Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

Norwich's accounts out.

They're prudent, as ever. Well within FFP- all very, well Norwich really? :)

Bit busy to trawl through them so Swiss Ramble.

Think Hull made a profit too even last season in relegation from the Championship with ZERO Parachute Payments.

I may have mentioned it before but anyway...⬇️

Of course, the flipside of cutbacks, cutbacks and selling two star players in January, was relegation- FFP is important but the fact the fans and Allams have no relationship means that approach inevitable, despite a balance being needed.

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

Football League have a task on their hands here IMO. They need to be ready and prepared...

  1. They need to find out a way to see how to remove Pearce from the club representatives on the Board, though maybe that's more of a medium-long term goal?

Then with respect to the takeover:

  1. This Abu Derby takeover- Abu Derby is it- they need to get in early and hard- lay out the position of the club with P&S, chances are they are pushing it, put them under a Business Plan ON ARRIVAL, warning that to deviate from it will incur a rapid referral to the Independent Disciplinary Commission.
  2. Meeting with the new owners like Aston Villa summer 2018- except this time DO IT PROPERLY. Interrogate them on and scrutinise to the full their plans, and whether they are compatible with P&S. I'd gladly do it given the chance, referring upwards to Senior Officials and Accountants/Auditors utilised by the League where necessary.
  3. They need to be uber tough when it comes to probable Related Party sponsorships- Birmingham got theirs downgraded in summer 2018 I read, they just need to use the relevant comparable with other clubs and external ones …and stick to it! Excluding the excess for P&S before it can even be properly utilised.
  4. They need to have them walk that line, exercise the powers open to them when losses exceed £15m but fall below £39m, utilise them to the full.
  5. If on track to fail P&S by a big margin and say a large ie excessive training ground sale, GET GOOD INDEPENDENT VALUERS IN INSTANTLY! Better yet, hire one or some on retainers!
  6. IF full disclosure demanded in the Meeting with new owners, the inevitable one with respect to possible P&S questions, demand disclosure to the fullest extent possible of HOW they intend to solve the P&S issue- again scrutinise, push back. That would help with 5).

On that Business Plan note, not that I have a great problem with Birmingham overall due to reform, sales and probably the biggest punishment for the smallest offence once compared, but why the Football League did not flag in the March 2019 Hearing their issues with the Business Plan is strange- they only sent it through in May 2019, despite the fact that January had been and gone by the time March came around. As it happens I think they've been punished and reformed, or are reforming but the Hearing in March 2019 suggested they had complied substantially with the Terms of the Business Plan...some kind of double punishment in March or a Second Hearing in March/April 2019 for not selling Adams in January 2019 might have been in order- mind you, Harvey let the in-season punishments drag waaaaay too far- in fact he didn't seem keen to push them at all, hence why Birmingham were charged in August 2018 and others not at all under him, for offences that took place in the 3 years concluding in 2017/18.

Sheffield Wednesday's accounts extension pushed them higher in terms of overspend. Lots of their smug and ill-informed fans say that a 12 point deduction would've been midtable to midtable- well if in the season OF the offence as intended, assuming the same time as Birmingham- I have the table from that date in front of me, in 2018.

In-season deductions for a) Size of overspend and projected and b) Rising losses=aggravating factor. No real grounds for mitigation at this point.

38 games in.

  1. Sheffield Wednesday 41 pts.
  2. Birmingham 33.

Think Birmingham looking at 9-10 points there, let's go with 9 as they were nonetheless pretty cooperative and maybe as they apparently put themselves under an embargo in January 2018 you could even make a case for 8. Nonetheless, whether reduced to 24 or 25, it surely consigns them to the drop? Only stayed up on last day as it was!

Sheffield Wednesday had a load of injuries and bad form at the time, though had just won at Leeds. 8-9 points plunges them RIGHT into the scrap, totally different ballgame psychologically- might they have dropped too?

Few of you might be interested in this- @Davefevs @Coppello @downendcity @Hxj

Apologies if I've missed anyone.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to work out Sheffield Wednesday's P&S losses if taken on 12-month accounts and this is the Sanctioning Guidelines.

Quote

The Following number of points shall be deducted from the 12 points.

Quantum of the Breach

  • 9 points if less than £2.0m
  • 8 points if between £2.0m - £4.0m
  • 7 points if between £4.0m - £6.0m
  • 6 points if between £6.0m - £8.0m
  • 5 points if between £8.0m - £10.0m
  • 4 points if between £10.0m - £12.5m
  • 3 points if between £12.5m - £15.0m
  • No deduction if breach is greater than £15.0m

Then the balance shall be further reduced if the loss in the final season is less than the season(s) before.

Typical Football League- deductions of points from the deduction- wonder if Harvey himself wrote the guidelines! ? I know what it means but it's badly worded and poorly laid out.  Back to front, simply- "Overspend by £1-1,999,999=3 points, £2m-£3,999,999=4 pts" etc.

Their overspend if adjusted to 12 months was surely at least as large as that of Birmingham.

Losses by season.

2015/16- £9,755,000.

2016/17- £20,765,000.

*2017/18- £35,485,000

*=14 months. Think P&S allowances were estimated at £7.5m, maybe that falls to £7m with 3 x 12 as opposed to 2 x 12 and 1 x 14? Perhaps the losses would be lopped down to say £29m for the season, 9 point deduction plus rising losses each season?? Birmingham type levels and then a bit worse! That would plunge them to, well split the difference and say 10 points but that would put them into the drop zone or as good as. Based on the table on 17th March 2018, going into the International break.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2020 at 19:02, AnAstonVillafan said:

I don't believe Derby will wriggle out of any issues. They are a mess at the moment and it will take time to sort. Morris was a geniune fan of the club. Like Lansdown and Gibson are of their clubs.

West Brom used to be one of the best run clubs in the country. Ruled by Jeremy Peace, who was born in the area, a fan and ruled with a rod of iron. He always got maximum value in every deal. The current Chinese owner seeks to lead in the same way. It was managerial problems which caused their relegation.

When Doug Eliis was Villa's major shareholder the club was debt free, and prudent. The fans hated this. We always wanted more and more money spent on new players. But we never apprieciated what we had with him. Its shame that it always seems to be foreign billonaires nessessary to push a club forward in these times.

 I used to deliver newspapers to Ellis's house as a teenager. 25 minutes drive from the stadium.

Doug Ellis was like our own Steve Lansdown in a way, you know the club is always going to be in safe hands with these types of men but over the years i think its fair to say we could have pushed the boat out considerably more than we have done and would have probably experienced Premier league football by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do apologise a bit for my slating of Sheffield Wednesday fans or what seemed like it. That post was written in a hurry by me, with little context.

To be clear, it is those morons who state that the punishment should be moved back tro 2018/19 from this season that I have a big beef with in this instance.

14 hours ago, bris red said:

Doug Ellis was like our own Steve Lansdown in a way, you know the club is always going to be in safe hands with these types of men but over the years i think its fair to say we could have pushed the boat out considerably more than we have done and would have probably experienced Premier league football by now.

FFP has been an issue for years, could you state when exactly?

Could you state when, given the extensive range of powers the Football League have- from automatic embargoes under the old system, to the current system in which the penalties are good but the implementation erratic- they should have automatic points penalties based on size of overspend tbh, like administration. 2 years of prior real accounts, 1 year of club projected and if £10m over, automatic 8 point deduction before a short hearing to determine aggravating and mitigating factors.

Remember in 2015/16, had we pushed the boat out and exceeded £13m which we were not altogether far from as I recall, it would have been an automatic embargo had we not gone straight up so that's out- similarly if our 2 year losses had hit or exceeded £26m going into 2016/17, that would have capped us that year and had it been 2015/16 and 2016/17 combined at £26m, it'd have capped us at £13m in 2017/18. A season in which even after deductions we lost 50% more, despite a record turnover in modern times certainly it was.

Now if we're going back to January 2008 I would agree that would be a great time to push the boat out, but I did some work on this a while ago and it's notable that from say 2010/11 or 2009/10, as our wage bill increased our League standing decreased. Which is massively counterintuitive but can be more common with clubs than people expect.

Was Coppell not an attempt to push the boat out- we actually got relegated in 2012/13 with a midtable or thereabouts wage bill yet finished bottom by a mile.

Let's not even forget that aforementioned 2017/18- we did push the boat out somewhat, we lost £25m- before allowances of course, and in January 2018 we kept Bryan, Flint and Reid. That alone was a sign of intent, keeping some of our best when arguably their stock at its highest, despite in the case of Bryan and Reid, summer 2018 going into the final year of their contract.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I do apologise a bit for my slating of Sheffield Wednesday fans or what seemed like it. That post was written in a hurry by me, with little context.

To be clear, it is those morons who state that the punishment should be moved back tro 2018/19 from this season that I have a big beef with in this instance.

FFP has been an issue for years, could you state when exactly?

Could you state when, given the extensive range of powers the Football League have- from automatic embargoes under the old system, to the current system in which the penalties are good but the implementation erratic- they should have automatic points penalties based on size of overspend tbh, like administration. 2 years of prior real accounts, 1 year of club projected and if £10m over, automatic 8 point deduction before a short hearing to determine aggravating and mitigating factors.

Remember in 2015/16, had we pushed the boat out and exceeded £13m which we were not altogether far from as I recall, it would have been an automatic embargo had we not gone straight up so that's out- similarly if our 2 year losses had hit or exceeded £26m going into 2016/17, that would have capped us that year and had it been 2015/16 and 2016/17 combined at £26m, it'd have capped us at £13m in 2017/18. A season in which even after deductions we lost 50% more, despite a record turnover in modern times certainly it was.

Now if we're going back to January 2008 I would agree that would be a great time to push the boat out, but I did some work on this a while ago and it's notable that from say 2010/11 or 2009/10, as our wage bill increased our League standing decreased. Which is massively counterintuitive but can be more common with clubs than people expect.

Was Coppell not an attempt to push the boat out- we actually got relegated in 2012/13 with a midtable or thereabouts wage bill yet finished bottom by a mile.

Let's not even forget that aforementioned 2017/18- we did push the boat out somewhat, we lost £25m- before allowances of course, and in January 2018 we kept Bryan, Flint and Reid. That alone was a sign of intent, keeping some of our best when arguably their stock at its highest, despite in the case of Bryan and Reid, summer 2018 going into the final year of their contract.

Yes it is the January of 2008 that sticks in my mind. Nothing against Dele Adebola or Nick Carle but they weren’t the type of quality signings that were going to push us over the line that year IMO.
I agree obviously since FFP has come into play we have had to play by the rules, the Lansdown family are sensible people and would obviously not risk fines or a points deduction by trying to bend the rules. I just still feel disappointed by January window in 08 to be honest.. i think under a different board we would have gone up that year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bris red said:

Yes it is the January of 2008 that sticks in my mind. Nothing against Dele Adebola or Nick Carle but they weren’t the type of quality signings that were going to push us over the line that year IMO.
I agree obviously since FFP has come into play we have had to play by the rules, the Lansdown family are sensible people and would obviously not risk fines or a points deduction by trying to bend the rules. I just still feel disappointed by January window in 08 to be honest.. i think under a different board we would have gone up that year. 

2008 definitely looking back is the one, I'll agree. Stoke pushed the boat out somewhat as I recall. Shawcross and some others?

I also think that switching from 4-4-1-1 which the signing of Adebola helped to facilitate didn't help. Adebola good depth but I thought that we lost a bit of control and security without Noble linking the midfield and attack as often.

Could Carle have maybe performed that role as an alternative to Noble for some games? He (Carle) was one I'm don't think we saw the best of.

However yes, splash say £10m in January on a mix of wages, fees and high quality loans and we have a very good chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

2008 definitely looking back is the one, I'll agree. Stoke pushed the boat out somewhat as I recall. Shawcross and some others?

I also think that switching from 4-4-1-1 which the signing of Adebola helped to facilitate didn't help. Adebola good depth but I thought that we lost a bit of control and security without Noble linking the midfield and attack as often.

Could Carle have maybe performed that role as an alternative to Noble for some games? He (Carle) was one I'm don't think we saw the best of.

However yes, splash say £10m in January on a mix of wages, fees and high quality loans and we have a very good chance.

Much as though many won;t like to admit, the biggest miss back then was LJ ’s injury. While he as out injured our form, and results, dropped off a cliff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheffield Wednesday written reasons released- well last week, just discovered them myself.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/efl-documents/youth-alliance/201104---sheffield-wednesday-fc-v-efl-appeal---decision-final-201116.pdf

Few might be interested- @Davefevs @downendcity @BTRFTG @Coppello @Hxj

About to have a quick look myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/11/2020 at 05:21, bris red said:

Doug Ellis was like our own Steve Lansdown in a way, you know the club is always going to be in safe hands with these types of men but over the years i think its fair to say we could have pushed the boat out considerably more than we have done and would have probably experienced Premier league football by now.

I agree ,Steve Lansdown is an accountant and a fan.

 I believe both cause him pain and joy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheffield Wednesday written reasons released- well last week, just discovered them myself.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/efl-documents/youth-alliance/201104---sheffield-wednesday-fc-v-efl-appeal---decision-final-201116.pdf

Few might be interested- @Davefevs @downendcity @BTRFTG @Coppello @Hxj

About to have a quick look myself.

Thanks - interesting read.

Provides some useful insight into the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheffield Wednesday written reasons released- well last week, just discovered them myself.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/efl-documents/youth-alliance/201104---sheffield-wednesday-fc-v-efl-appeal---decision-final-201116.pdf

Few might be interested- @Davefevs @downendcity @BTRFTG @Coppello @Hxj

About to have a quick look myself.

I haven’t read past the first few pages....how is that not an aggravated breach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scumbag Wednesday bring the game into disrepute, though as a long-established 'big club' are deemed more important than others.

Their arguments as set out in the first two appeals are clearly spurious and had regulation allowed should have allowed the EFL to impose additional sanctions, but that would never happen. EFL only like to punish the small and weak, those who aren't part of the Old Boys network.

Unlike as demonstrated against many smaller clubs sanctions are supposed to be immediate and non-negotiable, which beggars why the EFL were so collaborative in deferring the sanction at Wednesday's request in the full knowledge they might later appeal it not being to imposed as per the regulation? That 'loophole' exists for good reason and is to be used where clubs have unwittingly breached regulation, admitted having done so, have openly demonstrated remorse and made full effort to rectify matters. None of which scumbag Wednesday showed any inclination toward doing.

One thing is for sure, when they and their lawyers left court in taxis, it wasn't in those who purport to sponsor the club.....

What's the betting the £42m for the ground is never settled in full?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2020 at 10:36, Hxj said:

Thanks - interesting read.

Provides some useful insight into the process.

It does. Still some opacity possibly though I read it reasonably quickly about actual in-season deductions.

On 24/11/2020 at 12:07, Davefevs said:

I haven’t read past the first few pages....how is that not an aggravated breach?

Your guess is as good as mine. If we look at Birmingham...

7 points for the overspend and 3 for the increasing losses per year.

1 back for early compliance.

Sheffield Wednesday overspend ALONE 12 points.

Theirs increased at a similar rate to and perhaps a greater rate than Birmingham AND they were less honest and cooperative.

Yet, because they were PLANNING to sell the Stadium- which they did not complete within the required timeframe quite clearly- that was worth SIX points back?? Would be pretty irate if I was Birmingham- let's not forget that they then had an EFL Business Plan to adhere to- and rightly so- but Sheffield Wednesday it seems not at least if so, it's not in the public domain.

If anything Sheffield Wednesday might have had 12 for the overspend and 2-3 more for escalating losses but no??

In the very most optimistic scenario, 1-2 back for at least having a plan ie selling the ground but to halve it?!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2020 at 18:47, BTRFTG said:

Scumbag Wednesday bring the game into disrepute, though as a long-established 'big club' are deemed more important than others.

Their arguments as set out in the first two appeals are clearly spurious and had regulation allowed should have allowed the EFL to impose additional sanctions, but that would never happen. EFL only like to punish the small and weak, those who aren't part of the Old Boys network.

Unlike as demonstrated against many smaller clubs sanctions are supposed to be immediate and non-negotiable, which beggars why the EFL were so collaborative in deferring the sanction at Wednesday's request in the full knowledge they might later appeal it not being to imposed as per the regulation? That 'loophole' exists for good reason and is to be used where clubs have unwittingly breached regulation, admitted having done so, have openly demonstrated remorse and made full effort to rectify matters. None of which scumbag Wednesday showed any inclination toward doing.

One thing is for sure, when they and their lawyers left court in taxis, it wasn't in those who purport to sponsor the club.....

What's the betting the £42m for the ground is never settled in full?

Agreed.

I still dunno about whether there is a big club bias, Birmingham are a reasonable sized club but got hauled over the coals somewhat more than Sheffield Wednesday in some ways. EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday so the claims go, so I am on the fence. There are additional powers though, you're quite right.

Now this is an undoubted bugbear of mine. I'm sure you're familiar with the regulations but if not there is something very specific in them that allows for in-season punishment. Will pull it out:

Quote

1.1.14 T means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period ending in the year in which assessment pursuant to Rules 2.2 to 2.9 takes place, and:

(a)  T-1 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T;

(b)  T-2 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T-1;

(c)  T-3 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T- 2;

(d)  T+1 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T; and

(e)  T+2 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T+1.

Followed by.

Quote

2 Profitability and Sustainability

2.1  Rules 2.2 to 2.9 shall apply with effect from Season 2016/17.

2.2  Subject to Rule 2.2A, each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Executive:

2.2.1  copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Executive) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditor’s report(s) on those accounts;

2.2.2  its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:

(a)  be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and

(b)  be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and

2.2.3  if Rule 2.5 applies to the Club its P&S Calculation in a form approved by the Executive from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is set out in Appendix 1.

This ie T- that means when a club submits their Projected Accounts ie 2.2.2- this is in order to assess against the 2 prior sets of actual accounts- anything over £39m and it's sanctions there and then. Or should be.

Of course, there is a decent amount of blame to the Football League- Shaun Harvey only had the points tariff in place by September 2018 despite the fact that there had already been two years in which 'T' could have been applied with deductions etc. If anything it should have been in place going into 2016/17 so everyone knew where they were with it. How he became CEO of the Football League well...who knows!

Birmingham even got a bit fortunate as they were not correctly assessed until Summer 2018- I think Harvey was pretty keen to see clubs get off the hook with FFP in summer 2018, or buy time personally, but Birmingham and their idiotic breach of a soft embargo forced the Football League's hand.

Nick De Marco is the man- represented Derby as well, and the Saudis with Newcastle. Gives a fair idea about him tbh...yes waiting for a D-Taxi, that'd never arrive!

It's worse than that- £60m! £60m but look at their accounts for Sheffield Wednesday from 1997 to 2014 with a range of valuations and I'd say Sheffield Wednesday PLC from 1990-1997, I choose 1990 as that is when we could factor in improvements post Hillsborough and necessary expenditure.

Even if we take 1997 when it last had work done on it in a major way, valued after that the years before for Euro 96 it was not far off the £22-24m in 2014. It never diverged a huge amount from that range...

To add insult, there is speculation that they can stick it in the 2018/19 accounts giving them a big FFP boost for at least one or two more years.

The one good thing to materialise is that the rent is mooted to be in the range of £3m per season, which will act as a drag on FFP for years to come but god I hope they go down.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf

Seems Middlesbrough launched an appeal against the Pride Park valuation- about to read it myself.

I assume that is the end of it but who knows...?

Man who went into bat for Derby- Sheffield Wednesday, QPR prior to this and even the Saudis at Newcastle appeal- is the well known QC who specialises in such areas as Sports Law, and his name is ***** De Marco. Well that's what I think he is anyway.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
  • Author

I haven’t read past the first few pages....how is that not an aggravated breach?

Your guess is as good as mine. If we look at Birmingham...

Because the EFL did not contend for an aggravated breach at the Sanctions Hearing see paragraph 20 efl-v-sheffield-wednesday---decision-on-sanction.pdf  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed.

I still dunno about whether there is a big club bias, Birmingham are a reasonable sized club but got hauled over the coals somewhat more than Sheffield Wednesday in some ways. EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday so the claims go, so I am on the fence. There are additional powers though, you're quite right.

Now this is an undoubted bugbear of mine. I'm sure you're familiar with the regulations but if not there is something very specific in them that allows for in-season punishment. Will pull it out:

Followed by.

This ie T- that means when a club submits their Projected Accounts ie 2.2.2- this is in order to assess against the 2 prior sets of actual accounts- anything over £39m and it's sanctions there and then. Or should be.

Of course, there is a decent amount of blame to the Football League- Shaun Harvey only had the points tariff in place by September 2018 despite the fact that there had already been two years in which 'T' could have been applied with deductions etc. If anything it should have been in place going into 2016/17 so everyone knew where they were with it. How he became CEO of the Football League well...who knows!

Birmingham even got a bit fortunate as they were not correctly assessed until Summer 2018- I think Harvey was pretty keen to see clubs get off the hook with FFP in summer 2018, or buy time personally, but Birmingham and their idiotic breach of a soft embargo forced the Football League's hand.

Nick De Marco is the man- represented Derby as well, and the Saudis with Newcastle. Gives a fair idea about him tbh...yes waiting for a D-Taxi, that'd never arrive!

It's worse than that- £60m! £60m but look at their accounts for Sheffield Wednesday from 1997 to 2014 with a range of valuations and I'd say Sheffield Wednesday PLC from 1990-1997, I choose 1990 as that is when we could factor in improvements post Hillsborough and necessary expenditure.

Even if we take 1997 when it last had work done on it in a major way, valued after that the years before for Euro 96 it was not far off the £22-24m in 2014. It never diverged a huge amount from that range...

To add insult, there is speculation that they can stick it in the 2018/19 accounts giving them a big FFP boost for at least one or two more years.

The one good thing to materialise is that the rent is mooted to be in the range of £3m per season, which will act as a drag on FFP for years to come but god I hope they go down.

There's still a major issue football needs to address in how IFRS allows infrastructure assets to be accounted. As Sheff Wed, Derby et al have shown it's possible to think of a number and provided one is selling to an 'interested party' one may evidence 'market value', even if it's nothing of the sort.

Sports stadiums, unless there's another team needing such facility, are largely specialist, limited value assets. It's only the land on which they stand that has long-lasting value. Problem is if it's land for development once one takes into account clearance, CIL & Section 106 costs it's probably only worth a quarter of what the asset's valued at. Not sure it's yet been tested but should one of the clubs struggle, sell the ground at a loss (possibly to temporarily groundshare elsewhere,) does the hit they take count as expense under FFP in the same way as the inflated sales account as income? If they don't there's an opportunity to keep flipping assets to incur profits and losses as deemed necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/11/2020 at 11:26, BTRFTG said:

There's still a major issue football needs to address in how IFRS allows infrastructure assets to be accounted. As Sheff Wed, Derby et al have shown it's possible to think of a number and provided one is selling to an 'interested party' one may evidence 'market value', even if it's nothing of the sort.

Sports stadiums, unless there's another team needing such facility, are largely specialist, limited value assets. It's only the land on which they stand that has long-lasting value. Problem is if it's land for development once one takes into account clearance, CIL & Section 106 costs it's probably only worth a quarter of what the asset's valued at. Not sure it's yet been tested but should one of the clubs struggle, sell the ground at a loss (possibly to temporarily groundshare elsewhere,) does the hit they take count as expense under FFP in the same way as the inflated sales account as income? If they don't there's an opportunity to keep flipping assets to incur profits and losses as deemed necessary.

Agreed. It's FRS 102 now though I believe, transition in mid 2010s? 

It's interesting, as I read the report for the Derby case- very long it was too, but quite sure it cited "Depreciated Replacement Cost" as the correct valuation method here. Sheffield Wednesday not so sure, but it mentioned yield so even if it went for £60m, if annual rent is £3m some kind of merit? Rental charge would count against FFP also, even though we all know it's overvalued- surprised the Football League chose not to challenge the valuation, maybe that could still come down the track. What's your thoughts on it potentially being restated to the correct accounts? If there was a way to exclude it verbatim for FFP purposes it'd be good, but might that prove impossible?

Agreed. Specialist assets, with limited value. However from what I read on this, Depreciated Replacement Cost appears to be a good proxy for it- which is why it confuses me so much as to why using this very same method, it rises from say rounding up £24m in 2014, to £60m in 2018 or 2019! 2014 accounts are worth a read, they seem to state it inclusive of land under the DRC. Might have been yield related for sale price though, £60m price/£3m rent.

Talking of rent, Pride Park appears to be annually £1.1m or £1.3m or something, for an £81.1m transaction- the Report showed much difference ie £4m or more a year BUT they invoked a clause on days that it would only be used for football related activities. Which knocked between £2.5-3m off it but there is also talk that Football League can substitute in a Fair Market Rent basically, for FFP/P&S purposes.

Birmingham's looks easily the cleanest of any at £22.76m price- that's price not profit- and a £1.25m annual rent x 25. 2nd city, not a million miles from City centre and they downsized in other areas, player sales- I can live with that. They were seemingly the most honest of the clubs anyway yet got the biggest punishment to date!

Aston Villa, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday- and must not forget Reading, who sold ground in 2017/18, then Renhe Sports Management Ltd sold it to owners Chinese company in 2018/19 for £37.5m- up from £26.5m in 2017/18, also sold was the Training Ground and some land- even loaned Sone Aluko to Chinese club owned by their owner for £3m!? Lower profile as a club and I hope we win tomorrow for both on the pitch and off the pitch, but they're one of the worst actually in this respect! CEO is also or has also been on EFL Board too- him and the Derby one, Nigel Howe and Stephen Pearce respectively- especially the latter- should be drummed off at the earliest.

Might also add, in the case of Aston Villa they also received £3m in 2017/18 for what may have been HS2 related land and £14.4m in 2018/19! I bet there are many, many people awaiting compensation still for HS2- but Aston Villa got bumped right up- without that £14.4m they fail FFP. That's even with the Stadium sale factored in. Despite 3 years of Parachute Payments- I do hope the Football League are patiently waiting for them to return.

AFAIK, the situation is this- and it goes for all Fixed Assets, not just Stadia:

Stadium sold- Profit can be accounted for if the Stadium is sold and deemed to be at Fair Value. If not then disputes over valuation, adjustments for FFP kick in etc.

Stadium sold at loss- I'd like to think the loss would go against for FFP, as well as in the accounts- in theory it absolutely should, but you're right it hasn't been tested- but I imagine it would be "Loss on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets" appearing in P&L. Selling at under value though can or should bring outside trouble greater than the EFL, HMRC would surely want words...?

The solution here for Football- it's so simple. Exclude Profit or loss on disposal of Fixed Assets from FFP/P&S calculations. UEFA do this with their FFP- but even better, the Football League themselves did this until 2015/16 season. In 2016/17 season, for reasons unknown- could easily be an error at EFL HQ- when they transitioned from those old rules to the new ones, this clause was removed and nobody has ever explained it. The old rules themselves excluded Fixed Asset Profits or Losses from the calculations- you can interchange, transfer and flip as much as you like, it's just irrelevant for the calculations- like various other items.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd add Sheffield Wednesday to that.

Won't happen I am sure but I'd piss myself (with laughter) if they after all that, had it adjudicated that because they botched the 2017/18 transaction dates and were- a polite way to put it might be flakey albeit assisted by the Football League- had it excluded entirely from the calculations.

Reading the criteria from the Written Reasons released a while back, could there be a small chance??

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Escrow account, something like that? Seen it mentioned before.

AFAIK, new owners are supposed to be able to provide proof of funds for the next 2 seasons in any event, but as we've seen at many clubs it's not always the case to say the least...Bury and Dale is the best example but there are many, many more.

Interesting alternative though- abolition of FFP and make it that the owner legally has to be able to service debt and losses- that could be a future method if FFP is deemed outdated.

A further suggestion though this would truly risk a cap on ambition so I see many downsides but could be to oblige clubs to- and I am not talking exceptional events such as Covid- but to compete in the League they have to break even and not just in P&L, in fact that can be misleading at times but cash flow- at best cash flow has to be breakeven, if not positive. Could  hinder clubs who are both ambitious and in a hurry though, albeit not terminally.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/11/2020 at 22:44, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed. It's FRS 102 now though I believe, transition in mid 2010s? 

It's interesting, as I read the report for the Derby case- very long it was too, but quite sure it cited "Depreciated Replacement Cost" as the correct valuation method here. Sheffield Wednesday not so sure, but it mentioned yield so even if it went for £60m, if annual rent is £3m some kind of merit? Rental charge would count against FFP also, even though we all know it's overvalued- surprised the Football League chose not to challenge the valuation, maybe that could still come down the track. What's your thoughts on it potentially being restated to the correct accounts? If there was a way to exclude it verbatim for FFP purposes it'd be good, but might that prove impossible?

Agreed. Specialist assets, with limited value. However from what I read on this, Depreciated Replacement Cost appears to be a good proxy for it- which is why it confuses me so much as to why using this very same method, it rises from say rounding up £24m in 2014, to £60m in 2018 or 2019! 2014 accounts are worth a read, they seem to state it inclusive of land under the DRC. Might have been yield related for sale price though, £60m price/£3m rent.

Talking of rent, Pride Park appears to be annually £1.1m or £1.3m or something, for an £81.1m transaction- the Report showed much difference ie £4m or more a year BUT they invoked a clause on days that it would only be used for football related activities. Which knocked between £2.5-3m off it but there is also talk that Football League can substitute in a Fair Market Rent basically, for FFP/P&S purposes.

Birmingham's looks easily the cleanest of any at £22.76m price- that's price not profit- and a £1.25m annual rent x 25. 2nd city, not a million miles from City centre and they downsized in other areas, player sales- I can live with that. They were seemingly the most honest of the clubs anyway yet got the biggest punishment to date!

Aston Villa, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday- and must not forget Reading, who sold ground in 2017/18, then Renhe Sports Management Ltd sold it to owners Chinese company in 2018/19 for £37.5m- up from £26.5m in 2017/18, also sold was the Training Ground and some land- even loaned Sone Aluko to Chinese club owned by their owner for £3m!? Lower profile as a club and I hope we win tomorrow for both on the pitch and off the pitch, but they're one of the worst actually in this respect! CEO is also or has also been on EFL Board too- him and the Derby one, Nigel Howe and Stephen Pearce respectively- especially the latter- should be drummed off at the earliest.

Might also add, in the case of Aston Villa they also received £3m in 2017/18 for what may have been HS2 related land and £14.4m in 2018/19! I bet there are many, many people awaiting compensation still for HS2- but Aston Villa got bumped right up- without that £14.4m they fail FFP. That's even with the Stadium sale factored in. Despite 3 years of Parachute Payments- I do hope the Football League are patiently waiting for them to return.

AFAIK, the situation is this- and it goes for all Fixed Assets, not just Stadia:

Stadium sold- Profit can be accounted for if the Stadium is sold and deemed to be at Fair Value. If not then disputes over valuation, adjustments for FFP kick in etc.

Stadium sold at loss- I'd like to think the loss would go against for FFP, as well as in the accounts- in theory it absolutely should, but you're right it hasn't been tested- but I imagine it would be "Loss on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets" appearing in P&L. Selling at under value though can or should bring outside trouble greater than the EFL, HMRC would surely want words...?

The solution here for Football- it's so simple. Exclude Profit or loss on disposal of Fixed Assets from FFP/P&S calculations. UEFA do this with their FFP- but even better, the Football League themselves did this until 2015/16 season. In 2016/17 season, for reasons unknown- could easily be an error at EFL HQ- when they transitioned from those old rules to the new ones, this clause was removed and nobody has ever explained it. The old rules themselves excluded Fixed Asset Profits or Losses from the calculations- you can interchange, transfer and flip as much as you like, it's just irrelevant for the calculations- like various other items.

If they did use DRC then that's wholly spurious in justifying a sales cost as, de facto, it depends upon usage. If Derby go down will they take an instant hit given they've no need for a facility that size & purpose? It also potentially assumes they could never rent or co-share an alternate facility.

I've only ever used DRC to justify insurance/contingency cover. For example, I once controlled a very large production facility (warehouse) with extraordinary levels of security specification. The cost of replacement was huge but only so long I I needed to produce what it was at the time producing. The day that requirement ceased, it instantly became a worthless warehouse. For that reason itd intrinsic book value always remained low, yet it's DRC assessed cover remained high. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/12/2020 at 22:42, BTRFTG said:

If they did use DRC then that's wholly spurious in justifying a sales cost as, de facto, it depends upon usage. If Derby go down will they take an instant hit given they've no need for a facility that size & purpose? It also potentially assumes they could never rent or co-share an alternate facility.

I've only ever used DRC to justify insurance/contingency cover. For example, I once controlled a very large production facility (warehouse) with extraordinary levels of security specification. The cost of replacement was huge but only so long I I needed to produce what it was at the time producing. The day that requirement ceased, it instantly became a worthless warehouse. For that reason itd intrinsic book value always remained low, yet it's DRC assessed cover remained high. 

I've re-read it again and it may have been the Profits method- but is DRC not more reliable? Possibly different methods threw up different results.

It's hard to say because I've looked at a few clubs- for example Stoke when they came down in 2017/18, the Bet365 Stadium was impaired by about £700,000 by 2018/19 or the end of, whereas when Aston Villa dropped in 2015/16, Villa Park was impaired by between £40-45m! Which is right, can both be right?? You'd need forensic accountants to look at the last decade worth of Aston Villa accounts IMO, up to the most recent in 2018/19. That Impairment surely was of use to them when it came to selling and leasing back Villa Park in 2018/19- ooh those accounts, the chopping and changing- like I say a forensic accounting job! Reclassification of Villa Park from Investment Property to Tangible Fixed Asset, this was one of the reasons for the big swing I believe.

Based on that admittedly small sample size, it's hard to say how much the Impairment would be I reckon.

I think Depreciated Replacement Cost has been used as a proxy for Fair Value for hard to measure, unique, specialised individual assets- e.g. football stadia. At least that's what I've read- either way the Football League appear to have accepted the £81.1m but then they chose a valuer who chose questionable examples at best!

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/202021/general-news-images/efl-v-derby-county--decision.pdf

Pages 33 well I say 33, 34/123 at the top but easy enough to find.

Quote

v) Events leading up to the sale of Pride Park

This is a good starting point. Starting to re-read it myself, but it covers the stadium stuff and I'm pretty sure the method chosen/used would be in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go, though this may only be a first point.

Quote

72) The evidence before us – which we accept – was that (for their own separate reasons) each of the Club and Mr Morris wished the sale of Pride Park to take place at a ‘fair price’ i.e. at a price which fairly reflected its value. However, neither had an up to date valuation of Pride Park. Accordingly, in May 2018 the Club approached Jones Lang Lasalle (‘JLL’) to value Pride Park. Negotiations for JLL to prepare a valuation were progressed, information was provided to JLL by the Club and, as we set out below, in late June 2018 JLL did indeed provide a valuation of Pride Park:

a) JLL assessed the Fair Value of Pride Park on a Profits basis at £81,100,000

b) JLL assessed the Fair Value of Pride Park on a Depreciated Replacement Cost (‘DRC’) basis at £74,400,000, and 

c) JLL assessed the Market Rent of Pride Park on the basis of a sale and leaseback agreement at £4,160,000 per annum.

However there are claims that it was the former- a) £81.1m, but the rent fell to about £1.3m per year as they only had usage of Pride Park for football purposes for 100 days per year. It's at least theoretically possible that they don't even have to pay the £4.16m Annual Market Rent!

Below.

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

b) The Club provided that valuation letter to the EFL. In its covering email the Club explained that it had concluded that it was intending to use JLL’s market rental valuation as a basis for calculating the annual rent payable by the Club after sale – in particular, annual rent would be £1m per annum on the basis that the Club would have access to Pride Park for approximately 100 days a year and would incur associated running costs.

That's, ridiculous. Utterly. Saw £1.13m per season mentioned which coincidentally, by amazing coincidence is that Market Rent/3.65 near enough.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because as we can see:

Quote

82) On the same day the Club

a) Entered into a contract to sell Pride Park to Gellaw at a price of £81.1m. The TR1 records that the sale was also completed on 28 June 2018

b) Entered into a leaseback of Pride Park at a rent of £1,139,726 per annum, albeit without there being any restriction on the number of days for which the Club would have access to Pride Park for football purposes.

Spot the difference!

82

b)

vs

79

b)

This quite clearly states that there is a limitation of 100 days, hence the rent is on this basis. Why it is not £4.16m.

Yet, there is zero restriction on the actual number of days.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to Sheffield Wednesday, I found this interesting little clip- Chansiri...

Clips of him online are somewhat shambolic tbh!

Quote

"We, we do that, because to make er the financial statement look better!"

0:29-0:34

Plus

Quote

"So, the way I do it just make the financial statement stronger."

01:04-01:08

Errr- is there nothing in scope with respect to misrepresentation of financial statement here??

@BTRFTG @Coppello @Davefevs @downendcity @Hxj

We all know it was a paper transaction, but admitting to it??

Are there no grounds to consider it erroneous accounting, based on his own words. Could be bad English of course on his part making it sound quite a bit worse than it is.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
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...