Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Mr Popodopolous

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

(Potentially) very interesting Tweet by Andy Holt here- or is it that only Championship clubs would've voted on the regulation about asset sales counting towards FFP?

Certainly makes you wonder...

It's a Championship only rule so I can't imagine he'd have had a vote on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

It's a Championship only rule so I can't imagine he'd have had a vote on it.

Makes sense.

Still, and especially under Harvey, I wouldn't put much past the EFL. This subtle yet important rule change certainly was slipped through, usually there is something on the website or some kind of publicity.

Was notable that the Telegraph article said when this rule was changed, they didn't expect clubs to utilise it. Big failings in Governance!

Reading your forum is interesting, a few cite Leeds doing sale and leaseback. It's not quite the same- initially it was when they were screwed in the mid 2000s.

That was to a third party I believe and rent was paid. Unsure how much they profited but was surely not double NBV at that time (I know NBV misleading, not sale price etc). £8m!! 2004 money granted but £8m!!

They now lease it from the owner but he brought it back from a 3rd party- Leeds certainly didn't profit in anything like the same way.

I don't have such a problem with it if it's a true 3rd party, unrelated arms length transaction as a club is taking a real risk in that scenario!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Makes sense.

Still, and especially under Harvey, I wouldn't put much past the EFL. This subtle yet important rule change certainly was slipped through, usually there is something on the website or some kind of publicity.

Was notable that the Telegraph article said when this rule was changed, they didn't expect clubs to utilise it. Big failings in Governance!

The thing I don't get is, if Championship clubs were given a vote on the rules, then surely they must have known it said this?

Even if it was unintentionally removed during the change of rules, wouldn't all of the Championship clubs have been given a copy of the rules to go over before any vote? Surely that's what would've happened?

If that's the case then I don't see it as only the EFL's problem, because if so many clubs are against the rules saying that then surely one of them would have noticed and pointed it out at the time?

I can't help but wonder if they knew full well it said it and it's only now become an issue because of how it's been used?

🤷‍♀️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

The thing I don't get is, if Championship clubs were given a vote on the rules, then surely they must have known it said this?

Even if it was unintentionally removed during the change of rules, wouldn't all of the Championship clubs have been given a copy of the rules to go over before any vote? Surely that's what would've happened?

If that's the case then I don't see it as only the EFL's problem, because if so many clubs are against the rules saying that then surely one of them would have noticed and pointed it out at the time?

I can't help but wonder if they knew full well it said it and it's only now become an issue because of how it's been used?

🤷‍♀️

Agreed, seems pretty odd...

Certainly you'd think so- hope so too!

Yes, agreed. Surprised that a lot of clubs seemed not to raise this as an issue, certainly not in public, before the fact.

I wonder too. Have to say all seems quite odd. Part of me thinks it's EFL looking to limit damage/flak post Bolton and Bury.

I don't like the practice with related parties but I do wonder what exactly the EFL expected, how they believed clubs would use the rule! Don't think Harvey was all that bothered in general IMO.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

(Potentially) very interesting Tweet by Andy Holt here- or is it that only Championship clubs would've voted on the regulation about asset sales counting towards FFP?

Certainly makes you wonder...

Mmmmmmm!!!!

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

(Potentially) very interesting Tweet by Andy Holt here- or is it that only Championship clubs would've voted on the regulation about asset sales counting towards FFP?

Certainly makes you wonder...

Mmmmmmm!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed, seems pretty odd...

Certainly you'd think so- hope so too!

Yes, agreed. Surprised that a lot of clubs seemed not to raise this as an issue, certainly not in public.

I wonder too. Have to say all seems quite odd. Part of me thinks it's EFL looking to limit damage/flak post Bolton and Bury.

I don't like the practice with related parties but I do wonder what exactly the EFL expected, how they believed clubs would use the rule! Don't think Harvey was all that bothered in general IMO.

I agree, there was surely only one way it was going to be used, unless they felt that maybe clubs who were selling old stadiums/training grounds or extra pockets of land should have the profits included?

Obviously if clubs weren't aware of it at the time of vote then it's a very different situation, I just can't see that being the case if they are the ones who have to ok the rules.

I think the EFL are trying to repair their reputation after Bury, Bolton, Blackpool and others.

However, I don't think they should be making a point of looking into clubs that have followed the rules as they are written, even if it wasn't as intended, if the intention was different it should have explicitly said it.

All they're doing by doing this rather than nipping it in the bud is causing more resentment between clubs, their owners and fans which will cause more issues in the long run that they'll then have to deal with.

The Leeds owner is clearly still bitter with us after last season due to both Spygate and the play offs, but as Mel Morris said somewhere, it might have been one of his Talksport interviews, I can't remember, as soon as Bielsa did his press conference telling everyone that he'd done it to all teams it was out of our control. I guess we reported it at the time as we probably felt we had to as it had gotten out via the Police tweet on the day, but we didn't know it would blow up into what it did.

I don't know if you follow Andy Holt's tweets in general? It's quite obvious he knows and likes Mel Morris, I also notice a few people have tried to draw him into saying bad things but he's brushed them off, most of it is from Forest and Leeds fans for obvious reasons, some examples of both below

The one below is after we played them in the FA Cup last season

Even Kieran Maguire himself is trying to stir things up, I've noticed before that he does this a lot, but I guess it gets him more work if he does!

The below is a thread of comments from Andy Holt about the EFL, he mentions Mel

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

I agree, there was surely only one way it was going to be used, unless they felt that maybe clubs who were selling old stadiums/training grounds or extra pockets of land should have the profits included?

Obviously if clubs weren't aware of it at the time of vote then it's a very different situation, I just can't see that being the case if they are the ones who have to ok the rules.

I think the EFL are trying to repair their reputation after Bury, Bolton, Blackpool and others.

However, I don't think they should be making a point of looking into clubs that have followed the rules as they are written, even if it wasn't as intended, if the intention was different it should have explicitly said it.

All they're doing by doing this rather than nipping it in the bud is causing more resentment between clubs, their owners and fans which will cause more issues in the long run that they'll then have to deal with.

The Leeds owner is clearly still bitter with us after last season due to both Spygate and the play offs, but as Mel Morris said somewhere, it might have been one of his Talksport interviews, I can't remember, as soon as Bielsa did his press conference telling everyone that he'd done it to all teams it was out of our control. I guess we reported it at the time as we probably felt we had to as it had gotten out via the Police tweet on the day, but we didn't know it would blow up into what it did.

I don't know if you follow Andy Holt's tweets in general? It's quite obvious he knows and likes Mel Morris, I also notice a few people have tried to draw him into saying bad things but he's brushed them off, most of it is from Forest and Leeds fans for obvious reasons, some examples of both below

The one below is after we played them in the FA Cup last season

Even Kieran Maguire himself is trying to stir things up, I've noticed before that he does this a lot, but I guess it gets him more work if he does!

The below is a thread of comments from Andy Holt about the EFL, he mentions Mel

 

 

Agreed. Sale of old land and old ground seems fair enough I guess, but then again given infrastructure investment doesn't count under FFP there could be a case for harmonization there.

We'll see what comes out in the wash I guess. Pretty unlikely to say the least though, as you say!

Yes, think that is part of it- trying to pre-empt the possibility of outside regulation too, after some bad years (largely under Shaun Harvey).

Agree that the rules should've been explicit, you need fully clear rules but at the same time, I think that to leave it unchecked won't go well- a lot of owners and hierarchy, albeit privately, are pretty resentful about it IMO. The Hillsborough sale and leaseback has a feeling of the final straw, given the context around that particular transaction! How the hell that was signed off as okay...

Oh they need to change the rules pdq. However I agree with the investigations- as I touched upon above, I cannot see this issue being left alone without it, all those clubs who have sold quite big, made sacrifices, restraint in the window. If the valuations broadly correct then fair enough, we change the rules and we move forward- but if not...for the sake of the integrity of the competition I believe this is very necessary.

Police Tweet and Lampard's (Derby's?) version of events didn't quite overlap entirely IIRC. Bielsa's press conference though pretty honest, was pretty ill-judged! I remember the discrepancies though.

See the odd Tweet, unsure if I follow him on Twitter- if I don't I will now! Definitely a good read.

Mel Morris- I'm conflicted on him! He does this FFP related stuff, notably the sale and leaseback, Rooney stuff and maybe the variance in amortisation model, yet clearly he is a local owner- read he went to watch Derby in the 1970s? He seems to have a good connection with your fans- seen him leading the bounce at Accrington on YouTube eg, in the stand itself! If it wasn't for the FFP stuff, he'd be up there in the mould of Coates, Gibson and Lansdown- in that category, yet he shares a number of characteristics, FFP notwithstanding! I have respect for him being a true fan but I don't like some of the FFP practices is how I'd sum it up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I think the Inquiry is necessary to stem some of the ill feeling and to assure that nobody has done anything they shouldn't.

Consider- the many questions over Sheffield Wednesday- but let's take a look at valuations and prices paid here in 2 cases.

Sheffield Wednesday- and tbh they are worthy of a separate investigation dedicated to a scrutiny of their conduct IMO!

£60m.

Revalued at depreciated replacement cost on 1st February 2014 at £22.25m! No huge evidence of significant upgrades since then- that's £60m, kerching?? Where is the add back on of value, where is the Reversal of Impairment etc? Certainly nothing listed in the accounts about a revaluation  and a significant one such as that can seriously offset losses (dunno if it counts for FFP though).

Aston Villa.

£56.7m.

Which sounds realistic but consider that in 2015/16 season, there was a write-down on the value of Villa Park or it will be largely Villa Park- the write-down as per the Recon Sports accounts was £44,593,000 on freehold buildings, under Tangible Fixed Assets. Will have to look in depth but don't recall any write up, add back on of value in their subsequent 2 seasons of accounts. Maybe their 2018/19 accounts will show it? That write down took it to under £30m, once historic total depreciation etc factored in! No Reversal of Impairment appears to be listed either!

The others?

Derby, I cannot make my mind up on- overvalued or fair? It's the highest and is eyecatchingly high considering the other sale and leaseback prices but then again local and specific factors...we'll see I guess.

Reading- can't have many complaints about £26.5m surely. Lack of revaluation over the 20 years or sp could change the equation possibly.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed. Sale of old land and old ground seems fair enough I guess, but then again given infrastructure investment doesn't count under FFP there could be a case for harmonization there.

We'll see what comes out in the wash I guess. Pretty unlikely to say the least though, as you say!

Yes, think that is part of it- trying to pre-empt the possibility of outside regulation too, after some bad years (largely under Shaun Harvey).

Agree that the rules should've been explicit, you need fully clear rules but at the same time, I think that to leave it unchecked won't go well- a lot of owners and hierarchy, albeit privately, are pretty resentful about it IMO. The Hillsborough sale and leaseback has a feeling of the final straw, given the context around that particular transaction! How the hell that was signed off as okay...

Oh they need to change the rules pdq. However I agree with the investigations- as I touched upon above, I cannot see this issue being left alone without it, all those clubs who have sold quite big, made sacrifices, restraint in the window. If the valuations broadly correct then fair enough, we change the rules and we move forward- but if not...for the sake of the integrity of the competition I believe this is very necessary.

Police Tweet and Lampard's (Derby's?) version of events didn't quite overlap entirely IIRC. Bielsa's press conference though pretty honest, was pretty ill-judged! I remember the discrepancies though.

See the odd Tweet, unsure if I follow him on Twitter- if I don't I will now! Definitely a good read.

Mel Morris- I'm conflicted on him! He does this FFP related stuff, notably the sale and leaseback, Rooney stuff and maybe the variance in amortisation model, yet clearly he is a local owner- read he went to watch Derby in the 1970s? He seems to have a good connection with your fans- seen him leading the bounce at Accrington on YouTube eg, in the stand itself! If it wasn't for the FFP stuff, he'd be up there in the mould of Coates, Gibson and Lansdown- in that category, yet he shares a number of characteristics, FFP notwithstanding! I have respect for him being a true fan but I don't like some of the FFP practices is how I'd sum it up.

True, I understand why they like to allow spending on infrastructure because it's better for fans experience if it keeps improving. The only problem is, by having the FFP rules in the way they are, so that owners can't put money in even if they want to, clubs end up pricing out fans with sky high ticket prices. I assume it is because of FFP as it seemed to be when that was implemented that prices started going crazy, as clubs now need their income to be as high as possible to compete at the top end and, for Championship and lower clubs, tickets are likely their highest source of income outside of player transfers (which you cannot always guarantee will happen).

I should have been clear, I have no issue with investigations, they're always needed so things remain in check, the problem for me is letting it get out in the press with no official comment on what you're actually doing. Either do it quietly and if theres a problem publicise it then when you can put some meat on the bones, or make regular statements about the situation and actually keep people informed (and their comments in check) by stating what was ok and stating what you're actually checking to make sure it is ok.

What I mean is when it was first reported it was we are all 'cheats' because of the actual sales (not the values of the sales), the clubs involved are having to defend themselves for doing something that is within the rules (and even now some people don't seem to realise that the rules allow this!) did anyone from the EFL come out and say anything? I can't remember anyone saying look the rules allow profit from sales but we're going to check the valuations to make sure they're ok. They let it blow up into something big, they let some club owners openly say other clubs were cheating and threaten legal action, is that a healthy situation?

And then by letting this about the valuations get out in the way it has everyone jumps on it, again, people (fans so far this time, not sure I've seen further comments from anyone else yet) calls the clubs involved 'cheats', and seemingly expects there to be punishment because of the way they've let the press whip everyone up into a frenzy again. At this point no one even knows if the Times are right do they? I've not seen an official statement from someone at the EFL unless I've missed it, in which case it's not been very well reported. If the Times are right then when are the valuations going to be done? What happens if they come back and the values are ok? (I'm not saying that all will do because I only know us and Villa said we got valuations, I'm not sure about the other two clubs involved) Do they hope it just quietly goes away? Or do they actually make a statement clearing the clubs of blame? What then happens to the club owners that called the clubs out for cheating, do they just get to say that and have no comeback for it?

It's a massive mess!

Re Spygate: I was actually on about the initial Police tweet - the tweet below is the one that first put Spygate into the public domain and it all blew up from there.

I didn't want to go into it detail because it's over and done with, I only mentioned it above because I think it's helped influence the Leeds owners attitude to us over everything else, but as you've mentioned about the discrepancies I will.

The day of the game (the day after the tweet above) the club made a statement on the official site, but it was being reported openly by then because of the above tweet, so I assume they felt they needed to say something as they didn't want to let it run and run without comment.

The Police said it wasn't them who told the club who the man was or any information, so I don't know what happened and who exactly confirmed the mans identity or who confirmed what he was carrying, but Lampard said he heard from the Police about the wire cutters. Lampard also said he spoke to Bielsa the day before the game (the day it happened) and he admitted to sending him, but he would have known who he was before that I assume(??).

Lampard and some of our players (CarsonKeogh, there may be others, I can't remember, it's very difficult to find things due to the sheer amount of articles on Spygate) said the Police came into/onto the training ground but the Police said they didn't, the whole thing is very, very confusing!!

I do believe the club have a lot of cameras at the training ground, at least covering the pitches for recording training/games to analyse, so I assume there would've been video of the events at the time that might have cleared things up for the EFL/FA? 🤷‍♀️

In one of those links above (I think I put that one in!) Lampard said that our kitman had seen the same man before the first game with Leeds last season, our second game of the season I think it was (depending on when the cup game was), and he had been told to move on. There's another article here (which may or may not be correct or relevant) where a member of the public said they'd seen a man 'in the hedgerow' several times during the season.

There were a lot of people that assumed it was the club who contacted the Police, but Mel Morris confirmed on Talksport that it was a neighbour (there are houses directly across the road). The comment's I mentioned in my previous post, about once he admitted doing it to everyone, are also on this link, I thought it was on Talksport.

I remember Bielsa's press conference, the Leeds fans thought it was hilarious that he'd told the world our tactics, it was a few hours before we played at Southampton in our FA Cup replay (which we won on penalties) and then we went on to get 2 more points than Leeds in the remainder of the season! On the 16th Jan (day of the press conference) we were 11 points behind them (43-54), we finished 9 points behind them (74-83).

Re: Rooney, did you see the article about this on Friday? There are some comments in there from 32red's general manager. He makes it very clear that the deal is as I said it was before (as was always going to be the case, it was the only way we could have done it!) yes they are paying us more because we are signing Rooney, but it is us they are paying and not Rooney himself, it is us that will pay Rooney via the increased sponsorship, that's just very good business sense from us.

I'm not sure why how we deal with amortisation is at all relevant, we still have to account for their full value at some point whilst they're under contract, or take less of a profit (or a loss) if we sell them. In fact a lot of our high value players (from the time they were high value compared to most other clubs signings, rather than now where every club seems to be signing high value players) are now off the books due to their contracts ending or being released (Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman) so we will have had to account for it now anyway, whilst we're still in the Championship, so I don't see the problem, it's not like we've got away with not having to take the hit is it?

I think this is where Mel Morris gets unfair criticism, he mentioned before about Boro selling their tax loss to their parent company to make it revenue. Seemingly perfectly allowed within the rules of the time (as he consistently asserts we have been now) gave them a presumably unfair advantage, but no one says anything negative or holds it against Gibson as something that he's done morally wrong! Why is Mel Morris being held to different standards? It is obvious to see his frustration in his comments in the article above, and I think it's completely understandable.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know for certain whether any of Villa, Wednesday, Derby or Reading would have breached ffp limits were it not for the profit from the sale of the stadium?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

True, I understand why they like to allow spending on infrastructure because it's better for fans experience if it keeps improving. The only problem is, by having the FFP rules in the way they are, so that owners can't put money in even if they want to, clubs end up pricing out fans with sky high ticket prices. I assume it is because of FFP as it seemed to be when that was implemented that prices started going crazy, as clubs now need their income to be as high as possible to compete at the top end and, for Championship and lower clubs, tickets are likely their highest source of income outside of player transfers (which you cannot always guarantee will happen).

I should have been clear, I have no issue with investigations, they're always needed so things remain in check, the problem for me is letting it get out in the press with no official comment on what you're actually doing. Either do it quietly and if theres a problem publicise it then when you can put some meat on the bones, or make regular statements about the situation and actually keep people informed (and their comments in check) by stating what was ok and stating what you're actually checking to make sure it is ok.

What I mean is when it was first reported it was we are all 'cheats' because of the actual sales (not the values of the sales), the clubs involved are having to defend themselves for doing something that is within the rules (and even now some people don't seem to realise that the rules allow this!) did anyone from the EFL come out and say anything? I can't remember anyone saying look the rules allow profit from sales but we're going to check the valuations to make sure they're ok. They let it blow up into something big, they let some club owners openly say other clubs were cheating and threaten legal action, is that a healthy situation?

And then by letting this about the valuations get out in the way it has everyone jumps on it, again, people (fans so far this time, not sure I've seen further comments from anyone else yet) calls the clubs involved 'cheats', and seemingly expects there to be punishment because of the way they've let the press whip everyone up into a frenzy again. At this point no one even knows if the Times are right do they? I've not seen an official statement from someone at the EFL unless I've missed it, in which case it's not been very well reported. If the Times are right then when are the valuations going to be done? What happens if they come back and the values are ok? (I'm not saying that all will do because I only know us and Villa said we got valuations, I'm not sure about the other two clubs involved) Do they hope it just quietly goes away? Or do they actually make a statement clearing the clubs of blame? What then happens to the club owners that called the clubs out for cheating, do they just get to say that and have no comeback for it?

It's a massive mess!

Re Spygate: I was actually on about the initial Police tweet - the tweet below is the one that first put Spygate into the public domain and it all blew up from there.

I didn't want to go into it detail because it's over and done with, I only mentioned it above because I think it's helped influence the Leeds owners attitude to us over everything else, but as you've mentioned about the discrepancies I will.

The day of the game (the day after the tweet above) the club made a statement on the official site, but it was being reported openly by then because of the above tweet, so I assume they felt they needed to say something as they didn't want to let it run and run without comment.

The Police said it wasn't them who told the club who the man was or any information, so I don't know what happened and who exactly confirmed the mans identity or who confirmed what he was carrying, but Lampard said he heard from the Police about the wire cutters. Lampard also said he spoke to Bielsa the day before the game (the day it happened) and he admitted to sending him, but he would have known who he was before that I assume(??).

Lampard and some of our players (CarsonKeogh, there may be others, I can't remember, it's very difficult to find things due to the sheer amount of articles on Spygate) said the Police came into/onto the training ground but the Police said they didn't, the whole thing is very, very confusing!!

I do believe the club have a lot of cameras at the training ground, at least covering the pitches for recording training/games to analyse, so I assume there would've been video of the events at the time that might have cleared things up for the EFL/FA? 🤷‍♀️

In one of those links above (I think I put that one in!) Lampard said that our kitman had seen the same man before the first game with Leeds last season, our second game of the season I think it was (depending on when the cup game was), and he had been told to move on. There's another article here (which may or may not be correct or relevant) where a member of the public said they'd seen a man 'in the hedgerow' several times during the season.

There were a lot of people that assumed it was the club who contacted the Police, but Mel Morris confirmed on Talksport that it was a neighbour (there are houses directly across the road). The comment's I mentioned in my previous post, about once he admitted doing it to everyone, are also on this link, I thought it was on Talksport.

I remember Bielsa's press conference, the Leeds fans thought it was hilarious that he'd told the world our tactics, it was a few hours before we played at Southampton in our FA Cup replay (which we won on penalties) and then we went on to get 2 more points than Leeds in the remainder of the season! On the 16th Jan (day of the press conference) we were 11 points behind them (43-54), we finished 9 points behind them (74-83).

Re: Rooney, did you see the article about this on Friday? There are some comments in there from 32red's general manager. He makes it very clear that the deal is as I said it was before (as was always going to be the case, it was the only way we could have done it!) yes they are paying us more because we are signing Rooney, but it is us they are paying and not Rooney himself, it is us that will pay Rooney via the increased sponsorship, that's just very good business sense from us.

I'm not sure why how we deal with amortisation is at all relevant, we still have to account for their full value at some point whilst they're under contract, or take less of a profit (or a loss) if we sell them. In fact a lot of our high value players (from the time they were high value compared to most other clubs signings, rather than now where every club seems to be signing high value players) are now off the books due to their contracts ending or being released (Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman) so we will have had to account for it now anyway, whilst we're still in the Championship, so I don't see the problem, it's not like we've got away with not having to take the hit is it?

I think this is where Mel Morris gets unfair criticism, he mentioned before about Boro selling their tax loss to their parent company to make it revenue. Seemingly perfectly allowed within the rules of the time (as he consistently asserts we have been now) gave them a presumably unfair advantage, but no one says anything negative or holds it against Gibson as something that he's done morally wrong! Why is Mel Morris being held to different standards? It is obvious to see his frustration in his comments in the article above, and I think it's completely understandable.

Certainly agree on Infrastructure expenditure- it should be excluded, ie not count towards FFP. Build up the club, improve it for the fans, in due course extract further revenue streams from it- clearly right to class it as "good" investment. The thing is, at least on the fees front it is interesting to note that the summer expenditure in the Championship was roughly the same as summer 2018 and less than some prior ones- FFP could at this level at least be dampening down things a bit, lower net spend too ie more brought in when it comes to sales, clubs loaning with obligation to buy etc- presumably banking on promotion in some if not all cases! Believe if tightened and tweaked a bit more and of course enforced to the letter it could have a further deflationary effect in time on the Championship transfer market. High ticket prices are an issue, but just seems to be the English game these days unfortunately. Not ideal for the fans though of course!

Agreed! EFL have a number of shortcomings in this regard- I remember Birmingham around this time when that situation started to develop, there were all manner of leaks, often to the Times, but also to the Telegraph and Daily Mail. It was either the EFL leaking to selected outlets, off the record or it was individuals within perhaps who were unhappy with it or who wanted to make an example of Birmingham? Of course they deserved the sanctions and the inquiry etc, but the EFL, the way info got out, intentionally or otherwise, was less than impressive! That process is not good enough though at least it kept fans in the loop in snippets- overall though feels like it needs significant improvement.

That's a very good point. I remember at first jumping on that particular bandwagon a bit for a while, fuming I was- but the way the rules were changed was seemingly quite quietly done? Not very well publicised in any case! You're right though, they should have made that distinction quite clear from the start- the bit about the rules permitting it but question marks over the valuations- Gibson is usually pretty sensible so if it was a change voted on by all? Then again, dunno when that vote took place or if it was EFL board making the decision and clubs just learning of it- unanswered questions there, that again falls on the EFL somewhat!

A massive mess indeed it is- a lot of loose ends to tie up. I do believe there is an inquiry of some description, I doubt that would be incorrectly reported but you never know! Many of the issues you refer to ie owners, we'll have to see. EFL should if the clubs are cleared make a definitive statement I certainly agree! By the same token, if there is a significant discrepancy found they should make this public (subject to commercial confidentiality) too and publicise next steps- subject to if for example the clubs were found to be in the wrong, not prejudicing an EFL independent Disciplinary Commission. In terms of valuations, Reading's seems alright I guess but you posted something I believe- will read this properly tomorrow, was it about Reading? Looked pretty comprehensive! Sheffield Wednesday's is very curious, given that in 2014 there was an independent valuation at DRC of £22.25m!

Looking at their accounts since there seems to be nothing that would justify £60m! Let alone the fact the transaction was dated June 2019, yet it appeared in 2017/18 accounts- accounts which were meant to be at CH on February 28th 2019, made up to May 31st 2019, extended by 2 months so that'd be April 30th 2019 from July 31st 2018 respectively, yet these accounts were not dated until 21st June 2019, and further to this the transaction itself went through on 28th June 2019. Oh and Chansiri said 5-6 months before at a Fans Forum that no promotion meant a failure by 8 figures,  plus it was Sheffield 3 Limited who purchased the property, yet this company was not incorporated until 21st June 2019. I have serious, serious problems with their one! Aston Villa and yourselves- independently valued yes, but an impairment cost, also maybe labelled as a writedown of £44.8m in 2015/16 for Villa Park- unless they wrote it back up in 2018/19, I struggle to see how that fits so well. Derby? Can't make up my mind! I know there was investment on the stadium, but there also would have been depreciation- plus how much of that investment was current, how much was ongoing and how much was planned? Could make a difference..

Thanks, that clears up Spygate then! Bit of a media circus that in general- saw the initial tweet by DCFC Response police and that seemed unprofessional on their part, when I dug it out earlier. Was a major story too!

Yes, their slippage in the League was noticeable- yet their baseline performance levels didn't necessarily drop off in a lot of respects, going on data etc. Their results did somewhat however!

Good business certainly, can see other clubs sponsored by 32Red not being terribly happy about it though- and there are a few! Plus given Huddersfield got fined £50,000 for their shirt thing, there's a definite slight- it's a breach of FA Kit and Advertising regs. Yet Rooney wearing '32' thereby putting '32Red' into the public domain somewhat given the publicity that surrounds him and surrounded the deal, is alright? I certainly won't gamble with them.

I hope so. Doesn't matter when it is accounted for, just so long as it is. I wondered in part if the stadium sale and leaseback was in part to cover the large number of contracts that expired this summer, owing to the amortisation policy. Read different things online though, weren't some of the contracts extended for FFP purposes then the players released- if that reduces the hit taken fair enough I guess, but if it eliminates it...oh yeah the reason I wondered about the Pride Park deal and contracts expiring with the amortisation policy was because in 2015/16 there was a rather large charge of nearly £21.2m, think it was £21,198,000 or something, Impairment of Goodwill- I did wonder if that might have been linked to taking the hit on free transfers? Then again it didn't appear on the Derby accounts so probably not! Wonder how it'll be accounted for though, in the Accounts.

True, I wonder what sort of profit Middlesbrough gained from it though? Could that be one differential, will have to look at their 2015/16 Accounts (Middlesbrough's) and see what arises. I certainly remember no particular media coverage of it at the time. I think it cut their losses by about £6-6.1m. Will have to look into it further tomorrow or so. Gibson has spent quite big in the past though, can't forget that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken an even deeper look at the accounts for Sheffield Wednesday.

Revalued at DRC in 2014, £22.25m.

Revaluiation Reserve is around £6-6.5m.

Additions and Depreciation?

I estimate based on all that, Hillsborough to be in the bracket of £25-30m. Really struggling to see how they came to £60m!

With regards to Derby, £81.1m may well be more realistic than I thought given the Revaluation Reserve- but then again the below muddies the waters a bit in that respect:

I note that in 2015/16 when acquired and possibly when the accounts were written, ie by end of financial year, the:

Vendor's Book Value- £55,601,000.

Fair Value Adjustment- £0.

Fair Value to the Group- £55,601,000.

Note 26, Sevco 5112 Limited accounts. I take Tangible Fixed Assets to be Pride Park- unsure how the Training Ground would be accounted for in these? Actually thinking about it, some of it isn't Pride Park!

Pride Park value.png

OTOH, maybe that £81.1m as of 2018 was the revaluation reserve added to the depreciated fair value to the group by this stage, not fully sure I think so but it is possible. No way was Hillsborough £60m though!!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A part that was unclear in terms of that "Fair Value to the Group", was whether that was inclusive or exclusive of Revaluation Reverse and potential changes to Valuation through the Fair Value adjustments.

If it's a case of adding that Revaluation Reserve to the Fair Value to the group of £55.601m minus the depreciation, non stadia based assets etc then it could well be spot on, the £81.1m. If it's included within though...then I think £50-55m bracket, £60m at a push.

That Revaluation Reserve for the record was £30,295,929 in the 2016/17 accounts.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one curiosity regarding the Revaluation Reserve though.

This Revaluation Reserve at the time Pride Park was purchased back in 2007/08 time, with the subsequent revaluation was £39,554,000.

Yet on getting the ground back and revaluing it, there was an upward revaluation listed in the accounts for that season of £34,147,000- listed as a Revaluation Readjustment.

Revaluation on 11th December 2007 by King Sturge LLP to £55,000,000.

In terms of the Depreciation, there was the re-purchase of Pride Park- cost or valuation of £27,264,000 on 1st July 2007.

So then, was the revaluation reserve separate to, part of or in addition to that upward revaluation- ie how much of it, if any, was already accounted for in terms of the Revaluation Adjustment?

Or is it that regardless of that upward adjustment, you readd the RR in any case?

Double entry maybe?

Revaluation Surplus- similar but different to a Revaluation Reserve?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The one curiosity regarding the Revaluation Reserve though.

This Revaluation Reserve at the time Pride Park was purchased back in 2007/08 time, with the subsequent revaluation was £39,554,000.

Yet on getting the ground back and revaluing it, there was an upward revaluation listed in the accounts for that season of £34,147,000- listed as a Revaluation Readjustment.

Revaluation on 11th December 2007 by King Sturge LLP to £55,000,000.

In terms of the Depreciation, there was the re-purchase of Pride Park- cost or valuation of £27,264,000 on 1st July 2007.

So then, was the revaluation reserve separate to, part of or in addition to that upward revaluation- ie how much of it, if any, was already accounted for in terms of the Revaluation Adjustment?

Or is it that regardless of that upward adjustment, you readd the RR in any case?

Double entry maybe?

Revaluation Surplus- similar but different to a Revaluation Reserve?

Just a quick reply to this, haven't had time to reply to your other posts yet, but was there a repurchase? Until the sale in 2018 I thought the club had ownership of it since it was built, is that not the case?

Edit: Just double checked the notes I made about the accounts (so I didn't have to keep going back into them) the only thing I can see is in the 1999 accounts where I've got it down as transfer from subsidiary company. I haven't looked at the Sevco ones though, are you looking at those or the club ones?

Edited by DerbyFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

Just a quick reply to this, haven't had time to reply to your other posts yet, but was there a repurchase? Until the sale in 2018 I thought the club had ownership of it since it was built, is that not the case?

Edit: Just double checked the notes I made about the accounts (so I didn't have to keep going back into them) the only thing I can see is in the 1999 accounts where I've got it down as transfer from subsidiary company. I haven't looked at the Sevco ones though, are you looking at those or the club ones?

Aaah, my fault- probably.

Could well be getting mortgage/remortgage/sale and leaseback mixed up- did a bit of historical research and saw something about ABC Corporation, and assumed it was out of club ownership for that period? Or was it that ABC took over the club and ground alike. Will look again at the accounts for the early to late 2000's.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/david-conn-pride-park-mortgaged-to-panamanian-company-77225.html

Will look further back in the accounts, to the late 1990s in due course.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/08/2019 at 11:47, Mr Popodopolous said:

8. Any sign of it at Land Registry yet? Last time I heard there was not.

To update on this one, if I haven't already covered it in another part of this thread.

Transaction was listed at Land Registry as having gone through on June 28th 2019.

ECfVXdPWkAAViUL.jpg

Puzzles me given when the accounts were due, dated, signed, the accounting period even when extended- let alone £60m on a ground valued at £22.25m in 2014 and with a £6.4m revaluation reserve in the 2016/17 accounts.

Yeah and the company who purchased it was Sheffield 3 Limited, listed as having been incorporated on 21st June 2019. Owned initially by Sheffield 4 Limited but that in turn was dissolved on 18th July 2019, having been incorporated at CH on 20th June 2019.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Aaah, my fault- probably.

Could well be getting mortgage/remortgage/sale and leaseback mixed up- did a bit of historical research and saw something about ABC Corporation, and assumed it was out of club ownership for that period? Or was it that ABC took over the club and ground alike. Will look again at the accounts for the early to late 2000's.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/david-conn-pride-park-mortgaged-to-panamanian-company-77225.html

Will look further back in the accounts, to the late 1990s in due course.

I'm a bit confused about the whole thing. I didn't really pay much attention to the ins and outs at the time as I was a little too young to know/care/understand about that kind of thing! Having read through I can't figure out if it was sold or mortgaged.

I was just going on the figures in the accounts, and since 1999 it doesn't appear to have ever left the assets. Can you do that if you've sold and only paid rent? I wouldn't have thought you could as it's not your asset?

If you want a bit of light reading (ha!) from around that time just have a Google of 'the three amigos'.

Edited by DerbyFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering whether Mr P and DerbyFan should have their own sub forum ( or get a room :) ) ?

They are discussing ffp at at the level of Einstein while my understanding is the equivalent of my times tables!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/09/2019 at 13:45, DerbyFan said:

I'm a bit confused about the whole thing. I didn't really pay much attention to the ins and outs at the time as I was a little too young to know/care/understand about that kind of thing! Having read through I can't figure out if it was sold or mortgaged.

I was just going on the figures in the accounts, and since 1999 it doesn't appear to have ever left the assets. Can you do that if you've sold and only paid rent? I wouldn't have thought you could as it's not your asset?

If you want a bit of light reading (ha!) from around that time just have a Google of 'the three amigos'.

Fair- tbh you probably have known about football finance etc longer than me, only the last couple of years I've really started to look in depth! 

Makes 2 of us, mortgaged or sold- could there have been a charge on it, perhaps they sold part of it in exchange for cash and rent but less than 50% so it still stayed in the clubs hands?

Ha I will thanks- sounds interesting to say the least.

Looked again at the accounts earlier and my revised interpretation is that- and it's only an interpretation, maybe completely wrong:

Valuation at cost at that time- £20.9m whatever it was, the revaluation took it to £34m or so- anyway the two figures were £20. something million and £34. something million and added together it took it to £55m in 2007 I believe.

Still confuses me though the fact there was a revaluation reserve of £39m in addition- was the true value therefore in 2007 £94-95m? Not entirely sure.

Would it the £20.9m +£34.1m (for simplicity sake let's round it to that) to take it to £55m exclusive of the £39m whatever the exact figure there was in the Revaluation Reserve or would the Revaluiation Reserve in 2007/08 accounts form part of it?

That Note 26 in the 2015/16 Sevco 5112 I also find interesting, but maybe it isn't- seems at that time Fair Value added was £0, therefore the Fair Value to the Group was £55.6m- but maybe once RR added, depreciation factored in and work £81.1m is a lot more credible than it sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other key reason I came on tonight was saw this on Twitter.

EESyL4bX4AEzmF-.jpg:large

It'll be in the Times so I'll make sure I type it tomorrow, the continued on Page 67, if anything significant. :thumbsup:

I believe them to have jumped the gun at this time. It's a drastic step at any time though! Certainly not an advisable move on their part and definitely not at this time IMO. If it ever is.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically they're still crying about finishing behind Derby last season, when actually results wise, Derby were the better team anyway.

Yes there's something dodgy about the Pride Park deal and their chairman, but get over it, and stop crying. 

Not quite sure where the Sky deal comes into it. Nowhere in the article does it mention about Sky....

Edited by Taz
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Hmmm 1
  • Aubergine 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/middlesbrough-to-sue-english-football-league-in-row-over-derby-county-stadium-purchase-w2m38pj6h?shareToken=26f3e4188931848763d7dbf90ea8eeec

Hope this link works.

This penultimate paragraph at the bottom is very interesting- the bit in bold especially:

Quote

If they do face sanctions, insiders suggest there could yet be a case where the EFL has a claim against Derby in response to Middlesbrough’s against the EFL. The Middlesbrough owner Steve Gibson levelled accusations of foul play at Aston Villa, who were promoted in May and sold Villa Park to their owners a month later, and Derby at the Championship’s March meeting. Middlesbrough sent a legal letter to Derby this year.

In other words, if Derby are found to have significantly overvalued- and tbh this is touched upon somewhat in the FFP thread.

If they are though then the EFL as an organisation could yet sue Derby in response to Middlesbrough suing them. Presumably Reading and Sheffield Wednesday too- though tbh claims against Sheffield Wednesday and especially Reading may well be a lot lower. Indemnity of the losses the EFL would occur in the event Middlesbrough's action has some success and if eg Pride Park significantly overvalued plays a role.

Could other PL clubs sue Aston Villa if Villa Park found to be significantly overvalued? Who knows! Maybe the PL themselves or the EFL themselves might! Maybe EFL clubs who have lost out threaten legal action vs the PL and the PL as an organisation in turn sue Aston Villa in the event of a breach?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Taz said:

So basically they're still crying about finishing behind Derby last season, when actually results wise, Derby were the better team anyway.

Yes there's something dodgy about the Pride Park deal and their chairman, but get over it, and stop crying. 

Not quite sure where the Sky deal comes into it. Nowhere in the article does it mention about Sky....

Good stuff I say. It is about time the EFL got held to account for the feeble job they do enforcing FFP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Taz said:

So basically they're still crying about finishing behind Derby last season, when actually results wise, Derby were the better team anyway.

Yes there's something dodgy about the Pride Park deal and their chairman, but get over it, and stop crying. 

Not quite sure where the Sky deal comes into it. Nowhere in the article does it mention about Sky....

Why should they? They paid their players millions of pounds a year, whilst keeping within FFP constraints, to try and get to that position and were pipped to the post by a team who seemingly bent the rules to gain an advantage over everyone else.

Imho if there is a case to be made then Steve Gibson should take it as far as he possibly can. 

It is about time someone stood up to the EFL and Derby, where the sale of their stadium last season and the signing of Rooney this season absolutely stinks. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Why should they? They paid their players millions of pounds a year, whilst keeping within FFP constraints, to try and get to that position and were pipped to the post by a team who seemingly bent the rules to gain an advantage over everyone else.

Imho if there is a case to be made then Steve Gibson should take it as far as he possibly can. 

It is about time someone stood up to the EFL and Derby, where the sale of their stadium last season and the signing of Rooney this season absolutely stinks. 

I make Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday worse tbh. I've done a lot of looking into their accounts for a start- of all 3 in fact, in recent times.

Reading may have breached it by £500k- that'd be a breach of £500,000 over the 3 years as opposed to one year or per year- to June 30th 2018 if not for the ground sale according to one calculation I saw online, but nobody really seems to have passionate and strong feelings about them in the wider football world- good and bad thing.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I make Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday worse tbh. I've done a lot of looking at their accounts for a start- of all 3 in fact, in recent times.

Reading may have breached it by £500k to June 30th 2018 if not for the ground sale according to one calculation I saw online, but nobody really seems to have passionate and strong feelings about them in the wider football world- good and bad thing.

Agree wholeheartedly! It’s sad that it has taken Derby to beat Middlesbrough by a point for someone to finally take action, when there was clearly so much wrongdoing before.

But at least someone has taken the first step in this case! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Agree wholeheartedly! It’s sad that it has taken Derby to beat Middlesbrough by a point for someone to finally take action, when there was clearly so much wrongdoing before.

But at least someone has taken the first step in this case! 

Agreed.

For the record, the reason I have a greater issue with Aston Villa is because they sold nobody of note and actually went again last season- then sold their stadium at the last despite £90m of parachute payments or thereabouts in the 3 seasons! Arrogance of their fan base too, the entitlement.

Then Sheffield Wednesday- their deficit was higher than I anticipated and what makes it worse is the shenanigans over their transaction- that makes very interesting reading tbh. Worth looking in depth at when the accounts were due originally, when they were due on the revised date, when the ground was listed on the Land Registry as having been sold, when the company that purchased it was setup, let alone the valuation in 2014 at depreciated replacement cost by valuers, vs the price it sold for- not even talking net book value here, yes there was a revaluation reserve of around £6.5m but there's a huge difference even factoring that in and small additions. Yeah also Sheffield Wednesday only finally sold Joao in August- they sold nobody of note, for good money between say 2015/16 and 2018/19. 

Oh yes when they appeared at CH vs when they were due 1st and revised time, when the accounts were signed...sure there is more I've missed!! IMO there's a lot more than merely the valuation that at least merits an in depth look.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel Morris on talkSport just starting now. These are summaries of the substance, not direct quotes.

States:

  • They started looking at transaction some 18 months back.
  • A denial it is corrupt.
  • Says that was on current market value, not projected after work and events.
  • Reiterates events during the season could be a huge money-spinner.
  • Makes reference to the roof and puts his business case.
  • Jim White asks a straight question- without the stadium would you have been in breach of FFP?
  • Mel Morris- no straight answer, talks forward planning, player transfers etc- Jim White states he uses a loophole.
  • Mel Morris states nothing done wrong- is allowable.

Simon Jordan:

  • Thinks that if it was any other club doing it, he would call it sabre rattling.
  • Isn't so sure owing to Gibson's track record.
  • Thinks Middlesbrough's actions aimed more at EFL than Derby perse.
  • Considers FFP to be flawed.
  • Thinks Morris is being cute, different to player transaction and believes it will stand up, the valuation that is as it was independent.
  • Doesn't necessarily fit with the ideals of FFP.

 Mel Morris:

  • Wouldn't support the rule change as it would be basically pulling the drawbridge up.
  • Points out on level playing field argument that FFP never intended to create this.
  • Biggest challenge especially at our level the inflation in fees and wages.
  • Premier League the main driver.
  • Also of equal importance, the parachute clubs.
  • Excess funds of clubs that yo-yo, gives them an advantage- £30m, study shows this.
  • Pushes non parachute clubs into a need to react- a financial arms race basically?

Jim White:

  • Only clubs who don't support Middlesbrough clubs are those who want to do that too.

Mel Morris:

  • Great complications- tax etc etc.
  • HMRC- "benefit in kind", other issues, major tax bill if not.
  • Would do it again, as it is within the rules. If you don't like the rules then change them!
  • Talking about Bolton- had they been bankrupted and results expunged, biggest beneficiary would've been Derby.
  • Mentions Shaun Harvey- "Texted him on the morning they played Bolton, and said much disagreement- but applauds him as you have to keep Bolton and all the other clubs alive".
  • No guidance, pushback- took the valuation at face value.
  • Praises Steve Gibson despite this dispute.
Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mel Morris on talkSport just starting now.

States:

  • They started looking at transaction some 18 months back.
  • Denies it is corrupt.
  • Says that was on current market value, not projected after work and events.
  • Reiterates events during the season could be a huge money-spinner.
  • Makes reference to the roof and puts his business case.
  • Jim White asks a straight question- without the stadium would you have been in breach of FFP?
  • Mel Morris- no straight answer, talks forward planning, player transfers etc- Jim White states he uses a loophole.
  • Mel Morris states nothing done wrong- is allowable.

Simon Jordan:

  • Thinks that if it was any other club doing it, he would call it sabre rattling.
  • Isn't so sure owing to Gibson's track record.
  • Thinks Middlesbrough's actions aimed more at EFL than Derby perse.
  • Considers FFP to be flawed.
  • Thinks Morris is being cute, different to player transaction and believes it will stand up, the valuation that is as it was independent.
  • Doesn't necessarily fit with the ideals of FFP.

 Mel Morris:

  • Wouldn't support the rule change as it would be pulling the drawbridge up.
  • Points out on level playing field argument that FFP never intended to create this.
  • Biggest challenge especially at our level the inflation in fees and wages.
  • Premier League the main driver.
  • Also of equal importance, the parachute clubs.
  • Excess funds of clubs that yo-yo, gives them an advantage- £30m, study shows this.
  • Pushes non parachute clubs into a need to react- a financial arms race basically?

Jim White:

  • Only clubs who don't support Middlesbrough clubs want to do that too.

Mel Morris:

  • Great complications- tax etc etc.
  • HMRC- "benefit in kind", other issues, major tax bill if not.
  • Would do it again, as it is within the rules. If you don't like the rules then change them!
  • Talking about Bolton- had they been bankrupted and results expunged, biggest beneficiary would've been Derby.
  • Mentions Shaun Harvey- "Texted him on the morning they played Bolton, and said much disagreement- but applauds him as you have to keep Bolton and all the other clubs alive".
  • No guidance, pushback- took the valuation at face value.
  • Praises Steve Gibson despite this dispute.

Thanks for making a note of what was said, I only caught the last 30 seconds!

I'd guess that Gibson's problem is the Riverside isn't valued at what Pride Park (PP - easier to type!) is and he's wondering how given that PP was basically a copy when built.

But, PP was opened only 2 years after, and (if the quoted figures are correct) it cost £12m more to build, £16m and £28m. So (if correct) that's either the difference in build costs in the 2 years between, or there are other differences, I notice that the link I posted to the costs of PP says: "Architects of Miller Partnership have implemented over 30 alterations" so it depends what those alterations were and how much they vary the costs, I'd hazard a guess that the location would also make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mel Morris on talkSport just starting now. These are summaries of the substance, not direct quotes.

States:

  • They started looking at transaction some 18 months back.
  • A denial it is corrupt.
  • Says that was on current market value, not projected after work and events.
  • Reiterates events during the season could be a huge money-spinner.
  • Makes reference to the roof and puts his business case.
  • Jim White asks a straight question- without the stadium would you have been in breach of FFP?
  • Mel Morris- no straight answer, talks forward planning, player transfers etc- Jim White states he uses a loophole.
  • Mel Morris states nothing done wrong- is allowable.

Simon Jordan:

  • Thinks that if it was any other club doing it, he would call it sabre rattling.
  • Isn't so sure owing to Gibson's track record.
  • Thinks Middlesbrough's actions aimed more at EFL than Derby perse.
  • Considers FFP to be flawed.
  • Thinks Morris is being cute, different to player transaction and believes it will stand up, the valuation that is as it was independent.
  • Doesn't necessarily fit with the ideals of FFP.

 Mel Morris:

  • Wouldn't support the rule change as it would be basically pulling the drawbridge up.
  • Points out on level playing field argument that FFP never intended to create this.
  • Biggest challenge especially at our level the inflation in fees and wages.
  • Premier League the main driver.
  • Also of equal importance, the parachute clubs.
  • Excess funds of clubs that yo-yo, gives them an advantage- £30m, study shows this.
  • Pushes non parachute clubs into a need to react- a financial arms race basically?

Jim White:

  • Only clubs who don't support Middlesbrough clubs are those who want to do that too.

Mel Morris:

  • Great complications- tax etc etc.
  • HMRC- "benefit in kind", other issues, major tax bill if not.
  • Would do it again, as it is within the rules. If you don't like the rules then change them!
  • Talking about Bolton- had they been bankrupted and results expunged, biggest beneficiary would've been Derby.
  • Mentions Shaun Harvey- "Texted him on the morning they played Bolton, and said much disagreement- but applauds him as you have to keep Bolton and all the other clubs alive".
  • No guidance, pushback- took the valuation at face value.
  • Praises Steve Gibson despite this dispute.

I've listened to it on the catch up feature now.

Re. the bit in bold, Jim wanted a straight answer but it couldn't be that simple, as I think Mel's point was that as it stands we haven't breached FFP, because we spent what we could within the limits including the stadium sale. So if someone just decides to do some sums and take the stadium sale off from the figures now then we will have but only because we spent up to what we could with it. That doesn't mean that without it we would have failed, it just means that as everything stands now the figures without the sale would show that we would have, because we spent including the sale in the planning, ie. if the sale hadn't happened, then we would have adjusted our spending accordingly and not failed it. You can't just take it off the figures as everything else would have changed without it, that's how I understood it from what he said.

The valuation was always going to be on what was there now, not what was planned. The only way planned things could make a difference to the valuation was surely if there was the permissions for it already granted, like with a house or plot of land, if the permissions are there then it tends to be worth more? The only thing for the future that might potentially have made a difference is that I think the stadium was built to make it easy to expand to 44,000, I've got a feeling that there's some ground works already done for it or something already in place to allow it, I can't remember exactly.

I'm not sure I agree with what Simon said about not being like selling a player from the way that Mel was saying it, from what I remember, Mel was only comparing be able to spend as like being able to spend after selling a player, ie. it's within the rules to sell a player and spend the proceeds, it's within the rules to sell a fixed asset and spend the proceeds, not sure he was trying to compare it in any other way.

I agree with Mel about the pulling the drawbridge up, it's up to the other clubs now whether they want to change the rules, but we wouldn't try and stop them doing something we have done as it would be hypocritical.

Don't really understand Jim's point about the only clubs that don't support Boro are the ones that want to do it too, well yeah, isn't that kind of the point? The ones that don't want to (maybe want to keep the asset within the club/don't want to spend that much money/etc) or can't (don't own their assets/can't spend that much money even if they wanted to/etc) do the same thing aren't likely to want other clubs doing it as it's puts them at a financial disadvantage! But that doesn't mean that we were wrong to do it when it's explicitly allowed within the rules.

Mel's makes an interesting comment about Bolton, from what I remember most people seemed quite confused by the seemingly lenient way the EFL dealt with Bolton compared to other clubs in similar situations, like with Bury this season, they've not been given a lot of time, they were just kicked out. If that means that the rules were potentially stretched at all to let Bolton stay in when they wouldn't normally have been then we would have had a case to be annoyed by it, as we would have benefitted from it more than some others, but Mel says on the day of our game with Bolton he told them he applauded them for doing everything they could. In the end it didn't make a difference to us as we got the place anyway, but he didn't know that we would get it at that point.

Edited by DerbyFan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to go TOO detailed tonight but a couple of quick, interesting snippets- both from the Mail in a roundup of stories on Saturday.

Quote

EFL set to block clubs from exploiting stadium loophole 

The EFL are planning to close the sale-and-lease-back loophole that has allowed several Championship clubs, including Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Reading, to sell their stadiums to sister companies to enable them to comply with Financial Fair Play rules. 

Under a proposal to be discussed at a meeting of Championship clubs later this month, sale-and-lease-back arrangements would continue to be permitted, but as an artificial method of injecting cash the sale would not count on the balance sheet when calculating a club’s profit and sustainability, thus making it less attractive

Derby County sold their stadium to sister companies to comply with Financial Fair Play rules
 
+3
  •  

Derby County sold their stadium to sister companies to comply with Financial Fair Play rules

Under EFL rules, clubs who lose more than £39million over a three-year period face being docked points, the punishment given to Birmingham City last season. 

A number of Championship clubs have complained that by selling and leasing back their grounds their rivals are cheating the system, with Middlesbrough threatening to sue both Derby and the EFL over the issue.

 
About time! Actually, it should've been done back in April- would've stopped 1 if not both of the 2 biggest loss makers from doing so, Aston Villa especially and MAYBE Sheffield Wednesday though there is a lot of confusion about which accounting period their transaction fell in.
 
Quote

Derby valuation raises EFL eyebrows 

Mel Morris’s valuation of Pride Park during talks over the sale of Derby has raised eyebrows at the EFL, who are investigating the owner’s sale of the stadium to his own company Servco 5112, which enabled the club to comply with FFP. 

In talks about selling Derby, Morris has indicated he would accept an offer of around £30million for Pride Park, plus £10m for the holding company that controls all the club’s shares

In April, Pride Park was sold to Servco 5112 for £80m including a deal to lease it back to Derby, but it is listed as an asset worth £41m on the club’s books, which has led the EFL to appoint independent auditors to assess its value.

This one appears to be more speculative. Also a couple of factual errors.

  1. For a start, the company who purchased the ground were Gellaw Newco 202 Limited, Sevco 5112 is either the parent company or the Holding Company.
  2. It was not sold in April either, but this was when the accounts were released- the transaction took place or was completed on 28th June 2018 I believe.

That notwithstanding, the £30m + £10m figure is new- I thought it was £60m for the lot?

Wasn't aware the EFL appointed independent auditors- assumed it was valuers.

Having said all of that, I have my doubts about £81.1m- but also appreciate that £41m doesn't necessarily represent market value. Thinking £50-55m and maybe up to £60m given the 2007 valuation of £55m- yet that revaluation reserve set against valuation is a bit puzzling. Is it value at that time + revaluation + revaluation reserve- why that takes it to around £94-95m in 2007 which can't be right! Or is some of the revaluation reserve already accounted for in that 2007/08 revaluation upwards? Doubtless the full explanation is out there.

£30m for Pride Park- if true of course- is very, very interesting though. Of course as a lifelong Derby fan and someone who seems passionate about Derby in general it wouldn't surprise me but it does raise questions about the market value if there is any truth to the story. "If" and truth being the key words of course.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7461849/Football-news-Super-agent-Mino-Raiola-looks-make-Wilfried-Zaha-latest-high-profile-client.html

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, @Coppello and @Drew Peacock maybe pretty well placed to advise on this one.

Hillsborough transaction- all legit in terms of transaction to accounting period yeah?

What we know:

Quote

Accounts it appeared in

2017/18

Quote

Date that the Reporting Period ran to originally

May 31st 2018

Quote

Date that the 2017/18 Accounts were due at CH by originally.

February 28th 2019

Quote

Date that the 2017/18 Reporting Period was extended to

July 31st 2018

Quote

Date that the 2017/18 Accounts were now due at CH

April 30th 2019

Quote

Date that the Accounts were published on the SWFC Website.

July 11th 2019

Quote

Date that the Accounts were published on CH.

July 16th 2019

Quote

Date that the Accounts were signed by Chansiri.

June 20th 2019

Quote

Date that the Accounts were signed by the Auditor.

June 21st 2019

Quote

Date that Sheffield 3 Limited was incorporated at CH.

June 21st 2019

Quote

Date that the Transaction was stated to have been paid at the Land Registry.

June 28th 2019

Obviously that it appeared on July 22nd 2019 is fine as it had been paid in late June 2019 and this stuff takes a few weeks? So that bit isn't terribly relevant IMO.

 

How does this all knit together though? Accounts signed not once but twice after due at CH and 2 months added to that, transaction occurs or price paid within a further week, allowed to just push on at getting it to CH, is there a year to complete such transactions or something- paperwork beginning by July 31st 2018 and everything else has a year? Certainly one of the most 'interesting' transactions I have come across.

That's not even factoring in the highly interesting valuation when 2013/14 accounts stated that it was at DRC of £22.25m that season ie sometime in 2014 and the fact the Revaluation Reserve £6.4-6.5m. Or the fact that Chansiri claimed that they would be in big trouble with FFP  if promotion not achieved- spoke not of a small overspend but 8 figures if promotion not achieved. Forget the Revaluation debate for a minute though, the process is very interesting- such a variety of dates!

Mike McCarthy of BBC Sheffield did say something about Post Balance Sheet event on Twitter but unless that appears in 2018/19 accounts I struggle to see it- wasn't referenced as one in either of the 2016/17 or 2017/18 accounts for a start.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I retired a few years ago, but as I recall, the accounts would be drawn up as at the year end date and a Post Balance Sheet note would have been included which explained and showed the effect of the transaction.

I have never come across a transaction like this, despite being involved in some "interesting" accounting practices and quite a few normal property deals.  I think you will need to see board minutes to get to the very bottom of this - assuming they are not too opaque.  You could take profit on exchange, so again you need to see the documentation.

I will leave this one to more current accountants and enjoy my retirement!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Drew Peacock said:

I retired a few years ago, but as I recall, the accounts would be drawn up as at the year end date and a Post Balance Sheet note would have been included which explained and showed the effect of the transaction.

I have never come across a transaction like this, despite being involved in some "interesting" accounting practices and quite a few normal property deals.  I think you will need to see board minutes to get to the very bottom of this - assuming they are not too opaque.  You could take profit on exchange, so again you need to see the documentation.

I will leave this one to more current accountants and enjoy my retirement!

Thanks for the insight- interesting stuff indeed. Post Balance Sheet event seems to show nothing, unless of course it will appear in 2018/19 accounts. :dunno:

I've taken an interest in accounts of late owing to my own company and some of their practices- and like you I have not seen this one- EFL signed it off it seems though which is puzzling. Hopefully the EFL will demand all documentation- to me, Sheffield Wednesday should've remained under a registration embargo all summer for this- no Odubajo, Borner, Scowen, Harris, Murphy- this worthy of stronger investigation maybe than mere valuation questions.

Hopefully some others will contribute- someone did ask Kieran Maguire and he said something about "adjusting post balance sheet event". Yet I always rather assumed it would have appeared in 2017/18 accounts listed as such.

@29AR you're pretty clued up financially/accounting wise I believe- which category does this fall under in your view?

Given all of the oddities in dates, should it not appear as a Post Balance sheet event of some description? It appears under RPT indirectly...

Quote

22 Events after the reporting date

      On 1 September 2018 the company issued 21,000,000 ordinary shares at par value to Mr D Chansiri.

      On 14 June 2019 the company became a wholly-owned subsidary of Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited, a company registered in Hong Kong, as a result of a share for share exchange.

Nothing here...

Quote

23 Related Party Transactions

     Transactions with Related Parties

     Mr D Chansiri is a director of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Community Programme. During the year, the company recharged amounts to SWFC Community Programme for expenses incurred on their behalf.

     Mr D Chansiri is also a director of Elev8 Energy Drink and Elev8 Clothing Ltd.

    Income of £61,266,677 was receivable from related parties in respect of transactions recognised in these financial statements.

    There are no other related party transactions to disclose.

That £61,266,677 will be the £60m and EFL market based/adjusted sponsorship presumably - well that and recharged expenses to the Community Programme.

Don't see how or why it wasn't listed under 22 though, given all of the varying dates- surely it didn't take nearly 11 months to get it done??

Someone also asked Mike McCarthy to elaborate on his post and point to where it is in the accounts when it came to what he said Post Balance Sheet events but he did not!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more general note.

573D8B19-FE51-4751-A1C8-B7F75176D271.thu

This was dated July 4th 2019 this thread, this post.

https://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/283140-ground-sale-to-go-through-shortly/

Getting print screens of time and date not so easy but if it was application lodged around that time, Land Registry 28th June 2019, Accounts signed June 21st 2019 and June 20th 2019, accounts due on April 30th 2019 and originally February 28th 2019, Reporting Period to July 31st 2018 and originally May 31st 2018, baffled by the EFL waving this through at the time.

Lastly!

4C0BA4D0-A1DF-4FFD-A8DE-63A87E5F3476.thu

This was July 4th so same day and yet still listed at Land Registry as owned by SWFC.

I know it went through eventually but surely it should have appeared in 2018/19 accounts??

@Davefevs @downendcity any thoughts on how this all fits in, overlaps?

One more bit of corroborating- and this time it's dated which helps.

Capture.JPG.e442bedff947c62533c612f22958

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One more general note.

573D8B19-FE51-4751-A1C8-B7F75176D271.thu

This was dated July 4th 2019 this thread, this post.

https://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/283140-ground-sale-to-go-through-shortly/

Getting print screens of time and date not so easy but if it was application lodged around that time, Land Registry 28th June 2019, Accounts signed June 21st 2019 and June 20th 2019, accounts due on April 30th 2019 and originally February 28th 2019, Reporting Period to July 31st 2018 and originally May 31st 2018, baffled by the EFL waving this through at the time.

Lastly!

4C0BA4D0-A1DF-4FFD-A8DE-63A87E5F3476.thu

This was July 4th so same day and yet still listed at Land Registry as owned by SWFC.

I know it went through eventually but surely it should have appeared in 2018/19 accounts??

@Davefevs @downendcity any thoughts on how this all fits in, overlaps?

One more bit of corroborating- and this time it's dated which helps.

Capture.JPG.e442bedff947c62533c612f22958

Im no legal expert, but if Im reading the land registry extracts correctly it seems to confirm that Wednesday were the legal owners on 4 July 2019, so this would appear to indicate that Wednesday remained the legal owners of the stadium at the time their last set of accounts were finalised/signed off.  The only thing I wouldn't be sure about is whether the "sale" transaction could have been completed before the accounts were finalised, and registered at the land registry some time later ( i.e. after 4 July) . Bearing in mind the "timely" nature of Wednesday's accounting it would be little surprise of the land registry registration was done in an equally swift manner!

The one thing that strikes me about all these ground "sales" is that they appear to have been carried out in a rush ( I wonder why that might have been?!)and in so doing they have created a rather murky set of circumstances and a less than transparent audit trail. If I - a layman - can see that, then I remain baffled as to why the EFL, with all the specialist experts they must have to hand, don't see the same and carry out robust financially forensic investigation of the facts. Thus far, the scope of their investigation seems to be to ask Morris if the valuation of Pride Park was done professionally and independently and when Morris replied in the affirmative, they've accepted it without question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mr Popodopolous Very kind, but I'm just a blagger I'm afraid. I only have limited accounting knowledge gained when working in cross lines of service. I'll ask a bean counter though, and pretend I understand their response haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 29AR said:

@Mr Popodopolous Very kind, but I'm just a blagger I'm afraid. I only have limited accounting knowledge gained when working in cross lines of service. I'll ask a bean counter though, and pretend I understand their response haha

Haha, so am I to an extent- I'm not a qualified accountant but I am good with numbers and football clubs creativity in this dept has increased my interest in it- at least football wise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a general note, decent read.

https://www.thetotallyfootballshow.com/feature/why-are-football-league-clubs-selling-their-grounds-to-their-owners/

Was interesting as well to note the following paragraph:

As we know about the Times report into the EFL investigation/independent valuations.

Quote

And that is a more serious prospect: according to a report in the Times, the EFL is investigating the valuation of the stadia, which is understandable but also slightly curious, since at least one of the clubs involved worked closely with the EFL during the sale process, which does lead to the suggestion that this investigation is simply to placate some of the clubs making a noise. Independent valuers were used, and one of the clubs involved confirmed to the Totally Football Show that the final sum was arrived at on the assumption that the land was being sold for commercial purposes, shops, housing etc.

  1. I wonder which club(s)? 🤔
  2. Could well be to placate.
  3. Interesting. So you can basically it seems claim and value on the basis that it will be sold for commercial purposes but continue to play in and lease it back. Which valuation method would this be- DRC, simple RC or something else?

Is there no valuation mechanism to assess Fair Market Value in continued current use? That one would seem/feel appropriate in this instance.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On a general note, decent read.

https://www.thetotallyfootballshow.com/feature/why-are-football-league-clubs-selling-their-grounds-to-their-owners/

Was interesting as well to note the following paragraph:

As we know about the Times report into the EFL investigation/independent valuations.

  1. I wonder which club(s)? 🤔
  2. Could well be to placate.
  3. Interesting. So you can basically it seems claim and value on the basis that it will be sold for commercial purposes but continue to play in and lease it back. Which valuation method would this be- DRC, simple RC or something else?

Is there no valuation mechanism to assess Fair Market Value in continued current use? That one would seem/feel appropriate in this instance.

In my youth I studied valuation and estate management, although I never got into practice.

If I remember correctly, there was/is a method of valuing commercial/investment property based on rental income. This utilises something called years purchase and value is arrived at by way of a formula that takes into consideration rental and the yield or rate of return the property gives/is expected to give.

For Derby their case seems to have been  made on the basis of an independent "desk" valuation, and as there is no active and established open market in football stadium sales, there are no comparable against which this can be measured and compared. From all the answers given by them, I am still none the wiser as to the basis of the valuation, as the valuer seems to have taken very conceivable item into consideration - I saw it suggested that the new roof ( mooted but not yet agreed, work started and certainly not completed) had enhanced the value.

The  valuers desk valuation at £80m maximised the financial benefit to Derby upon completion of the "sale" However, following completion, Derby were committed to a ridiculously low annual rent, which was obviously designed to minimise  the financial impact on Derby County. I can't remember the exact rental figure, but when it was mentioned on here I recall that it provided a return so low ( against there £80m price "paid") that it was no better than a high rate savings account and certainly not compatible with the quality of stadium the £80m valuation implied.

On the face of it, Derby have had their cake and eaten it, as far as the valuation and rental levels are concerned - one maximising the immediate financial benefit, the other minimising the future financial impact, and especially for ffp. The EFL could question the level of rental when compared to the independent property value, but I suspect that Derby will say that one was independently provided, while the other was a commercial agreement between 2 parties.

Therein lies the fundamental problem with the EFL cocking up the ffp rules so that sale of an asset to a related third party does not, in itself, break the rules. What it does do, however, is leave the situation wide open to manipulation because buyer and seller are one and the same , which I suspect is what most outsiders looking at this will be thinking. The EFL have been on the back foot since it came to light that they themselves left open this loophole. Their one angle of attack was the valuation, but having failed to really push on this issue when it first arose, I think they've missed their chance and anything they now try to do will probably be just bluster to appease other clubs ( like Boro) that are making waves of their own.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/09/2019 at 16:10, downendcity said:

In my youth I studied valuation and estate management, although I never got into practice.

If I remember correctly, there was/is a method of valuing commercial/investment property based on rental income. This utilises something called years purchase and value is arrived at by way of a formula that takes into consideration rental and the yield or rate of return the property gives/is expected to give.

For Derby their case seems to have been  made on the basis of an independent "desk" valuation, and as there is no active and established open market in football stadium sales, there are no comparable against which this can be measured and compared. From all the answers given by them, I am still none the wiser as to the basis of the valuation, as the valuer seems to have taken very conceivable item into consideration - I saw it suggested that the new roof ( mooted but not yet agreed, work started and certainly not completed) had enhanced the value.

The  valuers desk valuation at £80m maximised the financial benefit to Derby upon completion of the "sale" However, following completion, Derby were committed to a ridiculously low annual rent, which was obviously designed to minimise  the financial impact on Derby County. I can't remember the exact rental figure, but when it was mentioned on here I recall that it provided a return so low ( against there £80m price "paid") that it was no better than a high rate savings account and certainly not compatible with the quality of stadium the £80m valuation implied.

On the face of it, Derby have had their cake and eaten it, as far as the valuation and rental levels are concerned - one maximising the immediate financial benefit, the other minimising the future financial impact, and especially for ffp. The EFL could question the level of rental when compared to the independent property value, but I suspect that Derby will say that one was independently provided, while the other was a commercial agreement between 2 parties.

Therein lies the fundamental problem with the EFL cocking up the ffp rules so that sale of an asset to a related third party does not, in itself, break the rules. What it does do, however, is leave the situation wide open to manipulation because buyer and seller are one and the same , which I suspect is what most outsiders looking at this will be thinking. The EFL have been on the back foot since it came to light that they themselves left open this loophole. Their one angle of attack was the valuation, but having failed to really push on this issue when it first arose, I think they've missed their chance and anything they now try to do will probably be just bluster to appease other clubs ( like Boro) that are making waves of their own.

Thanks, interesting stuff.

So would this be something like price paid divided by length of lease=rent? Or is it more complex than this- I've always thought commercial rental yield 4-5% but again that could be oversimplified by me.

AFAIK the new roof was not included but lots of different sources seem to say different things- Mel Morris said new roof factored in and you could add another £100m onto it which seems nuts yet...no open market doesn't help- the method could be quite important?

Agreed- even if the rent is right, then the fee paid seems much too low, or if the fee is broadly correct, then the rent should be increased by a factor of 3-4? Read online in varied places 5% but again football stadia pretty specialised.

Agreed- I wonder if they could have made it the case that a profit is only applicable if the stadium is being sold ie to reinvest into the club and building a new one, or if the stadium is being sold and leased back to a bona fide 3rd party. They should have put in the T&C that it needs to be done and dusted liaising with the EFL, ie the EFL appoint a valuer, not the club.

Thanks @Coppello looking forward to it.

Incidentally, saw on Twitter that Derby have released a statement on it. It however looks alright from a procedural perspective ie accounting period date to transaction date,  the price is the key issue here, along with Aston Villa and I assume Reading. Sheffield Wednesday OTOH have a myriad of questions against their sale and leaseback IMO!

Quote

Derby County Football Club has adhered to the EFL’s Profit and Sustainability Rules with respect to the sale of its stadium.

ClubStatementBanner.jpg

The stadium was subject to an independent professional valuation before sale, nearly 18 months ago, and the EFL indicated in writing that the arrangement was in accordance with its rules and regulations.

The EFL cannot now, long after approving the arrangements, suggest Derby County breached the rules.

The Club regrets that Middlesbrough Football Club have said they are suing the EFL over the matter, but that is a matter for them. Derby County offered to show Middlesbrough its financial records but they declined the invitation and appear to have decided to bring a claim against the EFL instead.

The outcome of that action could not now affect Derby County, which has already had its financial returns for the relevant season approved by the EFL, and the Club is solely focussed on the current season.

The Club will not be making any further comment at this time.

 
Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good listen!

It covers the facts but breaks them down quite well.

Part 1 and Part 2 about Fulham- seems to cover Huddersfield 2. Part 2 about Stoke, seems to also cover Swansea and West Brom.

 

Of those last 2, I think Stoke are surely heading for choppy FFP waters as it stands.

Interesting read as well, Mike Thornton!

https://www.mikethornton.xyz/why-the-efl-stadium-sale-rule-is-flawed/

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City related (for a change).

About to watch/listen to it now.

Up there certainly I'd say, in this category.

Some praise for Webster!

One minor error referring to Lansdown as Steve Hargraves- mixed those 2 up but rest of this sounds about right.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
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...