however!

By May 2019, the latest revaluation. Market value current use basis...£43,500,000 as against depreciated carrying value of £39,153,000. Included within- and I assume it means the Market value current use basis one- is freehold land of £11,025,000- which of course, is not depreciated.

On the other hand, I should point out one of the differences- zero additions so there is similarity in terms of the ground and the facilities to Pride Park but nothing in 16 seasons worth of 'additions' under that section for the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bet 365 Stadium.

Like Pride Park, the club moved there in 1997. It holds less than Pride Park but not by miles. 30,089 vs 33,597 respectively.

Bits of this are somewhat tricky to gauge, as it is not really listed separately in the relevant accounts for some time- so additions and accounting for these? These accounts also appear to run to November which is strange but 12 months are 12 months I guess!

Classified as Investment Property- unclear if it includes all buildings or just the ground but stated at valuation. Assuming that at this time, under "Additions" is the ground. £13,849,347 by process of elimination. Directors considered valuation at that time, to be not in excess of cost- these are the 1997 accounts.

To November 1998- Additions £263,780. The problem is, is this inclusive of Training Ground or solely the stadium? The name of the company indicates the stadium solely!

Accounts extended to May 2000- to bring it back into line with the club. Additions are £151,190. 18 month accounts.

These are not Additions in total but solely under Land and Buildings.

Policy changed to 'Cost' from Investment Property in 2000-01 and thus heralded a period of no "Additions".

Finally come the financial year- now running until March 2007- some additions! £57,323. Unclear as to whether it was to the ground though as it's not clearly stated.

To March 2010, £2,672,762 in Additions. Still nothing definitive yet.

To March 2011, a stated £3,856,736 in additions. Again not specific as to whether it is to Fixtures, Fittings, Stadium, Training Ground or something else!

Come 2012, we have some movement. Some changes. Revalued on a DEPRECIATED REPLACEMENT COST basis- ie the same valuation method that Derby used.

Was before this, at a Cost of £16,480,307. The actual first valuation in some time shows it now worth £32,356,355, Additions- and this is definitively to the Stadium of £1,679,220- the size of the uptick in valuation is therefore equal to the Revaluation Reserve. Cost plus valuation comes to £34,035,575- the accumulated Depreciation is therefore eliminated due to the revaluation and we have valuation of £34m for accounting purposes or £34,035,575 if adding it all as a whole.

Additions of course will cover work done on the ground, ie Mel Morris's developments in 2015. They would be classed under Additions.

To March 2013- and remember no Depreciation as it is being held at valuation- Additions of £591,650 to the Stadium which means it's added to the £34m.

To March 2014- it's a further £308,580 in Additions to the Stadium. Now at £34,900,230.

To March 2015- it's a further £497,763 in Additions to the Stadium. However that is pre a Revaluation at DRC which comes to £33.1m- and that's if we don't include Plant and Machinery which brings it to £34m if we do.

Interestingly, the 2016 accounts referenced that Stoke planned to fill in the corner, with some 1,800 seats. One of the corners anyway between the DPD and Marston Pedigree Stands (no me neither!)

Additions in 2015/16- £211,414. The valuation also was inclusive of land with a net book value of £4,450,000- the first such mention but unchanged from 2015.

Additions in 2016/17- and the notes mentioned planned Stadium specific investment encompassing a Stadium South-East Corner Infill and Stadium seating.

Anyway that year, to March 2017, there was £2,729,905 of Investment to the Stadium.

Onto March 2018...Wow, quite the Addition that season- some £5,837,761 to the Stadium! £41,702,830 a new valuation but OTOH the valuation itself was £42.5m on a Depreciated Replacement Cost basis. The land itself was still £4.45m. Appeared to be an Impairment to the valuation on relegation of £792,757- hence the £41,131,653 valuation of the Stadium- inclusive of Plants and Machinery it was £42,031,653.

Given that the similar methods of valuation were used and some similarities in accounting policies- again I accept Pride Park worth more than Bet 365 but double??

In short, the challenge I put is to explain an apparent £15-20m rise between 2016/17 and 2017/18.

The accounting policy in 2016/17 was like that of Stoke- revaluation model, using DRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2016/17

Some relevant Accounting Policies state:

Quote

2.     Accounting Policies

2.1  Basis of preparation of financial statements

      The financial statements have been prepared under the historical cost convention modified to include certain items at fair value and in accordance with Financial Reporting Standard 102, the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and the Republic of Ireland and the Companies Act 2006.

For that, read Pride Park?

Quote

2.6  Tangible Fixed Assets

       Tangible Fixed Assets [excluding freehold property] under the cost model are stated at historical cost less accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment losses.

Once again, my basic assumption is that the certain item in 2.1 and freehold property in 2.6 is the same thing- Pride Park.

Quote

2.7  Revaluation of tangible fixed assets

       Freehold property is carried at current year value at fair value at the date of the revaluation less any subsequent accumulated depreciation and any subsequent accumulated impairment losses.  Revaluations  are  undertaken with sufficient regularity to ensure the carrying amount does not differ materially from that which would be determined using fair value at the balance sheet date.

       Fair values are determined from market based evidence usually undertaken by professionally qualified valuers.

       Revaluation gains and losses are recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive income unless losses exceed the previously recognised gains or reflect a clear consumption of economic benefits, in which case  the excess losses are recognised in profit and loss.

They appear to have neglected to apply their own accounting policies here. :blush: 

Quote

3.  Judgements in applying accounting policies and key sources of estimation uncertainty.

       Stadium revaluation

        The freehold buildings known as Pride Park Stadium were valued by independent valuers Jones Lang LaSalle on 23 May 2013 on a depreciated replacement cost basis. Based on this valuation the directors have assessed the carrying value of the freehold buildings and determined that the current valuation is appropriate.

Now, what was the carrying value as of 2016/17?

Before Depreciation- accumulated or otherwise but also before additions and transfers between classes.

£63,797,975.

Additions- £728,204.

Transfers between classes- £1,993.299.

Therefore after that, but pre depreciation- accumulated or current- £66,519,478.

If we eliminate Depreciation on Sale then yeah...

If we don't...

£51,618,188.

My contention therefore is that either the Stadium was overvalued, or the carrying value was too low- or a bit of both! Clearly Gibson's comparison was way out but £81.1m absolutely seems too high!

The carrying value materially, absolutely materially, differs from the 2018 sale price which was supposed to be at 'fair value'! In wholesale contradiction to the accounting policy.

@Coppello how does this sit? Looks to me like the accounting policies might just have been disregarded IMO.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of interesting stuff on Price of Football podcast this week- I've read the layout/preview but I'm glad this is finally being noted somewhere. Still catching up on many weeks of podcast so won't hear this for some while! :laughcont:

As we already know, their auditors are Smith Cooper- James Delve by his own admission is a passionate Derby supporter. See Smith Cooper website. Why mention James Delve? Well he was the guy who signed them off in 2017/18- but so far so mundane.

Where it gets a bit more interesting is that Smith Cooper and possibly ANDREW Delve but certainly Smith Cooper were part of the advisory for Mel Morris on the takeover of Derby.

The auditors have also acted for Mel Morris for 20+ years.

The North Stand was for a time known as the Smith Cooper stand.

A partner in 2013/14, and stressed desire to continue for 2014/15 also.

Andrew Delve (also of Smith Cooper) signed them off for Derby for a few years until 2016/17- which was when it became JAMES Delve. I must stress in the interest of balance etc that he for all I know, may be totally unrelated to James Delve. He has though been someone who acted for or worked with Mel Morris a number of times down the years. I must also stress in the interest of balance that Andrew Delve could have no interest whatsoever in football for all I know.

The auditors Smith Cooper North Stand in all its glory! Though I'm sure that North Stand sponsorship is long gone.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/08/2020 at 22:42, Mr Popodopolous said:

2016/17

Some relevant Accounting Policies state:

For that, read Pride Park?

Once again, my basic assumption is that the certain item in 2.1 and freehold property in 2.6 is the same thing- Pride Park.

They appear to have neglected to apply their own accounting policies here. :blush: 

Now, what was the carrying value as of 2016/17?

Before Depreciation- accumulated or otherwise but also before additions and transfers between classes.

£63,797,975.

Additions- £728,204.

Transfers between classes- £1,993.299.

Therefore after that, but pre depreciation- accumulated or current- £66,519,478.

If we eliminate Depreciation on Sale then yeah...

If we don't...

£51,618,188.

My contention therefore is that either the Stadium was overvalued, or the carrying value was too low- or a bit of both! Clearly Gibson's comparison was way out but £81.1m absolutely seems too high!

The carrying value materially, absolutely materially, differs from the 2018 sale price which was supposed to be at 'fair value'! In wholesale contradiction to the accounting policy.

@Coppello how does this sit? Looks to me like the accounting policies might just have been disregarded IMO.

Little more on this one.

2.1 was still in evidence in 2017/18.

Under Tangible Fixed Assets it shows some further additions- £13,361 and £245,561 in terms of Transfers between classes- this surely helps to puff up the valuation that little bit more.

£66,519,478

+ £13,361

+ (Maybe) £245,561.

£66,778,400. Net of and before any depreciation that may or may not be applicable.

However the valuation of the disposal itself was stated at £56,205,091. This suggests that it also included other buildings- maybe the training ground?

Suppose I've not been factoring in fixtures and fittings relevant to Pride Park or bits of Assets under Construction- net of or before any depreciation in terms of the bits specifically bracketed- so I assume relevant to the disposal- we have £59,236,629.

As such, it doesn't stack up. Either the sale price is too high, the net book value or even book value is too low or a bit of both. Problematic given their accounting policies for 2016/17 appeared to have the Stadium at in or around fair value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting snippets.

Quote

79) On the same day

a) JLL provided a valuation letter to the Club confirming

i) Its assessment of Fair Value on a Profits basis at £81.1m, and

ii) Its assessment of Fair Value on a DRC basis at £74.4m

JLL also confirmed a market rent for Pride Park of £4.16m on a sale and leaseback of Pride Park to the Club on reasonable terms

Quote

83) On 30 June 2018 JLL provided a formal ‘Valuation Advisory’ of Pride Park. That document was reviewed by the Club and on 3 July 2018 the Club provided certain comments and corrections. JLL appears to have accepted those comments and corrections, and later that same day provided its ‘final’ valuation report to the Club (‘the 2018 JLL report’). We return to consider that report in greater detail below – it suffices for the time being to say that JLL

a) Continued to value Pride Park on a Profits basis at £81.1m

b) Continued to value Pride Park on a DRC basis at £74.4m

c) Continued to assess the market rent of Pride Park on the basis of a sale and leaseback agreement at £4.16m

JLL stood by certain valuations it seems- and the rent- hence the use of the word 'Continued' and in a prior point, 'confirmin'.

The proposed annual £4.16m rent seems fine anyway, based on suggested rent for other grounds- Hillsborough £3m on £60m transaction or St Andrews £1.25m on £22.76m transaction- it seems in the right ballpark. £1.1m however?? Only works if non football income does not go to Derby but to Mel Morris etc.

It also appeared that the Club corrected such a large valuation firm and their suggestions were accepted- which seems a bit odd!!

Part of those corrections clearly led to the following differences:

Quote

84) Before we leave the 2018 JLL report we return to the exchanges that took place between JLL and the Club, and the Club and the EFL, in late June 2018:

a) As we have said above, on 26 June 2018 Mr Holt of the Club sent an email to Mr Karran confirming ‘stadium valuations [by JLL] of £81.1m using a profits method and £74.4m using a DRC method’. Mr Holt’s email

i)Began ‘As discussed yesterday, please see the email below from JLL and attached workings’ which were said to confirm such valuation

ii) Set out below his text an email that purported to have been sent by JLL to the Club at 18.01 on 21 June 2018 titled ‘JLL – Pride Park Draft’ and which stated (under the heading ‘Fair value on basis of Depreciated Replacement Cost

(1) ‘Having reviewed evidence we have adopted a cost of £3,000 per seat for Pride Park, based on a total number of 33,435 at the venue’

(2) ‘We have assumed an economic life of 60 years’

(3) ‘In total we have calculated a [DRC] pf £74.4m’

iii) Attached inter alia a document titled ‘JLL – Derby County – Pride Park – Valuation Model 1 – 21 June 2018.pdf’ which comprised the calculation by which JLL had arrived at its DRC valuation of £74.4m

b) In the documents disclosed by the Club there was indeed an email sent by JLL to the Club at 18.01 on 21 June 2018, to which a document titled ‘JLL – Derby County – Pride Park – Valuation Model 1 – 21 June 2018.pdf’ was attached. However

i)That email stated (under the heading ‘Fair value on basis of Depreciated Replacement Cost’)

(1) ‘Having reviewed evidence we have adopted a cost of £3,000 per seat for Pride Park, based on a total number of 33,435 at the venue’

(2) ‘We have assumed an economic life of 50 years’ (not 60 years)

(3) ‘In total we have calculated a [DRC] pf £57.8m’ (not £74.4m)

ii) The attachment comprised the calculation by which JLL had arrived at a DRC valuation of £57.8m (not £74.4m). That calculation

(1) Used a cost per seat of £3,000

(2) Used a capacity of 33,455  

(3) Assumed economic life for the stadium of 50 years, giving an adjusted remaining economic life of 28 years

(4) Assessed depreciation at 44% and functional obsolescence at 5%

c) In the Club’s disclosure there was a further email sent by JLL to the Club at 15.17 on 25 June 2018, to which a document titled ‘JLL – Derby County – Pride Park Valuation Model – Cost v2 – 25 June 2018.pdf’ was attached:

i)The email (in response to a query from Mr Holt at the Club ‘How are you getting on with the revised DRC workings? Is it possible these could be sent across ahead of my 4.30pm meeting’) read ‘… as discussed, we are comfortable revising this as discussed this morning. See attached’

ii) The attachment comprised the calculation by which JLL had arrived at a DRC valuation of £74.4m. That calculation

(1) Still used a cost per seat of £3,000

(2) Still used a capacity of 33,455

(3) Assumed an economic life for the stadium of 60 years, applied a maintenance adjustment of a further 5 years ‘due to good cap-ex’, and so assumed an adjusted remaining economic life of 43 years

(4) Assessed depreciation at 28.3% and functional obsolescence at 5%

Quote

85) Without hearing from Mr Holt it is impossible to be certain exactly

a) How the ‘JLL email’ sent to the EFL on 26 June 2018 came to be sent as it was, or

b) How the attachment sent to the EFL on 26 June 2018 came to be labelled as it was.

The strong suspicion is however that (1) the wording of/figures in JLL’s 21 June 2018 email to the Club was changed by Mr Holt before he forwarded the same to the EFL, (2) the attachment to JLL’s 25 June 2018 email was relabelled by Mr Holt to make its nomenclature consistent with the other attachments sent by JLL on 21 June 2018, and (3) Mr Holt replaced the actual attachment to JLL’s 21 June 2018 email with that ‘renamed’ attachment; it is difficult to conceive of any other sensible explanation.

?

The Riverside is another good comparison- land value will be somewhat less but the methodology seems similar to Derby pre 2018.

Quote

86) The question then becomes – so what? We consider below whether that conduct has any consequence for any of the Club’s procedural defences. However, that matter aside, our view is that the manipulation described above, if that is what it was, is irrelevant. The Club was perfectly entitled to discuss with JLL, and challenge JLL on, the initial figures that JLL provided on 21 June 2018. JLL was perfectly entitled to reconsider its initial figures in the light of such discussions. That is in all probability what happened, and what caused JLL to provide a revised DRC valuation figure to the Club on 25 June 2018. There is certainly no criticism to be made of JLL for providing that revised figure as it did. While it was unwise of Mr Holt to have manipulated JLL’s email – if that is what he did – it is unlikely in our view that the ‘manipulated email’ actually contained any view that JLL had not by then expressed to the Club, or that the ‘manipulated email’ was in fact misleading. Certainly the ‘manipulated email’ reflected the views set out in the 2018 JLL report.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

iii) The valuation history of Pride Park

177) As well as the reports prepared for these proceedings by Mr Messenger and Mr Honeywill, we were also provided with a number of valuation reports that had been prepared for the Club in recent years:

a) In December 2007 Peter Clarke of King Sturge valued Pride Park. He did so on various bases, including the DRC method. The King Sturge report

i)Recorded (as one of ‘two particular features of the structure’ of Pride Park) that ‘construction has been completed all around the pitch including the corners which are areas where construction costs per seat are at the maximum’ (emphasis added)

ii) Estimated (as at December 2007) that the current replacement of the stadium and its facilities amounted to a little over £77million. The report noted ‘In making this assessment we have consulted with our building surveyors who have in turn used the various building cost indices to arrive at this overall figure. In addition to this we have added professional fees for the 82 construction and an appropriate allowance for finance during the construction period to arrive at an overall replacement cost

iii) Depreciated that sum by 10% for functional obsolescence, and further adjusted that sum to reflect the fact that Pride Park was by then 10 years old, out of an estimated overall lifespan of 60 years

iv) Concluded that the value of Pride Park on a DRC basis was £70,000,000, which equated to £2,029 per seat. In carrying out that calculation King Sturge used the stadium’s actual capacity of 33,455 as the multiplicand

v) Gave lower valuations for Pride Park on other bases (including a profits basis)

b) In May 2013 Mr Clarke – by then of JLLvalued Pride Park again. He again did so on various bases, including the DRC method, as at 31 December 2011 and 31 December 2012. The 2013 JLL report

i)Adopted a build cost of £2,750 for the year 2012 and £2,800 per seat for 2011. The 2013 JLL report recorded that ‘Generally the cost of stadiums has increased in the past few years … We are however now noting a stabilisation or even reduction in some cases of build costs for this type of specialist property, particularly for sub-40,000 capacity stadia’

ii) Estimated re-build costs’ of £93,500,000 for 2012 and £92,000,000 for 2011. That figure was thus up from £77m in the 2007 King Sturge Report

iii) Depreciated those sums by 23% for physical depreciation and a further 15% for functional depreciation – a total of 38% - before adding professional fees and finance costs, and a sum to reflect land value (at £350,000 per acre)

iv) Estimated the value of the stadium at £69,500,000 (as at 31 December 2011) or £66,500,000 (as at 31 December 2012) on a DRC basis, equivalent to £2,077/£1987 per seat

v) Gave lower valuations for Pride Park on other bases (including a profits basis).

In the 2012/13 accounts, Land and Buildings pre any depreciation came in at £61.42m- feels pretty much spot on once professional fees, finance costs and land value factored in. Unclear exactly what it includes in terms of Land and Buildings though.

The accounting policies for Fixed Assets had SOME similarities to those of Middlesbrough. Helpfully, in 2016/17, Middlesbrough's accounts showed how it might be laid out.

This is the Riverside, the training ground and other properties all together.

Quote

At valuation in 2015- £76,480,000

Additions- at cost 2016- £1,237,000

Additions- at cost 2017- £5,678,000

Total- £83,485,000.

That's pre depreciation ie the 2015 valuation and then additions at cost before any further depreciation would occur.

Quote

At valuation in 2015- £76,480,000

Additions- at cost 2016- £1,237,000

Additions- at cost 2017- £5,678,000

Additions- at cost 2017- £283,000

Revaluation- £2,232,000

Total- £86,000,000

Might see if I can draw up a similar matrix for Derby.

The final valuation appears to be after depreciation though.

Might also add, those (granted potential minority on Twitter, social media etc) Derby and Aston Villa fans are classy as ever...

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/09/2020 at 15:22, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'd go as far as to say that Morris and some of their fans are almost Trumpian. Trumpian cherrypicking is what SOME of their fans and hierarchy are.

I don't mean in worldview or politics etc- no idea on that and nor is it relevant for this thread- more like style. Tone.

What should their tone be ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not strictly Championship in the here and now related, but found this snippet when looking for another article- perhaps Fulham losing at Wembley might have worked a bit better for us than them winning. Was moot in the end of course due to a certain ex City LB- but...

They were perhaps close to FFP than might have been assumed. Despite Year 1 of Parachute Payments, despite a year in the PL at the higher- £35m- level!

Covid would have course have played a part (as with everyone), but they had in that 3 year period, the 4th year of Parachute Payments in 2017/18, the £100m in TV money- and the £35m loss limit in the PL and the first year of Parachute Payments having come straight back down- good profit on Sessegnon too, all to the books as he was an academy product!

As for Nottingham Forest, despite spending and not the biggest income they do seem to sell quite well- that Cash fee and the rolling up of 2019/20 and 2020/21 will keep them alright IMO.

£7m for Brereton?? This is THE prime example! Clear to see who got the better end of the deal there...think they have made some healthy profits on disposal in recent times though.

Quote

Fulham's transfer plans WILL suffer if they aren't promoted

Fulham will be desperate to secure promotion to the Premier League in the play-offs, otherwise their transfer plans could be badly hit

Cottagers boss Scott Parker has been warned the club will only be able to make loan signings during this summer's transfer window if they fail to win promotion back to the Premier League

Despite being owned by Shahid Khan, the club will have to curb their transfer spending next season if they remain in the Championship as they will be close to breaching the FFP regulations. The impact of the coronavirus crisis has also affected Fulham's finances, as it has with all clubs in the country.

 
Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good old Matt Hughes- seems I was not wrong about Derby releasing the written reasons ahead of time- I didn't know the specifics about the agreed release time but I knew they had acted unilaterally.

Quote

Derby break embargo

Derby's relationship with the Football League has become so toxic in the light of their spending charge that the club deliberately published the written reasons behind the independent panel's decision to clear them last week an hour before the embargo time that the two parties had mutually agreed.

The EFL have until Tuesday to lodge an appeal against the panel's verdict that Derby's sale of Pride Park for £80million and amortisation procedures did not constitute a breach of profit and sustainability rules.

If I'm honest, I'm not sure how big a chance they- the Football League would have- in any appeal but I hope they do so anyway. I also hope that clubs are taking note and continuing to consider whether Pearce is still appropriate for the role of a club rep on the Football League board. Not so much him, more his boss IMO!

However in the interests of balance it appears they are selling Bogle and Lowe- fees in total for the pair somewhere between £10-15m, unsure how much but looks like signs that they are doing the right thing on this score at last...

Now then, Reading and Stoke- these clubs are surely ones with P&S questions but the former appear to have neglected to sell anyone for any significant fees, even rejecting a bid for Swift or two bids for Swift and the latter it's still unclear.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still I wonder about the £81.1m valuation too- but independent valuations are probably extremely hard to unpick. One valuer vs another- even though comparables in the region make Pride Park look toppy IMO.

Probably choosing the charge they feel they have best chance on. Nonetheless, the valuer they chose- amateur hour or what! He didn't even go to Pride Park to value it!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not happy on DCFCFans! ?

The truth is, I believe quite a few clubs are happy about this. Having said that given the forecasted spike in amortisation for 2019/20 I'm not too fussed on some levels about this charge! Suppose the EFL want to set a standardised amortisation method for clubs moving forward.

On a serious note, I was expecting an appeal of some description and yes I do think the EFL will want to set some kind of legal grounds for a standardised amortisation method.

From memory:

Vs Bolton- EFL appealed and lost. Happy to check though.

Vs Birmingham- EFL appealed and won- but a reprimand. Nonetheless that stays on permanent record etc. Likely can cite it as another case in any future proceedings, certainly with the period if any should arise.

Vs Derby- Who knows??

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Do you think that’s why they’ve sold Lowe and Bogle???

Those two being sold should mean we'll meet the 4 years to 2021 P&S limits. We were hoping to get more for Bennett and actually sell Malone and Jozefzoon, which may have meant keeping one of Lowe/Bogle.

The coronavirus impact and P&S period changing to 4 years appears to have saved us from a hefty penalty, for what would have been the 3 years to 2020. Although, if it wasn't for the extended season, we would have almost certainly sold players to stay within limits anyway.

We've got a paper thin squad now, with only 16 senior players, one of which we're doing whatever we can to offload, and another two of those having played fewer than 100 professional games. From the 16, 4 are currently injured, with 2 only just returning to the team following injuries.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Derby statement.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2020/09/derby-county-statement-on-efl-appeal

This one is more reasonable. None of the woe is me, enemy of the EFL state stuff which was basically quite laughable.

A good post from a sensible poster on DCFC Fans, this predated the statement and is separate but a good post.

Quote

a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally

22) Although we return below to address the Club’s suggestion that the EFL has been motivated to bring these Charges against the Club by some improper stimulus, we also make it clear at the outset that we reject that suggestion. The evidence that we heard and the documentary evidence before us simply did not bear out such an assertion.

 

He needed to be bigger than this and IMO it was a mistake to articulate it.  It was poor judgement and served no purpose apart from making the club look paranoid.  I have a lot of time for Mel and the financial backing he has put into the club but does that make him immune from any criticism whatsoever?

Bolded bits a) and 22) were by the poster in q. It certainly did make Derby look paranoid, axe to grind etc- Panel dismissed much of this..

I've been critical of it in the past but DCFC Fans is actually in all honesty quite a good read! At times. 

Still have a fairly low opinion of Morris however, Pearce on the board given al the Derby controversy- seems incongruous. Clearly going out to clatter opposition players is wrong BUT it is worth noting that not that I condone it, Pulis did send out Stoke vs Arsenal in a certain frame of mind- according to Dave Kitson in any case,he said Pulis hated Arsenal, Wenger, their style etc.

Lastly given the comparable stadia in that region, in that timeframe etc- and even those sold and leased back a lot of which at suspect prices plus of course genuine arms length sales of grounds? Well £81.1m seems dubious! That said Gibson's £22m feels so low, it is quite likely to be worth more than Bet365 Stadium, KP Stadium- and when Coventry played there, the Ricoh Arena- however that sale price feels wrong to me. Sceptical- as for the rent fall from £4.16m to £1.1m...

I only think the rent fall has some merit if and only if all of the commercial revenue (ha, in these times no!) but in normal times flows to Mel Morris/Gabay/Dell/Uncle Tom Cobley and all :D- whoever!

Anyone but the club basically. Because IIRC it got adjusted down or the argument to adjust it down was because it would be charged based on 100 days of football usage. Therefore only football related revenue should count in the club/group accounts. Commercial revenue independent of that should flow to anyone on the above list- anyone at all except the club in order to justify the marked reduction in rent.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly - although I know that you will not accept it - the value of Pride Park has been agreed for FFP purposes - it really has.

Secondly - I think that the EFL missed a valuation issue on Pride Park - I would have expected the valuation to also be challenged on the basis of the rental value from DCFC - I doubt that in open market terms that the agreed rental value equates with the capital value given the over-riding dominance of the DCFC lease.

Thirdly I would expect in future that the EFL would appoint experts who are really experts - or maybe not.

Finally the EFL will lose their appeal.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept it on balance but it just sticks out like a sore thumb compared to so many other grounds- either transactions or valuation (not cost but valuation) in accounts. Albeit of varying methods- comparable , some have sponsorships which can enhance- doesn't make a lot of sense.

I wondered about that- £4.16m initally as per the valuer down to £1.1m was it- good point about over-riding dominance of DCFC lease that I'd never really considered. Zero non matchday revenue to Derby could justify it though maybe?

The shunting around of the valuation was interesting- wasn't it about £57m or something BEFORE Derby pushed back on it- why the EFL accepted the higher of £81.1m and not £74.4m feels odd too- surely the £74.4m for DRC was more reliable for such a transaction- sure the valuation company (name escapes me) had the initial DRC at quite a bit lower, maybe £58m.

Lastly, the fact is that the accounts- look at Derby 2016/17 accounts- the ground was possibly net of depreciation not materially different to valuation as per their own Accounting Policies- yet it shot up in a year to £81.1m!

I'm sure that they- and Sheffield Wednesday and possibly Aston Villa, Reading the 2nd sale would not receive on the open market the terms they did by their owners. Sure of it.

I'd hope they will!

Could they win a reprimand like Birmingham, or something to keep on the permanent/relevant FFP record I wonder?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The agreed valuation of Pride Park may well be complete nonsense - but until the EFL firstly follow the correct EFL processes and secondly appoint real experts they cannot argue otherwise.

My argument would have been - would an open market purchaser pay £81.1 million for an asset achieving a guaranteed gross rent of £1.1 million a year?  But then again I don't work for the EFL. 

As regards other rents and income I would be looking for a real history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Those two being sold should mean we'll meet the 4 years to 2021 P&S limits. We were hoping to get more for Bennett and actually sell Malone and Jozefzoon, which may have meant keeping one of Lowe/Bogle.

The coronavirus impact and P&S period changing to 4 years appears to have saved us from a hefty penalty, for what would have been the 3 years to 2020. Although, if it wasn't for the extended season, we would have almost certainly sold players to stay within limits anyway.

We've got a paper thin squad now, with only 16 senior players, one of which we're doing whatever we can to offload, and another two of those having played fewer than 100 professional games. From the 16, 4 are currently injured, with 2 only just returning to the team following injuries.

Mark Ashton here.

Do you need any midfielders - I could do  deal for a job lot? :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that some of the SWFC and DCFC fans are more than delusional.

However the 12 point deduction for SWFC and the current mutilation of the DCFC squad is sufficient recompense from my perspective 

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

36 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I do agree that some of the SWFC and DCFC fans are more than delusional.

However the 12 point deduction for SWFC and the current mutilation of the DCFC squad is sufficient recompense from my perspective 

Agree on both counts. The PL 2 thing is a regular refrain but what's in it for the PL?

Cocu appears to be after a winger and a striker though so not that weakened...yet. Bennett was a fringe player, unsure how much Malone featured- Carson was a GK who Man City have chosen to loan twice- some savings and who knows a loan fee? Not like he was featuring that regularly. Talk of Nathan Byrne in as well.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
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...