Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

Okay, the Derby thing.

Seems as per Matt Lawton in the Times Saturday that the Football League have submitted their appeal and it's possible that it contains new evidence, new material.

Though he seems to contradict himself in the article. However if there is new evidence or material, then I wonder if it might materially change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have been looking over one or two of the sets of Written Reasons again. Some lines really jump off the page- what sort of organisation was Harvey running exactly??

What kind of stewardship was he himself displaying, as head of this organisation? Will pull out the lines and link to the reports.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we know, Birmingham got charged for non adherence to Business Plan. It was a small case but worth pursuing I suppose for the legal principle, precedent etc.

However, reading again as I did the Report into the 2019 Hearing, this appeared to have a notable flaw- a flaw which I would have thought ties the hands of the EFL in terms of a successful case!

Even that judgement was flawed but anyway that's to come later.

⬇️

Quote

35. However it is fair to note that the Club did very promptly admit the breach and, as set out in its letter dated 2 August, agreed to all the terms and restrictions which had been imposed by the EFL. The evidence from the chief executive of the EFL is that the Club has substantially complied with those conditions. The Club is entitled to an allowance of 1 point for mitigation

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

Now if there was a material doubt about compliance- and the Business Plan called on them to comply with respect to £10.8m of fees raised, wages saved, amortisation reduced- or more likely a combination of all 3.

The deadline was the March Projections, in practice the end of the January window, though I suppose you can sell to certain countries after January 31st.

As we know, Adams was not sold until summer 2019 and there's arguments for and against in terms of Sustainability but why would Harvey- he was the chief executive of the EFL- intimate that this is the case, if this was not necessarily the case, or at least if it was in some doubt. Surely that would represent a key factor in the 2019 Hearing as an additional factor?? For points or moving forward, seems very odd. That's one oddity.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second oddity is why, given media reports- media reports could be wrong of course, seemed to intimate that clubs were in the mood to clamp down on non-compliance at the start of the summer of 2018- an article about Aston Villa's plight at that time suggested just that- this paragraph.

Remember many clubs sold key players to help to reach compliance- we ourselves sold Flint, Bryan and Reid- plus squad players in Magnússon and Djuric, did we not? It's clear we would not have complied without these sales in 2018/19. As well as the raw first team quality, this also represents depth and a bit of a loss of continuity.

⬇️

Quote

2. The material discussions leading up to this arrangement were conducted over a very short timeframe in August 2018. Various senior personnel within the English Football League ('EFL) and the Club were involved in those discussions. It is absolutely plain that the EFL's representatives involved at that stage were anxious to help the Club achieve a satisfactory position such as it would avoid breaching the P&S Rules. That, we understand, was the EFL's position so far as all clubs in the Championship were concerned during 2018.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/efl-v-sheffield-wednesday-fc---decision.pdf

Where to begin! :o Like I said the players we sold- it depends what it means by help, if maybe players sold later in the summer but rowed back then maybe but a Governing Body absolutely should not be doing this! There's more from this though, absolutely there is more...utterly ridiculous so far!

This is curious as well- if it means the 2016/17 accounts that's one thing but if not...?

The quotation in it! I assume JR=John Redgate, of Sheffield Wednesday and TD=Tad Detko of the EFL. Email from Redgate to Chansiri on 30th July 2018- or the final day of their accounting period, extended from the end of May 2018 and then the end of June 2018. Seems not to be the best punctuated either.

⬇️

Quote

39. "It was confirmed on my call this afternoon that Aston Villa are not under embargo we are going to review the Villa accounts and the SWFC accounts to see if SWFC can take advantage of any financial allowances that Villa have been able to use to see if we can satisfy P&S other than by assets & player sales".

All of that is worth bolding but maybe I won't! Where to begin again- were the EFL allowing clubs in trouble to look at each others financial submissions for the season ending 2017/18 or what?? It's ambiguous but that's- well! Is rather like the very proposal that Gibson wanted but was voted down in April 2019.

If it means 2016/17 then they were in the public domain and that's fine but if not...? This info is confidential between respective auditors, club who submit and the EFL surely? Maybe some external auditors used by the EFL too. Commercially confidential surely- if it's not public domain of course.

The below does not reflect well on the EFL executive either.  ⬇️

Quote

46. We should say that the Club had been complaining, with some justificationin our view, that since no decision had been taken by the EFL as to any guidance about sanction in the event of a breach, the Club (and indeed other clubs in a similar situation) could not weigh up the consequences of simply allowing the breach to occur and taking the disciplinary consequences or straining to find a financial solution. Indeed, SH wrote a letter to all Championship clubs on 2 August 2018 acknowledging that this had been causing concern and confusion. It was not until 17 September 2018 (and thus after the conclusion of the matters to which we must turn below) that the sanctioning guidelines were issued.

I'd say he brought in the Sanctioning Guidelines about 2 years too late. Or the EFL board did, whoever.

Why would you bring in Sanctioning Guidelines in September 2018 when the system itself has been running at 3 year periods the first of which ended in 2016/17- even if you allow a year for transition between old and new rules, you surely bring in the Sanctioning Guidelines ahead of March 2017 to come in for the 3 years to end of Summer 2018.

Not that I have much sympathy but he really dropped the ball on that! He really did, or him and the rest of the top brass did!

What Shaun Harvey wrote in the below was incredible- not only did it go past the Accounting Deadline for it but it went past the FFP Deadline. ⬇️

Both of these were 31st July 2018- verbatim!

Quote

114. SH recorded on the morning of Sunday (5 August) some matters arising from the meeting on 3 August he sent to his colleagues NC, TD and JK. The part concerning the sale of the stadium was in these terms:

Sale of Stadium

"I appreciate that this matter has been discussed for some time. Putting the (sic) all this to one side, we need to establish a very clear position that meets our rules, as to what form the sale of Hillsborough could take to Mr. Chansiri, so as to be eligible as part of their P&S calculation and what documents we require to support this.

IT IS THE CLUBS CHALLENGE TO CREATE A CONTRACT THAT SATISFIES THEIR AUDITORS THAT IT CAN BE INCLUDED IN THEIR 2018 ACCOUNTS.

Can I suggest we look at what we found acceptable when AVFC sold some of their fixed assets and base our approach around that?

Our objective is to try to get the Club to a position that it is not in breach but at all times within the Rules.

Your prompt attention to this would be appreciated"

Really beggars belief! This was not an existing contract that needed a bit of fine tuning or finalising, this was clearly a document not yet in place. He's encouraging a club- a business- to back-date??

I'm assuming the Aston Villa point is referring to a) The Stadium and b) The apparent HS2 sale of Bodymoor Heath or part of it.

The below also brings further evidence- he seemed to have little issue with this Harvey, in fact it appears to be his idea? He emailed Katrien Meire, at the time at Sheffield Wednesday the following on 6th August 2018.

⬇️

Quote

119. "You need to move very quickly for this transaction to look credible- we are in your hands".

I say back-dating, an unspoken assumption as Paragraphs 118 and the full part of 119 refer to.

John Warner the auditor also made an error it would appear- available in Paragraphs 123-127 in particular.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/efl-v-sheffield-wednesday-fc---decision.pdf

What should have happened as soon as 31st July 2018 ticked around, had passed- they should have been charged along with Birmingham on 2nd August 2018- or maybe a bit later if they hadn't yet fully analysed the accounts but at worst they should have been charged in August or early September 2018!

If you haven't got the Stadium Sale completed in time, that's your fault and your fault only.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for Birmingham's 2nd Charge, and then the subsequent appeal- the Breach of the Buisiness Plan despite the Chief Executive of the EFL giving evidence in their March 2019 Hearing that indicated that they had substantially complied with the conditions.

Surely the sale or reduction of costs by March 2019 was a key, key part of the Plan- perhaps the fundamental bit?

The disclosure of a term of the Business Plan to the rest of the Championship clubs, well it was either malicious, incompetent or both- this brings about a bit of a buyers market and distressed sales can give a club grounds for defence.

This is why embargoes tend to be confidential, or one of the reasons anyway. Paragraphs 33 and 34 are pretty pertinent.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/decision-dated-6-march-2020.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in the appeal it appears the original Panel erred and here is why.

It was claimed that the sale of a player- and I assume this was Che Adams ultimately- would not have met P&S regulations as per the required cost even in January 2019- the savings made was a reasonable £1.87m but the target was £10.574m.

⬇️

Quote

25. The Respondent did not generate a costs saving of not less than £10.574m before 1 February 2019. Its cost saving at this date was £1.87m. Shortly before the time limit expired however, an offer was made by another club to purchase one of the Respondent's players, X, for the sum of X with a further X payable in the event that certain conditions were satisfied. Had that offer been accepted by the Respondent, the costs savings required by Condition 2) would have been made. However, the Respondent considered that the offer for X did not represent his true market value and it declined the offer.

X=Redacted bits.

Assuming it's Burnley and Che Adams. £12m+- unsure what % was add ons, what % was straight fee.

The letter referring them was dated 14th May 2019 but 19th May 2019 was stated elsewhere- intriguingly, Birmingham City Stadium Ltd appeared at CH on 20th May 2019!

Paragraphs 27-29 are decent for this.

Rather interestingly, the below suggests that- and this seemed to have been agreed by both Birmingham and the EFL- that at the first Hearing, the Commission had erred in this respect! Respondent=Birmingham in this case. Star player could be Adams or Jota?

⬇️

Quote

39. Second, the Respondent accepts that the Commission fell into error in one of its assessment of one aspect of the evidence.  We can summarise the point shortly. The evidence adduced by the Respondent established that it was wiling to transfer one of its star players, X, during the January 2019 transfer window for the sum of X. Shortly before the transfer window closed, an offer was made for X in the sum of X together with an additional X should certain conditions be met. However, the Commission proceeded on the basis that even if the offer had been accepted the requisite cost saving of £10.57m would not have been met (see Paragraph 45 (2) of the Decision). The Appellant and the Respondent agree that this was an error on the part of the Commission. Had the Respondent accepted the offer made in respect of X Condition 2) would have been met.

Paragraph 43- seems the EFL were more bothered about winning their point than going for a Re-Hearing.

Paragraph 70 is interesting! Looks quite long though, I'm not going to type it out! ?

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/efl-v-birmingham-fc---appeal.pdf

I suppose the big takeaway is that in future, the contract and the numbers will be binding- Best Endeavours as an implied term may well have been superseded.

Binding- Get it done, or else!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting post, or bit of speculation on DCFC Fans.

Quote

A bunch of rather stuffy 'holders of the rulebook' at the EFL are waiting for DCFC / new investors to buy back the stadium at which point they will find a way to show the club must write back the profit which will enable the EFL to finally have their pound of flesh at the expense of DCFC. I feel that is part of the delay.

I doubt it but I hope so!

Given I had an audience on there at one point, or a mini one :sub:

The great thing about the EFL loans is that clubs at this level who take it, it can only go towards PAYE debt and then it is repayable out of Solidarity Payments/Central Awards. This of course is included in P&L in the accounts, so will have a knock on effect for FFP.

Frankly, I'd advise clubs who can afford not to take it, not to take it- borrowing from the future certainly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, a debate I 'saw' about Derby and finances on another platform the other day reminded me- they took out loans in the summer!

Firstly, it was covered by Matt Hughes in Daily Mail, it may breach the loans thing to more than one club in this League, from the type of lender that MSD is.

The rules in question are as follows, that it might be worth looking at under:

Quote

Sportsmail has learned that several clubs have contacted the EFL demanding clarification on the loan from MSD UK Holdings, that was confirmed in documents lodged at Companies House earlier this month, which they claim is a breach of the regulations

A company belonging to club owner Mel Morris bought Derby's Pride Park home for £80million
 
+3
  •  

A company belonging to club owner Mel Morris bought Derby's Pride Park home for £80million

The EFL rules make clear that third party investment in multiple clubs is not permitted, other than lending facilities provided by commercial banks. Section 10 regulation 105.1 of the EFL rulebook states that 'except with the prior written consent of the Board a person, or an associate of that person, who is interested in a club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club.'

Regulation 106.5 goes on to clarify that it is the responsibility of the clubs to ensure that a person who lends money 'other than in the ordinary course of banking… shall not be acting in such a manner as to cause a breach of any Regulation, and in particular Regulations 104 to 108, and failure to do so shall constitute misconduct.'

The complainants' contention is that Derby's loan is not 'in the ordinary course of banking' as MSD are not registered with the banking regulator, unlike other equity houses such as the Macquarie Group and Shawbrook Bank, who also provide funding to football clubs.

MSD also provided a loan in the region of £80m to Southampton last month, although as they are not involved with any other Premier League clubs there is no question of that breaching regulations.

Southampton sources described the MSD borrowing as a 'bridging loan' which replaced a previous lending facility with Macquarie, which was not renewed.

The Derby complaint is a matter for the EFL Board, who have the power to approve the loan of investigate further. Regulation 112 of the EFL rules gives the Board the authority to relax some of its provisions if it is deemed to be appropriate.

The EFL and Derby declined to comment.

From August.

Next post, I'll look at the regulations in question.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Wow, if they are in breach the punishment could be massive!

Quote

111 Powers of The Board in Event of Default

111.1  The Board shall be empowered, upon learning, whether pursuant to Regulations 107, 109 or 113 or otherwise, of any breach of Regulations 78 and 104 to 107 inclusive to require the Club and/or person in question to take such action as is necessary to rectify the breach forthwith or within such period as the Board shall determine.

111.2  Any breach of any of the foregoing Regulations 104 to 107 inclusive, including without limitation knowingly rendering incorrect or incomplete information pursuant to Regulations 107 and 109, shall constitute misconduct. Without prejudice to the range of other sanctions that may be imposed in respect of such breach, any Club in breach of any of the aforesaid Regulations may with the sanction of a special resolution passed at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting of The League, be expelled from The League. There shall be no right of appeal against such expulsion.

Default of what though, it's not altogether clear!

However, I've looked at it and I'm not altogether sure which regulation has been broken, if any.

Although...

Quote

105 Interests in More Than One Football Club

105.1  Except with the prior written consent of the Board a person, or any associate of that person, who is interested in a Club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club.

105.2  A person shall be deemed to be interested in a football club if he, whether directly or indirectly:

Quote

105.2.5  has lent to, gifted money to, or purchased future receivables from or guaranteed the debts or obligations of that football club (or any other arrangement of substantially similar effect) otherwise than in the ordinary course of banking.

Could be the pertinent one here

Also I wonder if it might breach secure funding rules as well- or whether that's a red herring.

Quote

1.1.13 Secure Funding means funds which have been or will be made available to the Club in an amount equal to or in excess of any Cash Losses which the Club has made in respect of the period from T-2 or is forecast to make up to the end of T+2. Secure Funding may not be a loan and shall consist of:

(a)  contributions that an equity participant has made by way of payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account; or

(b)  an irrevocable commitment by an equity participant to make future payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account. This irrevocable commitment shall be evidenced by a legally binding agreement between the Club and the equity participant and may if the Executive so requires be secured by one of the following:

(i)  a personal guarantee from the ultimate beneficial owner of the Club, provided that the Executive is satisfied that

1)  he is of sufficient standing; and

2)  the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory;

(ii)  a guarantee from the Club’s Parent Undertaking or another company in the Club’s Group, provided that the Executive is satisfied that

1)  the guaranteeing company is of sufficient standing; and

2)  the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory;

(iii)  a letter of credit from a Financial Institution of sufficient standing and an undertaking from the Club’s directors to The League to call on the letter of credit in default of the payments from the equity participant being made;

(iv)  payments into an escrow account, to be paid to the Club on terms satisfactory to the Executive; or

(v)  such other form of security as the Executive considers satisfactory; or

(c)  such other form of secure funding as the Executive considers satisfactory.

Granted, Morris may have stuck in the necessary equity or similar, but if not...?

Is this organisation of sufficient standing? Debatable!

Millenniumram- took a bit of a read of DCFCFans- you're having a laugh with this, the EFL surely hate Morris and rightly so! Birch was seemingly handpicked by Parry btw.

Quote

I’m sure Steve Gibson is delighted that another man with Derby links is now involved at the EFL. Reckon we can get Mel involved somewhere as well, once he sells up here?

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not related to the Championship but I think this is quite interesting...

 

Ligue 1 clubs stare into financial abyss after huge TV deal collapses

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/dec/15/ligue-1-clubs-stare-financial-abyss-tv-deal-collapses-mediapro

 

TV deal collapses in France. Sounds like Mediapro made a reckless gamble by offering France the second highest TV deal in Europe? The deal that collapsed was worth around 814m euros per season and the new deal will be worth around 700m per season so the article is perhaps a little over the top. Apparently the promoted clubs Lorient and Lens had net spends that were around 20m euros on the back of the original deal. Also Nimes (who bought Eliasson, lets hope they still pay ?) had a net spend above 10m euros and they survive on gates of around 12-14,000. Those clubs look like the worst exposed to me and Nimes and Lorient are both in a relegation battle. Reminds me of the ITV digital saga although with this the clubs have to battle this at the same time as losing gate receipts.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

The case against Derby will be - is a Private Equity Hedge Fund lending money acting in the ordinary course of banking.

I am sure that loads of legal fees will be spent on that one!

 

Thanks.

The bit about secured funding that I jumped to seems a bit of a red herring then- almost seems not worth it for the Derby case! Doesn't benefit them FFP wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've critiqued some of their fans but these two posts nail some of the Sheffield Wednesday situation- good content. Post before these two is good as well.

Quote

Couple of very crucial points in all this that seem a bit odd to me.

 

1. Why were no minutes taken at the August meeting between the club and the EFL?

 

2. Why, when the EFL knew knew no written agreement was in place before 31/7 did they then accept what seems to be a backdated agreement after that date?

 

3. Why, some ten  months later, has someone at the EFL found that agreement and called foul? 

 

sorry but non of that adds up.

 

Quote

It seems to me that the EFL executive wanted an easy life and actually concentrate on football not regulations.

 

Reading the report it seems to me Villa were fairly creative and the EFL accepted it, so let's try it here again and brush / carpet scenario.

 

Perhaps there was a reason Shaun Harvey got out - who knows.

 

It seems that because we then failed to send accounts in March 19 this got brought back up the agenda and we got placed under embargo

Can't argue with most of that! Sounds about right...shocking for the rest of the clubs who are complying, if they are assisting clubs beyond the manner in which they should but not a surprise at that time? Parry would surely have taken a very different view.

Quote

I believe there are emails from Shaun Harvey to the club which were considered but not mentioned in the report. The club want these emails given further consideration by the committee. Shaun Harvey appears to have acted some what independently and this is what I believe to be the crux of the appeal.

Or the bolded bit in particular!

I and a few of us on this thread thought this could be the case over the last year or 2.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has potential to be interesting!

https://mobile.twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1340203691786317824

Far simpler of course, to not class Impairment of Players as a Covid cost much like UEFA. 

Everton eg have written down £30-40m in player Impairment. Will help them down the line with player profit, but not now.

Certainly not with UEFA but it certainly isn't clear that domestically the usual principle of hit now for pure profit later will apply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw a potentially very interesting post elsewhere, on another forum- from November.

Basically, appeal was won by Sheffield Wednesday but EFL were refusing to reinstate the points.

Chansiri was threatening to go to court and EFL said it could result in suspension and possible expulsion.

Could be rubbish of course, but then again Chansiri's words "We have to accept it" about the 6 point reduction, that could be it.

Tweet deleted, but there's a screenshot of it.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Millwall lost £10m last season.

Worth looking at some of last seasons accounts, to try and extrapolate as to how our Revenue will look- ie % lost on tickets etc.

Fine for FFP, just shows further the importance of player sales at this level. Don't think they'll be pushing the higher end of £39m in terms of investment- ie £15m lower 3 year loss- then share capital or similar takes it to £39m or anything in between but they'll keep plodding along I expect.

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

I note that Sheffield Wednesday have not yet submitted their accounts to the EFL for 2018/19, if this article is accurate.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/five-months-why-sheffield-wednesday-still-yet-file-their-201819-accounts-3074428

Couple of key (well key in terms of local media justification anyway, arguably). bits.

Quote

One of the central difficulties was that it was not known in which set of accounts the controversial £60m sale of Hillsborough stadium should be included in until the dust settled on the legal wrangle with the authority.

 

Quote

Some 43 days after that successful appeal verdict saw Wednesday handed back six points it is understood that these complications remain and so Wednesday are yet to hand their accounts over to either Companies House or the EFL.

Should be a soft embargo surely!

Yet...

Quote

The Star has been given no indication that this is of any immediate concern to the EFL and we are lead to believe at least one other Football League club is yet to hand over their accounts.

Derby?

If not, why not? Surely they have certain projected numbers to work with at least- I mean, it's not as if it's slightly overdue- Sheffield Wednesday's accounts ran until July 31st 2019 and were due on April 30th 2020.

They took the 3 month extension, so that's July 31st 2020- 12 points was halved on November 4th 2020- we are now on December 27th 2020- this article itself was written on December 21st 2020- nearly 7 weeks after the partially successful appeal.

As for Derby, bit more complex I guess as the EFL appeal is still not decided yet AFAIK, but their timeline was:

  1. Accounts to June 30th 2019
  2. Due by March 31st 2020.
  3. Took the 3 month extension- that'd be June 30th 2020.

Still nothing, though their interim reports and Future Financial Information contained in the Independent Hearing Written Reasons, well it suggests it's not ideal!

What do we think @Davefevs @Hxj - soft embargo territory?

More importantly perhaps, is there any accounting argument to adjust out the £60m entirely-for FFP/P&S at least?

Company/Group structure seems interesting, with all those Sheffield companies, transfers of Share Capital etc. Apologies, may have asked it before but I have to wonder given the Scenarios outlined in the Written Reasons.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham news.

It does. Bellingham the big one, unsure of the final fee. Harding to Rotherham was from academy, pure profit and they sold a Spanish striker for more than they brought him for. Profit and some removed amortised there! Sure some higher earners left this summer too?

They're not much of an FFP concern for me now. Seem to have learnt their lesson, plus signings such as Pedersen, Sunjic, Leko- and as on frees due to age, to some extent maybe, Halilovic and McEcheran all feel like saleable assets for differing reasons.

Etheridge as a Goalkeeper could also retain value ad they have a longer lifespan, depending on fee paid of course. Lots of free transfers means no amortisation in those cases!

Interesting how on time they are with accounts and similar financial reporting obligations though. Even with Covid!

They don't seem to dare drag it our for months over in Hong Kong, see Derby and Sheffield Wednesday as prime examples and the latter are repeat offenders! They always release on time, whether good or bad news.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading's FFP is surely biting a bit.

Clearly Bayern is a fantastic chance for young players. Think Reading might be walking the tightrope- but you turn down £10m for Moore in summer 2018, you turn down bids for Swift and Meite (IIRC), fairly sure Loader was linked with clubs- not saying you get a huge amount for him but as an academy product that £2m helps. Then again Dale Jennings went to Bayern from Tranmere as a youth?
They surely have saleable assets but the problem is they sell very few! That 2nd Tweet...Ouch, indeed! Again though if you don't look to trade...
 
Actually slightly surprised they aren't- given what we know of 2017/18 and 2018/19 results- on course to breach in the 3 years (4 but 1 + 1 + 2/ 1= New 3 Year) to 2021, in the usual assessments in March.
 
In the past I was possibly crowing a bit about other clubs and their downfall or travails. Still hope certain ones have FFP related travails but survival solvency wise is key, so too is safety of those in clubs. Slightly more moderate me with this 2nd Wave- even Derby. No issue with hoping they lose their EFL appeal, get relegated, laughing at their takeover and non payment of wage debacles- like clockwork- but yeah.
 
Another reason I am not for crowing is that the longer it goes on without signings here, goes on with recalling loanees who were loaned out for a reason, the more I wonder if we are under soft limits/Business Plan related issues. Might only be for this year, come summer with the many out of contract and the rolling on of the FFP cycle it improves but just feels like there are some soft limits in place here...once last seasons accounts released we shall know more!
 
Losing a defender rated at £15m to Bayern on a free though, an extreme example but an example nonetheless of what can happen when you might roll the dice! Maybe they're under a Business Plan that has absolute obligations to stay the right side of the line and they deviate from it, it's a Hard Fail? Perhaps a £30,000 a week offer (just for example) would push them into breach this March?
Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Parachute Payment gap- Kinnell. Do think it should be paid as loans, so it helps with solvency and Balance Sheet but has no positive or negative effect on Profit and Loss- therefore keeping clubs in check and pushing the pressure on them to comply with FFP earlier in their stint down here.

Agree @Hxj like that argument a lot with respect to Sheffield Wednesday and their accounts.

Maybe that is the precise or at least the broad nature of the delay to their accounts- could the EFL be pushing back with that very line of argument about inclusion of it in 2018/19 accounts? Be it at Companies House or for FFP purposes.

I'd expect the EFL under Rick Parry to take that stance for sure or explore it- unsure about under Harvey?

Who knows, given the whole debacle that was their (in the timeframe unsuccessful) sale and leaseback of Hillsborough, maybe the auditor isn't happy or they're struggling to justify it to him. It was indicated in the Independent Hearing that nobody- that is Chansiri, the club, the EFL- and maybe even the auditor- took Independent legal advice or adequate Independent legal advice ahead of this transaction. Maybe I misread it but sure the Auditor said to the Panel that he shouldn't have signed it off.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From August, but a prescient Tweet in the circs for Reading now!

Had they sold one or two, not even all 4 to begin with but one or two at the appropriate time, they might have had headroom to offer Richards a suitable new deal, thereby protecting his value, either for the future or to sell quite big now. Now they may well lose him to Bayern on a free- crazy tbh!

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   0 members

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