The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You might well be right, but the EFL regs make me wonder.

For simplicity purposes, I'm assuming that the Coates family have stuck in the sufficient equity/cash- funding basically- to take them to the Upper Limit. Gets even more complex if not!

Seems as per Swiss Ramble to be an aggregated Year 1 and 2 loss after Allowances of £31m.

No, I think you are in fact correct, and I’m wrong.  Apologies.

That makes it harder for Stoke…..good.  And they’re already over the 4 year amount by £1m….so need to have made a profit in 20/21.

[BetterRedthanBlue]

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1399990128936992769?s=19

Saw this from Kieran about MM possibly being struck off would this have any impact on Derby at all? 

[Hxj]

48 minutes ago, BetterRedthenBlue said:

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1399990128936992769?s=19

Saw this from Kieran about MM possibly being struck off would this have any impact on Derby at all? 

No.  Separate business.

In another development - a banker involved in the same tax fraud as Gabay was sentenced to 5 years or so in prison, along with a confiscation notice.

If Gabay's business is still owed money by Derby, he might need it back fairly quickly!

[Lrrr]

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, Davefevs said:

No, I think you are in fact correct, and I’m wrong.  Apologies.

That makes it harder for Stoke…..good.  And they’re already over the 4 year amount by £1m….so need to have made a profit in 20/21.

I'm a little surprised that media, or even Kieran Maguire and to an extent Swiss Ramble haven't yet covered this aspect in full yet tbh.

By my calculations and taking the Swiss Ramble figures forward, which I've done periodically, it goes:

T-2, ie 2017/18. £23m LOSS/£35m.

T-1, ie 2018/19 £8m LOSS/£13m.

What follows is where it gets complex indeed...

With normal, £61m, with rollup it's £55.5m.

LOSS in 2019/20, Before Tax.

£88,455,000

MINUS Covid Losses=£38,223,000.

The Impairment of Player Registration aspect of this that they are trying to argue for is stated at £30,131,000. The other £8m or so is the usual stuff, ie Stadium Revenue, not using Furlough etc etc.

Anyway yeah you take that loss and you also lop off the estimated £7m in Allowable Costs- dunno if Swiss Ramble is using it for rounding purposes.

Leaves with a loss of £43,232,000. Which you then halve.

£23m + £8m + 21,616,000=£52,616,000. Which means they have £2,884,000 left in unused FFP losses with the rollup.

However rolling into 2020/21 becomes difficult because the Impairment- both Covid and non Covid was a one off cost which isn't to be repeated but also has the dual impact of reducing future Amortisation Costs.

It now states that their remaining Player Registration Carrying Amount is £21,027,000. That Amortisation charge of £30m will be a lot lower if the Impairment of £30m is allowed to stand as an excludable P&S cost. Says it's up to 4 years but I know they have a lot of contracts expire in Summer 2022 so it'd be interesting to know how much is to be consumed in 2020/21 and 2021/22.

Could actually knock between £15-25m off their Amortisation in 2020/21.

Think there was something too about deferred Income into 2020/21, £8m or similar as Accounting Period ended while Covid in play, seen it on a few other Accounts to May- they must pay Parachute Payments in stages. Was £8m but can't find it now. Although Parachute Payments fall by about £15m in Year 3 so that can cancel that out somewhat.

[havanatopia]

23 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You might well be right, but the EFL regs make me wonder.

For simplicity purposes, I'm assuming that the Coates family have stuck in the sufficient equity/cash- funding basically- to take them to the Upper Limit. Gets even more complex if not!

Seems as per Swiss Ramble to be an aggregated Year 1 and 2 loss after Allowances of £31m. Believe they're on a fairly sticky wicket P&S wise if the Averaging works as the Rules suggest they could.

So allowable loss for season ending 2020 is 13 million. Stoke lost a whopping 88 but are allowed a 38 million covid adjustment to bring it down to 43 million.

They are in a 30 million hole they are trying to get out of by selling the ground to the Coates family.

Is that about right Pops?

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 02/06/2021 at 20:12, havanatopia said:

So allowable loss for season ending 2020 is 13 million. Stoke lost a whopping 88 but are allowed a 38 million covid adjustment to bring it down to 43 million.

They are in a 30 million hole they are trying to get out of by selling the ground to the Coates family.

Is that about right Pops?

Under the old rules Hav, it's hard to explain how it all fits together under the 3 year rolling, amended for Covid with the complex calculations involved.

£43m is right,, but because of this new formula it's halved and that plus the 2021 figure are added and halved. Selling and leasing back the Stadium in the Accounts ending 2020/21 would or might bring it into line, but an alternative strategy might be if this Adjustment and lopping down of future Costs puts them in line to 2021, ie 2017/18, 2018/19 then the combined average, you then sell Ground in 2021/22 in order to help to attempt clear that hurdle- rather handily they have loads of players out of contract in Summer 2022 so it could be a case of buying time, albeit Parachute Payments would be long gone by then. I've done some calculations but of course they contain some estimates. A double three-card trick I called it a while back.

I got up to the point where I'd estimated a Loss of £43,232,000 halved which became £21,616,000.

Going into 2020/21, I estimate the following:

£88,455,000.

MINUS.

Reduced Amortisation by dint of the Impairment down by say £15-20m.

The Impairment cost itself I assume was a one off cost that won't be repeated. £42,516,000.

Let's use the £8,092,000 of Savings irrespective of the Impairment, as a basis/starting point for 2020/21. 

Minus the £7m in Allowables of course.

Also suggests that by dint of Accounting timings- Revenue that was due to be accounted for in 2019/20 was in fact in the following season. However I cannot find it in the Accounts, maybe I conflated that with lost Revenues or read a piece that did so I'll discount it for now.

However I'd also suggest that Parachute Payments down by £10-15m in final season. I assume wage bill is still fairly similar along with Profit on Player disposal.

They sacked Nathan Jones last season and hired O'Neill- £2m net cost that won't be repeated maybe? Just a guess...

I'm using the higher savings and lower reductions and I make a possible loss this season as being £20,847,000. That's an FFP loss not an Accounting one so includes FFP and Covid stuff.

One early estimate might be:

£43,232,000 + £18,847,000=£62,097,000/2=£31,093,500.

Add that to the Swiss Ramble estimates of £31m aggregate for the first 2 years ie 2017/18 and 2018/19 and I make it an estimated overspend of £6,593,000. Even with a Stadium sale falling into 2020/21 they might be on a knife edge provided the price and Profit are in line with recent valuations and then there's a whole new problem going into 2021/22- that's where Future Financial Info kicks in. A stadium sold for say a £13m Profit might just have them under £39m to 2021 but as I mentioned going into 2021/22...

Aggregate Upper Loss limit falls to £39m from £55.5m going into that season as the last PL season will have disappeared off the ra

Parachute Payments gone for good- yes cost base down in a sense- Stadium already sold. Average Parachute Payments over those 2 seasons might be £20-25m. That's a £41.5m swing basically, in the wrong direction.

Also bear in mind that the players they have taken a hit on but claimed as Covid costs, they cannot potentially make a Profit on Disposal on...double-edged sword.

I'll certainly periodically revise and rework these figures and estimates.

All that said, even though I'd trust Stoke more than some clubs say to struggle on under that Agreement, if allowed to stand unchallenged I'm unsure I'd trust Mel Morris to! Or possibly Reading though they're quite far gone, or possibly Cardiff now Parachute Payments are up- Derby especially, if that precedent was set I could see them attempting to pull a fast one.

Here's a scenario I think plausible if this Agreement sets a precedent...

1. Derby write down say Waghorn and Wisdom residual value due to Covid. EFL accepted Stoke so they accept Derby. I think Stoke more likely to struggle through it in relative good faith but time wll tell.
2. Their contracts expire in Summer 2021 in any event but their unique model can lead to big charges final year. Due to Covid their Book Value is not so applicable, so they argue hence the Impairment.
3. Leave as free agents in Summer 2021...but rehired on different, ie lower terms.
4. Derby look to sell them at a fairly early opportunity, arguing that new contractual terms and as free agents means a Profit on Disposal should stand without impact to the prior Impairment ie that shouldn't be readded to the FFP exclusions.

Whether they could make it stand up is a different issue but could I see someone like Derby trying it? Yes, I could.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for some other recent results.

Huddersfield- Appear to be an example of a club using Parachute Payments for their intended purposes- helping to pay down debt through it e.g. Reducing costs and paying down debt at least on the evidence of 2019/20.

Lists a debt repayment schedule towards the end of their Accounts. Their wage bill was 'only' £30 odd million in Year 1 post PL which is quite good.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[havanatopia]

52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Under the old rules Hav, it's hard to explain how it all fits together under the 3 year rolling, amended for Covid with the complex calculations involved.

£43m is right,, but because of this new formula it's halved and that plus the 2021 figure are added and halved. Selling and leasing back the Stadium in the Accounts ending 2020/21 would or might bring it into line, but an alternative strategy might be if this Adjustment and lopping down of future Costs puts them in line to 2021, ie 2017/18, 2018/19 then the combined average, you then sell Ground in 2021/22 in order to help to attempt clear that hurdle- rather handily they have loads of players out of contract in Summer 2022 so it could be a case of buying time, albeit Parachute Payments would be long gone by then. I've done some calculations but of course they contain some estimates. A double three-card trick I called it a while back.

I got up to the point where I'd estimated a Loss of £43,232,000 halved which became £21,616,000.

Going into 2020/21, I estimate the following:

£88,455,000.

MINUS.

Reduced Amortisation by dint of the Impairment down by say £15-20m.

The Impairment cost itself I assume was a one off cost that won't be repeated. £42,516,000.

Let's use the £8,092,000 of Savings irrespective of the Impairment, as a basis/starting point for 2020/21. 

Minus the £7m in Allowables of course.

Also suggests that by dint of Accounting timings- Revenue that was due to be accounted for in 2019/20 was in fact in the following season. However I cannot find it in the Accounts, maybe I conflated that with lost Revenues or read a piece that did so I'll discount it for now.

However I'd also suggest that Parachute Payments down by £10-15m in final season. I assume wage bill is still fairly similar along with Profit on Player disposal.

They sacked Nathan Jones last season and hired O'Neill- £2m net cost that won't be repeated maybe? Just a guess...

I'm using the higher savings and lower reductions and I make a possible loss this season as being £20,847,000. That's an FFP loss not an Accounting one so includes FFP and Covid stuff.

One early estimate might be:

£43,232,000 + £18,847,000=£62,097,000/2=£31,093,500.

Add that to the Swiss Ramble estimates of £31m aggregate for the first 2 years ie 2017/18 and 2018/19 and I make it an estimated overspend of £6,593,000. Even with a Stadium sale falling into 2020/21 they might be on a knife edge provided the price and Profit are in line with recent valuations and then there's a whole new problem going into 2021/22- that's where Future Financial Info kicks in. A stadium sold for say a £13m Profit might just have them under £39m to 2021 but as I mentioned going into 2021/22...

Aggregate Upper Loss limit falls to £39m from £55.5m going into that season as the last PL season will have disappeared off the ra

Parachute Payments gone for good- yes cost base down in a sense- Stadium already sold. Average Parachute Payments over those 2 seasons might be £20-25m. That's a £41.5m swing basically, in the wrong direction.

Also bear in mind that the players they have taken a hit on but claimed as Covid costs, they cannot potentially make a Profit on Disposal on...double-edged sword.

I'll certainly periodically revise and rework these figures and estimates.

All that said, even though I'd trust Stoke more than some clubs say to struggle on under that Agreement, if allowed to stand unchallenged I'm unsure I'd trust Mel Morris to! Or possibly Reading though they're quite far gone, or possibly Cardiff now Parachute Payments are up- Derby especially, if that precedent was set I could see them attempting to pull a fast one.

Here's a scenario I think plausible if this Agreement sets a precedent...

1. Derby write down say Waghorn and Wisdom residual value due to Covid. EFL accepted Stoke so they accept Derby. I think Stoke more likely to struggle through it in relative good faith but time wll tell.
2. Their contracts expire in Summer 2021 in any event but their unique model can lead to big charges final year. Due to Covid their Book Value is not so applicable, so they argue hence the Impairment.
3. Leave as free agents in Summer 2021...but rehired on different, ie lower terms.
4. Derby look to sell them at a fairly early opportunity, arguing that new contractual terms and as free agents means a Profit on Disposal should stand without impact to the prior Impairment ie that shouldn't be readded to the FFP exclusions.

Whether they could make it stand up is a different issue but could I see someone like Derby trying it? Yes, I could.

Thanks pops. Btw... When you talk about players out of contract you talk first about 2022 when mostly this will occur, later you change to 2021... Not sure if you have flipped from Stoke to Derby?

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Thanks pops. Btw... When you talk about players out of contract you talk first about 2022 when mostly this will occur, later you change to 2021... Not sure if you have flipped from Stoke to Derby?

Tbh Hav, I was conflating two issues a little there.

With Stoke, I was talking about Players who were likely to expire in 2022 but could leave on frees/at Remaining Net Book Value ahead of that if a club could be found...maybe they can't just release them as part of an EFL  Agreement, perhaps they have to in return to the Covid Impairment claim, find a club who would want them either at Book Value or on a free? That's Stoke specific.

That has potential to be a fair deal and arrangement- but my concern is that if it is allowed to stand unchallenged, remember Derby must have scope as they have not yet released any Accounts for any of the Group Companies to CH since Spring 2019- those being for the season 2017/18. My concern is that given Derby's Accounting Period for the existing season is end of June, that they might or might have looked to write down say Waghorn and Wisdom, whose contracts expire in 2021 in one of those Accounts, then rehire on lesser terms- Write down copying Stoke's possibly fair model...and then look to take the piss in the way I outlined. Lawrence is another who could fit the category though he is 2022. A difference is that the way in which they have backloaded Amortisation means a bigger charge is quite possible in the final year- ie a bigger hit to FFP- than those clubs who do it in a straight line- ie us and Stoke and pretty much everyone!

In other words if allowed to stand, could it set a precedent which unscrupulous owners might look to exploit? 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for us, yes us- I wonder if the reason for the restraint this Summer aside from the obvious is because we're worrying about T +1 and T +2...

Because I've stated elsewhere, if we wanted a one season roll of the dice when a lot should be restricted, it would be feasible- albeit with possible downside risks moving forward if it doesn't come off!

Then again who is to say we'd get punished beyond embargoes? See Reading- two years of questionable finances and still nothing concrete beyond embargoes and targets...surely charges for them are long overdue.

Reading and Stoke were cited in Matt Hughes Ahead of the Game Column back in February, but Stoke did start to show signs of downsizing as far back as 2 summers ago when a lot less on fees, almost no fees in the last 2 years in fact, signing players from lower wage teams like Barnsley, Wigan and some others- and their plan PRE Covid in Jan 2020 was to loan out a lot of players so they were actually it seems working to a plan other than selling Assets and they loaned out quite a lot again last Summer IIRC, while spending barely anything in fees...but I don't see how Reading have thusfar emerged fairly unscathed.

Reading lest we forget, were released from a Soft Embargo in July 2019...and added Joao and Puscas (Sheffield Wednesday and Inter Milan respectively) in August of that year!! Ejaria on loan too, loan to buy- that permanent transfer was in doubt for some time IIRC but the EFL possibly reluctantly accepted it had to go through. Not like they didn't get bids for high earners and loaned them out, or players- they actively turned down bids for them!!

In this period, off the top of my head:

1. Moore- Summer 2018, Brighton.
2. Loader- Summer 2019, Wolves (Left on a free).
3. Swift- Summer 2020, reportedly at least one PL club interested.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[BLRed]

So when will we start to see clubs in questioned actually sanctioned?

i guess relegation for derby is unlikely now (god knows why it’s all taking so long to conclude what are obvious misdemeanours) 

are we just going to have weeks, months, years of discussions without any action ever being taken?

sheff weds for example, and any club for that matter, that fails to pay their players should be struck with an immediate points sanction for the current or following season depending on if it occurs during or in off season. So why the red tape and why are clubs allowed to continue their fuckery for so long with little or no consequence?

[Mr Popodopolous]

In terms of Sheffield Wednesday, the PFA are now reportedly involved and the EFL notified- agree, failure to pay wages should be an automatic deduction- could have it rising each time it occurs or could have it cumulative but it seems that as it stands, the players themselves need to force the issue. If they're happy to play on of stay in those conditions, more fool them but unsure a club can be sanctioned in terms of Points.

It was claimed in Autumn 2019 that a deduction for unpaid wages was set to become a rule of the future- ie an automatic deduction but nothing!! Maybe they can't get the required majority though god knows why.

Immediate deduction to be applied to the season where it will have most effect- each month overdue, 3 points- reports suggest March and April and May so that would be 6 pts to 2020/21 applied in real time and 3 pts and counting to 2021/22 in League One. Think Derby and Sheffield Wednesday both had wage issues around January time.

Derby of course are looking to string it out as long as possible, and I fear they have succeeded in terms of a deduction applicable to 2020/21- claimed they were using Procedural Defences and the like, will find the article.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9561583/Derby-RELEGATED-Championship-EFL-won-appeal-against-FFP-rule-break.html

Quote

The EFL face a race against time for a points deduction to be imposed that would relegate Derby County to League One after the club were found in breach of financial fair play rules.

Sportsmail understands EFL chiefs want the club's sanction to be resolved with urgency so that any possible points deduction would be applied to this season, relegating Wayne Rooney's side from the Championship.

However, sources have revealed that Derby — owned by Mel Morris — have provided several procedural reasons as to why the case should be delayed.

10th May, to appear in paper the following day I expect.

Maybe Wycombe or some other compliant club should raise issues at the EFL AGM in June, what could a proposal or Members Vote achieve I wonder?

Another good snippet, same article- though Derby fans protest that this isn't and couldn't be the case.

Quote

It is understood the Rams have also refused to provide information that would allow for previous accounts to be recalculated, a process that could invoke another charge and potential points deduction. So it is likely any punishment handed to Derby would apply to next season. 

More delaying tactics- qualifies as misconduct in my eyes, EFL should throw everything plus the kitchen sink at Derby IMO. If they can't get the reworked figures in time, they cannot therefore invoke a deduction in the relevant timeframe.

As for Reading, the old Regime had little understanding of the concept of future monitoring, if a club was compliant up to the year they appeared to have been somewhat free to do business again (except Birmingham, who signed Pedersen)- the Rules themselves allow for past, present and future compliance monitoring but unsure Shaun Harvey was up to that. Under Parry they couldn't in their position I believe have then proceeded to sign Joao and Puscas after being within range of a breach in Summer 2019.

A number of these issues are legacy issues- if you look at the timeframes of Derby, the way that Reading were running into danger and Sheffield Wednesday all these losses and the fudging happened on his watch...Parry is trying to unpick past messes to an extent. That is neither easy nor quick to achieve unfortunately.

Edit- Could possibly add Birmingham's secondary charges to that...the timing made almost no sense, almost as if the EFL were trying to prod them into a (Fairly Valued) Stadium Sale and leaseback in order to align and sell players for big fees. Fair play they seem to be on the right track but the timing was very odd...

In my eyes, given they were expected to raise the necessary in the January window you either:

a) Add these charges onto the Hearing for March anyway- maybe a Secondary Hearing in April. Dispute over Absolute Obligation vs Best Endeavors- EFL were pursuing clarity it seems as opposed to a hard Sanction when appealing.

Or

b) You wait until after June 30th, ie their Reporting Period is up...instead the EFL sent it through mid May as per the Birmingham Accounts.

My preference is a) however the EFL chose the worst of all worlds in this instance arguably.

As if by magic, a crazy coincidence, a Stadium company emerged within a week at CH in order for them to sell St Andrews!! Almost as if it was the EFL giving them a nudge, a hurry-up. Oh and guess who ran it at that time- Harvey still!

I don't believe in Clubs heading for a breach getting guidance, I believe Clubs should flounder into it off their own back and suffer the consequences.

There are clubs who have done much worse and got handed much less in the way of punishment arguably and also in their favour is a subsequent notable improvement, but the timing of the Business Plan Charges was very odd.

Poses an interesting counterfactual, would Birmingham have sold St Andrews in time in 2018/19 by June 30th without the oddly timed charge notice.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Huddersfield- like I said fair play, a club using Parachute Payments a lot more for an intended purpose, although the debt repayments perhaps forced their hand.

Strong P&S position too.

They signed some players this season, but also Karlan Grant was sold for good money- don't think we'll be seeing them on the P&S watchlist for a while, wages around £30m according to Accounts. Exact figure including all the staff, PAYE and Pension Costs £30,253,710. 

I know Parachute Payments helped, I know that player sales made it look better but they still have been one of the more prudent sides in 1st year post Relegation. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Few updates on this.

Birmingham

No longer seem to be under an embargo. Can't say I'm surprised, big sales of Adams and Bellingham in recent times and seem to have been cutting back in general.

Blackburn

Still awaiting Club Accounts at CH, Venkys London Limited well I think they were in Soft rather than Hard Sanctions territory. Selling Armstrong for a suitable fee would solve any outstanding issues, I also expect their wage bill will be lower anyway. I think even factoring in final year of contract, that he's probably worth £10-15m.

Those are two clubs in relatively benign scenarios. A few different ones now:

Reading

Sounds as if they are under an Embargo again. However the apparent lack of pressure to sell players by the Deadline-Accounting Period runs until 30th June- is very strange.

They surely have a significant hole to fill to the end of this period, having sold Stadium (to immediate UK parent in 2017/18 and to Chinese parent from immediate UK parent in 2018/19 at a Profit), old Training Ground, Land around Stadium and loaned Aluko to owners Chinese Club for £3m in 2018/19.

Despite all this, their position is problematic. Not just to 2021 but going into 2021/22- a deadline is a deadline, he'll they even turned down a bid for Moore in 2018, Loader 2019 and perhaps Swift 2020! They appear to be disregarding entirely aspects of the Regulations.

Stoke

Was going to post a little bit about my confusion as to why Clucas is currently available on a free as per Nixon, but will cost £3m after June?? Have to assume there is some kind of FFP link there, though Wimmer, Lindsay, potentially NDiaye have all gone and they are clearly working hard to shift players, indeed have been since January 2020 when they loaned a load out. Allen has also been linked with a move and there are a clutch of others who possibly need shifting, albeit unsure by when: Bauer, Martins Indi, Etebo, Afobe, Gregory, Vokes.

However their position is about to improve. Reports that they have accepted that Nathan Collins is off to Burnley for £12m. This was mooted a few weeks ago, assume that Stoke were holding out for a greater fee or bidding war. Academy Product=£12m Profit.

Anyway this combined with continued efforts to cut back and working with the EFL, points deductions suddenly start to look a bit less likely- big contrast to Reading??

The two regulars in this thread.

Derby

They still seem to be under Embargo and rightly so. There are many reasons why they would merit an Embargo. Even if they got through to 2021, that mooted £31m loss in 2018/19, that is the new Starting point for the cycle.

The Stadium Sale drops off and that takes its place- as we know, it's 2018/19, combined average of 2019/20 and 2020/21 and going into 2021/22! Future Financial Information, T+1 etc.

Also possibly of interest- or possibly not- the Confirmation Statements for Club DCFC Limited, The Derby County FC Academy Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited are all showing as overdue at CH- as for that matter is Sevco 5112 Limited albeit in that case, it's the 2020 one that's overdue never mind 2021!!

No Accounts for all those companies, the Club or Gellaw Newco 203 Limited for 2018/19 despite the extension and if nothing in 9 days, it'll be two years worth that are overdue!? They're due by end of June. Let's call it 2 weeks as it can take a few days to process.

Some other Confirmation Statements might also be due soon but not really looked in depth.

Sheffield Wednesday

In theory a fantastic FFP position as the Stadium Sale rolled forward to 2018/19 after the Independent Panel Ruling. In practice, will the EFL accept in effect a double benefit? Wages may have dropped, certainly in 2020/21.

I don't understand how they're getting away with other issues though. Players can invoke their notice period so what gives. Reports are that no full payment since February ie that was the last time.

PFA appear to be involved, and it's not like some won't have interest either. Windass eg is linked with Stoke, Millwall, Fulham I think, possibly more. Millwall in fact I believe had a bid rejected for him. Reports suggest that he's valued at £2m. 

Borner was set to go back to Germany on a free but that seems to have stalled. Seemed a pragmatic deal-allowed to go to Hannover on a free in lieu of cash owed to him, wants to go back for family reasons- joined on a free too, not a profit but a net saving all the same.

One local report did suggest that once all those released finally off the payroll that the situation would improve significantly but that's not good enough. Well it will improve matters but outstanding money due is outstanding money due!! 15 day notice also set in stone.

As well as Windass and the proposed return to Germany for Borner, I'd also suggest that with injuries in some cases being a caveat, Bannan, Dunkley, Iorfa, Paterson off the top of my head could all attract interest for one reason or another. Urhoghide too but unsure of his contractual situation.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

A few others of interest. Wycombe released their Small Company Accounts, £1.5m loss in 2019/20.

We're still awaiting Charlton for last season, Wigan too though the Administration probably means we won't see them. In HK Holding Company (at that time) translated across, it may well have been around £20m- both League 1 now however.

Still awaiting Watford and the Parent, Hornets Investment Limited for 2019/20. 3 year FFP loss in Covid times would be £88.5m with that combined 2019/20, 2020/21 so I can't see them failing but who knows!

As for Fulham, we are still awaiting the Accounts for their Promotion season- 2019/20. The Upper Loss limit will be consistent at £72m with that combined average. They are quite big spenders, and there was an interesting snippet in Ahead of The Game last August when it was suggested that had Fulham missed promotion, it would have been a Soft Embargo!

The outstanding Accounts due at CH by 30th June, and this is for the Club, the Parent of the Club and the overall top Company- so Fulham FC, Fulham Football Leisure and Cougar Holdco London.

Will the EFL be picking up where they left off on that now they're back in the Championship.

PPS, too late to edit the relevant Post, but Woods might also be on the list that Stoke are looking to offload- we could do worse!! I'd also add Martins Indi but given he was at AZ Alkmaar last year, would such a move appeal to him?

Edited June 22, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Leveller]

What does the new Derby announcement actually mean? £100K fine but could still be relegated in place of Wycombe if the restated accounts don’t fit the bill!

[Davefevs]

@Mr Popodopolous did you or someone have a calculation of the annual impact of using a straight line amortisation model on Derby’s accounts?  Does that tip them into P&S breach, and therefore points deduction territory?

I thought it was tight enough with stadium sell, but seem to recall a £30m amortisation discrepancy, possible worse?

@Hxj you may know too???

[Hxj]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Mr Popodopolous did you or someone have a calculation of the annual impact of using a straight line amortisation model on Derby’s accounts?  Does that tip them into P&S breach, and therefore points deduction territory?

I thought it was tight enough with stadium sell, but seem to recall a £30m amortisation discrepancy, possible worse?

@Hxj you may know too???

My understanding has always been that DCFC the amortisation methodology was used by Derby to avoid failing FFP.  Reading the decisions it was clear to me that the question always asked was 'How little do we need to avoid a problem.'

The EFL seem to agree.

Mind you I did spill my coffee all over my desk when I heard the news.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Mr Popodopolous did you or someone have a calculation of the annual impact of using a straight line amortisation model on Derby’s accounts?  Does that tip them into P&S breach, and therefore points deduction territory?

I thought it was tight enough with stadium sell, but seem to recall a £30m amortisation discrepancy, possible worse?

@Hxj you may know too???

I looked at this a little while ago, and will revisit it- using a combination of the figures in the Independent Disciplinary Commission and the figures provided by @AnotherDerbyFan a while ago with differing methods of Amortisation.

Curiously, I also see Kieran Maguire mentioning something about £12m in debt cancellation as income or similar.

I digress, going to do a quick calculation based on that now...

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

There is a thorny issue of course, why did the EFL accept two different valuations for Pride Park- surely they should have insisted on the £74.4m as opposed to the £81.1m, for P&S purposes- this one is taking the higher one, also the rent seems about £3m too light unless that's still open to argument, £4.1m is fine, £1.1m is a nonsense- days used, well I don't see evidence...

Let's take this as red anyway- the Rent wouldn't affect this particular 3 year period.

Amortisation in the years in q using Derby's method

Total from 2015/16 to 2017/18 under this method

£14.95m.

Total using Straight Line with Contract Extensions

£35.93m.

That's a swing of about £20.98m in Amortisation.

This post is where the figures arise from.

Then elsewhere and later, @AnotherDerbyFan suggested that IIRC, the Ince Profit would be £2m higher under the EFL's preferred method.

Very rough and early calculations- assuming all else being equal- suggests that:

Final early and quick estimated total

£22,482,000 - £2,000,000 + £20,980,000=£41,462,000.

Very tight but all other things being equal, that would be a £2,462,000 overspend- 3 point deduction!

Even if I misremembered and it's e.g. £3m higher, that would still be a £1,462,000 overspend and sufficient for a 3 point deduction as per the Regulations and past precedent, Tariff etc.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

No surprise but anyway...

Never mind the Embargoes- they have been pushing upper limits for some time, when will charges follow?? 30th June is when their Reporting Period is to...position looks less than ideal based on what we know so far of 2017/18, 2018/19 and the half of 2019/20 with the half of 2020/21 to follow.

We think Stoke may or may not be around upper limits but they seem to be proactively trying to move players on, starting with their Loan Strategy in IIRC Jan 2020, what the hell are Reading doing??

Edited June 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

No surprise but anyway...

Never mind the Embargoes- they have been pushing upper limits for some time, when will charges follow?? 30th June is when their Reporting Period is to...position looks less than ideal based on what we know so far of 2017/18, 2018/19 and the half of 2019/20 with the half of 2020/21 to follow.

We think Stoke may or may not be around upper limits but they seem to be proactively trying to move players on, starting with their Loan Strategy in IIRC Jan 2020, what the hell are Reading doing??

Take the pi$$….and about to find out they won’t get away with it!

[Mr Popodopolous]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Take the pi$$….and about to find out they won’t get away with it!

Agreed- that or they're resigned to failing so not going to bother selling players or trying to scramble them out the door by 30th June- or maybe they have a firesale lined up to be announced on 30th June to stave off sanctions.

Olise, Meite, Swift, Joao- plus maybe Rafael, Moore, Puscas- Yiadom and Rinomhota also have a book value of zero so...could also make a case for Ejaria who joined relatively cheaply and Laurent who was okay and joined on a free.

The long and short is that Reading clearly have saleable assets.

Little bit of the Percy article...looks like more charges on other matters for Derby and Sheffield Wednesday, this time late payment of Players!

Quote

It is also understood that Derby and Sheffield Wednesday are facing an EFL investigation over the failure to pay their players last season.

Rightly so.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could be something, could be nothing- as in close to limits so limits in play, but not close enough for a Hard Embargo and further action, could simply be linked to no Accounts yet at CH...

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19399086.blackburn-rovers-transfer-embargo-explained-amid-hilton-hold-up

Blackburn seem or seem to have been unable to renew a young goalkeepers contract owing to the Soft Embargo.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

30th June update.

Blackburn

Accounts due at CH today, apparently they were submitted last week but no sign...

Reading

Appear to have sold nobody despite a possible impending FFP crunch- a third year of Soft Embargo or whatever won't cut it, unsure how they aren't over limits.

Other News

Nothing yet Accounts wise for Fulham, Watford, Charlton, Wigan be it club or Parent Company- all due 30th June, albeit the old companies in Admin for Wigan so it may make it moot.

Give it a week to 10 days as CH surely will have a backlog...

Gone a bit quiet on the Stoke front, but surely they haven't heard the last of their £30m attempted Covid Impairment- seems a bit dodgy.

Derby

As of tomorrow, the Accounts will technically be a whole year overdue. Again allow for 10 day caveat due to Covid backlogs potentially..

Still awaiting 2018/19, never mind 2019/20 Accounts for the following:

1. The Derby County Football Club Limited
2. The Derby County FC Academy Limited
3. Club DCFC Limited
4. Stadia DCFC Limited
5. Sevco 5112 Limited
6. Gellaw Newco 203 Limited

Plus Confirmation Statements as of 2021 for the following, as in overdue:

1. The Derby County FC Academy Limited
2. Club DCFC Limited
3. Stadia DCFC Limited

Plus the Confirmation Statement that was due last August/September- ie as of 2020:

Sevco 5112 Limited

Further to this, the Confirmation Statements for the following are due as of, well round about now- maybe add a week to 10 days to deadlines due to Covid:

1. Gellaw Newco 203 Limited- dated 17th June 2021, due by 1st July 2021.
2. Gellaw Newco 202 Limited- dated 18th June 2021, due by 2nd July 2021.
3. Gellaw Newco 204 Limited- dated 17th June 2021, due by 2nd July 2021.

Sheffield Wednesday

Accounts for all of Sheffield 2 Limited, Sheffield 3 Limited and Sheffield 5 Limited all showing as overdue- Confirmation Statements all in now.

The Club Accounts not due until end of July, it's unclear if the Confirmation Statement is overdue here because it says dated 8th June 2021, due by 22nd June 2021 but nothing yet showing...

Edited June 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

May as well add a little- Watford's Accounts are out on their website, albeit not Hornets Investment Limited- unsure how it all feeds in but...

In short, their Upper Loss Limit- as 3 PL, 1 Championship and the combined average would have been £88.5m...not a chance they failed to 2021 IMO!

Very quick look...£88.5m that's before any FFP allowances, Covid Allowances or theoretical Promotion Bonuses.

1. 2017/18- LOSS- £31,615,000
2. 2018/19- PROFIT- £9,764,000
3. 2019/20- LOSS- £35,601,000

That means they need a loss of £85m this season before FFP, Covid Allowances or Promotion Bonuses- but there's more.

Covid Losses for 2019/20 stated as...

£9,906,325.

As for FFP deductions, not really sure but at minimum it's:

Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets- Owned

1. 2017/18- £3,383,000
2. 2018/19- £4,037,000
3. 2019/20- £4,630,000

Total Depreciation of Owned Tangible Fixed Assets- £12,050,000.

Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets- Held Under Finance Leases

dunno if this counts towards FFP, or is excluded or what).

1. 2017/18- £218,000
2. 2018/19- £197,000
3. 2019/20- £263,000

Total Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets- Held Under Finance Leases- £678,000.

A claim of £51.1m of Profit on Disposal of Players in 2020/21?? Seems a bit toppy to me but anyway that's probably the Total Cash but perhaps not the Total Book Value of disposal? £30-35m? Not really looked in depth.

Anyway I'd be surprised if they had FFP issues to 2021 but who can say. They'd have needed a £100m+ loss in 2020/21 before Promotion Bonuses, before FFP allowances for the season, before Covid costs for the season to be in with a chance of failing it.

Fulham OTOH, that will be more interesting when they deign to release their Accounts.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One bit of GOOD news. Better late than never and it's about 2 years too late, in fact it's a loophole that should never have been opened, it's still unclear as to why it was- odd typo by Kieran Maguire.

I do recall Stoke were mooted to be selling it or looking at it...the Land Registry still shows nothing.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they were planning to do it this season and found that it was now not permitted for P&S. 

I would also add, Training Facilities should also be on the list of Profits on Fixed Assets excluded for P&S- maybe all Fixed Assets should be- and furthermore, there should be a strictly stated method for Amortisation for P&S purposes.

There was another loophole that pissed me off as well, but I cannot now recall- it needs closing and indeed should have been some time ago.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One bit of GOOD news. Better late than never and it's about 2 years too late, in fact it's a loophole that should never have been opened, it's still unclear as to why it was- odd typo by Kieran Maguire.

I do recall Stoke were mooted to be selling it or looking at it...the Land Registry still shows nothing.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they were planning to do it this season and found that it was now not permitted for P&S. 

I would also add, Training Facilities should also be on the list of Profits on Fixed Assets excluded for P&S- maybe all Fixed Assets should be- and furthermore, there should be a strictly stated method for Amortisation for P&S purposes.

There was another loophole that pissed me off as well, but I cannot now recall- it needs closing and indeed should have been some time ago.

Deft bit of Malapropism by Kieren there - I'm guessing he meant circumvent.  

Then again, it’s no skin off my nose if he got the word wrong!  

 

 

[PHILINFRANCE]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Deft bit of Malapropism by Kieren there - I'm guessing he meant circumvent.  

Then again, it’s no skin off my nose if he got the word wrong!  

 

 

I saw that and just assumed it was referring obliquely to some previous message/article or perhaps an in-joke.

And, Yes, I got the reference to skin, nose .