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

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, downendcity said:
Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

An EFL spokesman said:

“Championship Clubs met on Wednesday where there was a positive exchange of ideas on a number of different issues, including the League’s Profitability and Sustainability rules.  

“The long term sustainability of all EFL Clubs remains of paramount importance to the EFL Board and they will continue to work with Clubs in respect of the rules.  

“Clubs were also reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any Club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.”

Playing devil's advocate a little, depending on which club's senior executive is quoted could have a huge bearing on the comment, as if it was, say, a Villa executive then he would say that, wouldn't he? 

As for "taking potshots .......... when on-field results go badly". I remember this sort of comment being trotted out by Leeds fans when our owner was pushing for Leeds to be punished over the spygate incident and I've seen comments from Villa fans along similar lines when their ffp position has been questioned i.e. it's sour grapes or jealousy. The issue is not that club's are aggrieved because their own results have gone against them, it is that if a club has breached ffp but escaped any punishment then  they have gained an advantage over all the other clubs clubs that have complied with the same set of financial rules. 

I am sure all clubs and fans would be more than happy to "let the authorities do their job". It is the fact that the authorities, i.e. the EFL, do not appear to be doing their job when it comes to ffp  that is causing other people to "interfere. The ulterior motive such people have is to ensure the EFL applies ffp rules properly and fairly across all clubs and ensures that any club that breaches is properly penalised - there appears to fairly widespread scepticism as to whether this is the case currently.

 

It could be but it obviously doesn't say who it was, so how can we know? I'm not going to assume I know who it's come from as I have no idea. I haven't seen any other direct quotes referencing the April meeting saying anything to the contrary. Have you seen any?

I can't know the reasoning behind their quotes, I did notice they used the phrases 'that everyone realised' and 'we all realised after discussion'. They seem to be talking like it was unanimous once they'd all discussed it? That would fit with the quotes I posted before from Mel Morris saying that no one voted for Gibson's proposal including his own clubs representative/s (whoever they were as he didn't even seem to attend according to the BBC):

Quote

The Boro chairman, who has reportedly demanded that the spending of Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa be looked at, is understood not to have attended Wednesday's meeting in Nottingham - which lasted almost five hours - at which the clubs decided not to accept Gibson's proposal.

If the clubs themselves decided not to vote for Gibson's proposal, who are we to say anything different? They were the ones that saw the EFL's presentation, they were the ones that had the discussion, they were the ones that had the chance to vote for it. They didn't.

Unless anyone comes out and says they did vote for it and the quotes from both Mel Morris and the person (whoever they are) quoted above are wrong, or tells us a different reason than the above as to why they didn't vote for it, then that's all we've got to go on, for now.

Re. the 'taking potshots' and 'ulterior motives' comments, you realise those were the comments from the 'senior executive' quoted and not myself? If the other clubs felt so strongly about clubs 'gaining an advantage' or if there was such 'widespread scepticism' they could have voted for the proposal or couldn't they have tried with a different proposal themselves? There would have to have been 75% voting in favour for it to be passed wouldn't there? If there are only a few clubs causing an issue, surely that would have been an easy target to hit from all of the others?

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You beat me to the punch.

Perhaps it was Derby's! Or in seriousness, as you say anyone who is just happy with the status quo- that comment just sounds made up to me, I am not saying it is but it's so toadying, flies in the face of a lot of evidence that it is laughable unless in self-interest.

Where to start with the unnamed senior executive:

It seems that they (EFL finance team) can talk a very good game. Easy to do at times- or being fair maybe this is what happens post the changes, maybe the anger at the March meeting has actually brought about serious changes- Shaun Harvey going for a start is an instant improvement. I'm open-minded on this, though a lot of course depends on the Senior Executive in question.

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute is owners selling grounds to themselves in a very creative manner- not just Derby, but anyone out of Aston Villa, Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday too. Reading, though for different reasons- £26.5m in that part of the country seems oddly low to me. They made a modest but barely substantial profit but I query why the value pre sale was £20m or so, Madejski Stadium that is. Shouldn't have been done of course but compared to Derby...?

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute even more is the prospect that Aston Villa run up an FFP excess of £25-30m over 3 seasons and only get a risk of a points deduction once they've reached PL!

What truly will- or should- bring a competition into disrepute is the EFL lacking the competence to close loopholes before exploitation- namely the ground one- and the dexterity to properly enforce in-season punishments as per their own regulations!!

Total toadying. Laughable, PR. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind than an objective reading of the situation- I mean they may have a valid point even if it isn't one I agree with, but it's so obsequious- with ironically a slight potshot, i.e. the bolded bit.

One more interesting note- the finances of Aston Villa and Derby it seems will be on the agenda at the EFL Summer Conference. Hopefully Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday also.

I've covered most of this in my reply above, so won't go over it all again - see above for my thoughts on the quotes.

Although I will add, at the time Middlesbrough were still fighting for top 6 with the clubs that he was accusing, is it possible that the executives of the other clubs thought about exactly why Gibson might have been making his accusations ie. he might have believed they wouldn't finish in the top 6 (as did come to pass) and was trying to unsettle some of the clubs they were directly competing with and they did actually believe he had an ulterior motive?

A few things I've found, that may or may not be relevant to the stadium valuation discussion, but I thought they were interesting none the less:

Here (Click 'OUR SPECIALISMS' -> 'Sport stadia')

Quote

Sports stadia and football ground assets are valued in different ways, depending on the purpose of the valuation. As each approach may produce different figures, it’s essential to understand the purpose of the valuation.

Here (Page 3 - Although seems to be from 2006, so it's possible it may no longer be relevant - I've not read much past that bit yet either, it's quite a long read!)

Quote

It is, however, important to remember that DRC is not intended represent a potential sale price (i.e. a value in exchange) and, within the UK, it should still normally be used only within the context of financial reports.

Re. The Villa situation, weren't Birmingham punished for their 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 season losses? If so, didn't the EFL say at the time that Birmingham were the only club to have failed FFP for this period?

In that case the only period that Villa (or anyone else for that matter) could have failed for is their 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 losses, ie. ending this season, which although finished, most clubs actual accounting periods don't end until later, giving them time after the season in which they made the loss to rectify it, once their know their future seasons financial position.

With the situation, as it stands, under the current rules (regardless of whether you believe it is right or not to be able to do so) had they stayed down they presumably could've sold players before the end of their accounting period after the end of the season which would've meant they stayed within the rules. I'm not saying it is likely they would have been able to cover a big loss had they stayed down, but they could surely argue they could have, and as they didn't stay down, now no one will ever know if this would've happened or not.

As it stands, having been promoted, I'm not sure when they get their first Premier League payment/s? If this is outside of their accounting period, I assume what they could do is take a loan on their guaranteed income to cover themselves for whatever they are behind by? In the same way that I believe they (and others?) have done when they've taken loans out on their future years of parachute payments?

Even if their losses are above those allowed and they chose to deliberately disregard FFP for this season, ie. not cover the loss anyway to make sure. Unless the Premier League are willing to align themselves with the EFL on the situation then there is sadly nothing that anyone can do about them having a points deduction into next season, this it the problem having different organisations controlling leagues with in the same league structure.

If they do still fail FFP, I guess the only thing the EFL could do to hit them currently is fine them a hefty amount. They might be able to 'park' a points deduction so that the next time they fall under their jurisdiction that comes in play? But I imagine as no one knows whether that will be 1, 2, 10 or even more years from now that might be something they try to avoid, so as not to hit any possible future owners?

If it does turn out that they failed FFP, and we passed, then we would have lost out at Wembley for a second time to a team that failed FFP, but once again there would be nothing that we could do about it, so we'd once again have to deal with it.

I don't know how, apart from making clubs have their financial years ending prior to the end of April (ie. before the end of the season to stop post season fixes), the EFL can fix this situation in the future, so that any punishment for a breach is dealt with in the season in which it occurs.

But even then don't they have months to file them with Companies House? Will they have them ready before that or not - I assume not? So how do the EFL make sure that they have them by the end of April (and go through them all) so that they can hand out punishment before the end of the season? Or is this the point of the P&S submission, you're basically submitting your accounts details to them early? But then how can you do this when you have to file that before your accounting period ends and things could change?

It's not easy is it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comments re the projected accounts submission id the big flaw in that rule and one we’ve speculated a lot on here. 

If Villa projected a big loss, then their FFP submission might include a footnote that they’ll sell Grealish before the end of of their accounts period to comply. 

And to be fair, there’s nothing wrong with that, hence the flaw in the projected accounts rule!

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Your comments re the projected accounts submission id the big flaw in that rule and one we’ve speculated a lot on here. 

If Villa projected a big loss, then their FFP submission might include a footnote that they’ll sell Grealish before the end of of their accounts period to comply. 

And to be fair, there’s nothing wrong with that, hence the flaw in the projected accounts rule!

I agree, of course clubs will do it if it helps them and they're allowed to.

I don't really know what the EFL can do to fix the flaw. Would forcing clubs to have reporting periods ending by April, so that they can't project a sale happening after the season work? But then I don't know if there's a way around that too, would having a sale set up ready to go when the window opened be a way around it? Or because that sale would only go through after the end of April (when the window opens) be enough? Could a club use their post balance sheet events as mitigation if they did fail?

So many questions! 🤨

Edited by DerbyFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regards projected accounts- these posts are relatively small so can reply to them now and bigger ones on the weekend, a few thoughts.

Problem- Accounts submitted by 1st March 2019 don't cover proposed sales- ie. Grealish.

One solution might be to get a contractual undertaking that sale is pre-arranged- any breach automatic points deduction for fail FFP in whichever division- or maybe even refuse to accept such an idea of sale of Grealish unless a proper paper trail.

Problem- Accounts submitted by 1st March 2019 may not cover further revenue i.e. playoffs.

Solution- In Aston Villa's case their apparent breach was so big that playoff revenue wouldn't make a material difference to the points/loss tariff. Maybe a problem for clubs within a lower range- Promotion and playoffs about £5m? Any club within that range would have to include that as a variable within their projected accounts.

Problem- Ground can be sold to owners postseason but before accounting period closes.

One possible Solution- The projected submitted accounts take precedence for FFP purposes-, ground sales to owners that take place post 1st March 2019 therefore not included in FFP calculations for this period. May require a rule change voted for by at least 18 clubs for this though- or another aspect to the solution maybe that simply no profit from such RPTs for FFP purposes. FFP results are different to published accounts after all.

The other big solution as well as in-season punishments would be to have the EFL given unlimited powers against any club who breaches this on their return- would again require the 18/24 minimum voting rule and be a new rule moving forward- Aston Villa reps along with the newly promoted clubs will actually be at the Conference in Portugal so there may yet be one last chance to get a punishment voted on?

As for Ground Transactions involving related parties- well it's unbelievable oversight by EFL to have profit on such transactions included as positive revenue for FFP calculations. If it is a true third party transaction and all transparent, could people complain too much?

Plus moving forward, given there is a share transfer between EFL and EPL- in theory why couldn't the EFL refuse to transfer the share of say Aston Villa if it transpires that the following has occurred: a) They have won playoffs in a big FFP breach, b) A ground sale and leaseback with owners/Related parties was arranged hastily after promotion or lack of and c) A proposed Grealish sale by 31st May 2019 turned out to be bogus.

Different sites and such do suggest that points penalty can follow a side up, but others contradict this- unless there is a watertight agreement, then it could be this eras ITV Digital debacle for the EFL?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting note.

From OwlsTalk- and I'll get onto the big 2 plus possibly Birmingham and the thread as a whole later, maybe this evening.

Seems Hillsborough has not been sold- other rumours on there that it has been sold but there are problems getting it through as Chansiri is trying to backdate it to 2017/18 accounts or similar. 

1514559736_Capture22.thumb.JPG.effdf3cd3

I half wonder and only partly jokingly if he, given he seems to have run them badly to say the least thought "Ah! Great idea Mel Morris- I'll sell it to myself and avoid sanctions." Even though that accounting period had long since passed, i.e. if he had got no proper independent valuation etc but just charged in before the end of accounts, no planning.

The main thing I jokingly wonder about is given the no show of the accounts even after a 2 month shift in reporting period- and it sounds ridiculous but so is some of his chairmanship- is if he thinks that because the Accounting Period for 2017/18 ends July 31 2018, he therefore has until the end of July 2019! It's a ridiculous idea but an amusing one, that I hope is somehow true! :laughcont:

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of FFP- no change apparently. That doesn't necessarily mean that Aston Villa e.g. aren't being investigated or that maybe even Derby are- though by the time they've worked it out both (and probably Birmingham and even Sheffield Wednesday) will be safely in PL!  :grr: :ranting:

On a general note, regardless of stance on whether FFP is a good, bad or indifferent thing, the lack of clarity, guidance and general leadership from the EFL is a disgrace IMO- especially but far from exclusively on this!

Incidentally, on the Aston Villa thing just thought of something- if the PL won't transfer a points penalty across, then do the QPR thing- when their results come out in March 2020 and if they show a major breach as is anticipated, simply impose a punishment when they're still in the PL for their Championship return. Whenever that might be.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One quick note on Derby, before I come back to the main substance of the debate, in the coming days.

Looking at their accounts briefly, they did spend £5.8m in 2015/16 and £4.2m 2016/17 on Infrastructure (which I believe largely to be youth and youth related expenditure)- I'm still wondering therefore whether FFP was kept within regardless of ground transaction.

Then there's Depreciation of tangible assets. Women's Football, Community Expenditure. I don't know if I am double counting at all between Infrastructure expenditure and Depreciation of Tangible Assets but it isn't impossible they passed regardless.

Now IF they used the Sevco 5112 accounts, then I think they fail without the ground transaction, absolutely.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rapax said:

Villa have not breached FFP accordingly to their chief executive at a fans meeting yesterday. The football league expected to confirm this apparently. 

hallelujah-the-secret-30224016-500-366.jpg.cf12743b33c3ff2603ba2b30a608396d.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a serious note, their accounts in March 2020 will show how they passed- or "passed".

Wonder if other club owners will be so happy to take this at face value?

The other possibility of course is that as we kind of guessed, EFL aren't bothering with projected accounts now and only the 3 prior years actual accounts will be the period that's judged.

Or maybe the £3m assumed for HS2 was in fact some other form of land sale and a huge HS2 compensation took them over the line this time.

Because I struggle to believe they raised a net £25-30m through a combination of sales and wage reduction.

@Rapax You sure you're a City fan? Only I looked at your posts and there's a lot pro Aston Villa in there.

Which is only a good thing- other fans on this board only adds to the perspective and the quality of debate, but some kinda dual interest? 

Regardless of how they somehow passed, never in my 21 years as a City fan have I seen such an odious entitled fanbase in any division we've played in (PL will have a lot)- not all of course but if social media a gauge, in one and only one way- if they fudged FFP good- I'm glad to be rid of them, just hope they don't come back.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Azed said:

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Good question- one which I believe @Coppello best placed to deal with, but I believe a Nicholas Craig to be their Governance and Legal Director. He's been a lawyer in excess of 10 years.

Aston Villa, I wonder if in March 2019 when their full accounts are published this issue will become live again- projected accounts barring exceptional items cannot show a pass, surely! Their losses should be very high but bear in mind that promotion bonuses which will show in the wages but not necessarily as a separate item, will not count as FFP expenditure. Same presumably goes for the upgrade to the McCormack contract and the payment to Randy Lerner- all comes under "cost of promotion" which is excluded for FFP purposes. Would also include e.g. fees due to clubs in event of promotion being achieved. Even taking all that into account though, they surely failed without some curious exceptional item.

Birmingham's hearing had Charles Flint QC overseeing it. James Seagan acting for EFL vastly experienced.

Here it is in full actually!

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

I think the EFL have made a mess of things overall though- the flip-flopping over projected accounts the big one. Precedent set- can only be judged on the 3 prior years of existing accounts unless the rules voted to be changed by the clubs. If they try to stop promotion now barring a fully voted for change of rules, first stop the CAS IMO.

Plus- on Aston Villa. Also possible that they put "sale of Grealish" on projected accounts.

IF no such sale transpired in that scenario as they went up, that's a seriously aggravated breach. No way should if that was the case EFL declare them as having passed, as seemingly requested by Aston Villa- they should release a statement to the effect of "Passed- As it stands, pending further material change of circumstances and if applicable, investigation".

The gall, the entitlement of Aston Villa wanting a statement released by EFL about them having passed- hate them!

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Azed said:

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Theses the EFL committee that deals with FFP breaches......

1346044523_hearnoevil.jpg.f21feabb3f7425a0958d0a96da4bf38a.jpg

  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Theses the EFL committee that deals with FFP breaches......

1346044523_hearnoevil.jpg.f21feabb3f7425a0958d0a96da4bf38a.jpg

One thing I have noticed though.

Wasn't (yet) confirmed by EFL that Aston Villa passed- it's that Purslow has declared it and also asked them to release a statement to the effect that they have passed.

Will be interesting to see if this statement is forthcoming. Regardless of pass/fail it certainly shouldn't be but their entitlement knows no bounds.

Here we go, found it in full.

D822E1ZWwAAn2kJ.jpg

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

No, no, no! That`s Derby`s.

Easily confused as they have the same Accountants! :) 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting debate and nice to see fans from different clubs chatting. Villa fan in peace here.

There are a few mentions of Villa selling their ground to themselves (like Derby) to pass P&S. Although this is not against the rules albeit not in the spirit of P&S, it is not the case that Villa has sold Villa Park. Since buying Villa NSWE have been putting a lot of money into the club and with each investment Xia's shareholding is further diluted, apparently he now owns less that 20% of AVFC whereas he had 45% the day the sale went through. The name of the Villa Park holding company was changed and the directors of the holding company were also changed. It went from Recon (A Xia owned company) to Aston Villa (an NSWE owned company) with Xia removed as a shareholder. There was no sale of Villa Park, it was simply a further dilution of Xia's equity on AVFC 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheffield Wednesday are too apparently- albeit for different reasons, seemingly once you don't submit your accounts and a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic soft embargo.

It could well be one with conditions i.e. no fees, frees and loans alright within a certain wage pattern, Sheffield Wednesday that is.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheffield Wednesday are too apparently- albeit for different reasons, seemingly once you don't submit your accounts and a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic soft embargo.

It could well be one with conditions i.e. no fees, frees and loans alright within a certain wage pattern, Sheffield Wednesday that is.

Yet it has been reported, allegedly coming from Sheff Wed themselves, that they have agreed a fee for Turnbull.

If that were to happen I would definitely despair of FFP. Though it looks more and more like a fig leaf to me anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

 Yet it has been reported, allegedly coming from Sheff Wed themselves, that they have agreed a fee for Turnbull.

 If that were to happen I would definitely despair of FFP. Though it looks more and more like a fig leaf to me anyway.

Possible that they're waiting for Hillsborough sale and leaseback reported to be on the cards to come through- though it is also equally possible they're doing a Birmingham and signing a player while under soft embargo- Pedersen which should if precedent set see a referral to disciplinary commission.

Though last I read on it, said sale and leaseback has not happened or had not at that stage- unsure about fig leaf given Birmingham 9 points and varying stages of embargo. PL won't apply penalties on Aston Villa- if and when they return, EFL might- under pressure from at least 20 clubs I'd have thought- have a penalty waiting.

One thing to watch though it sounds small might be whether EFL declare Aston Villa to have passed. Purslow seemingly declared it as a fans forum last week, and their odious fans seem or seemed to think that an EFL Statement was  on the cards confirming this. Obvious what Purslow is up to there and I don't think even the EFL will fall for it- if they declare publicly they have passed, I don't see how they can re-open it.

Therefore either: a) They declare they have passed "as it stands"- in much more legalese obviously. or b) They don't say anything.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Possible that they're waiting for Hillsborough sale and leaseback reported to be on the cards to come through- though it is also equally possible they're doing a Birmingham and signing a player while under soft embargo- Pedersen which should if precedent set see a referral to disciplinary commission.

Though last I read on it, said sale and leaseback has not happened or had not at that stage- unsure about fig leaf given Birmingham 9 points and varying stages of embargo. PL won't apply penalties on Aston Villa- if and when they return, EFL might- under pressure from at least 20 clubs I'd have thought- have a penalty waiting.

One thing to watch though it sounds small might be whether EFL declare Aston Villa to have passed. Purslow seemingly declared it as a fans forum last week, and an EFL Statement was apparently on the cards confirming this. Obvious what Purslow is up to there and I don't think even the EFL will fall for it- if they declare publicly they have passed, I don't see how they can re-open it.

Therefore either: a) They declare they have passed "as it stands"- in much more legalese obviously. or b) They don't say anything.

The fact that big clubs appear to thumb their noses at FFP with impunity makes it a fig leaf for me.

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

I predict that within a year the rules will be relaxed to the extent that they will become irrelevant.

Edited by chinapig
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/04/2019 at 19:07, Coppello said:

They say that they have had the stadium independently valued by experts which is interesting. I'd struggle to see how the stadium valuation of £80m has been ascertained using the depreciated replacement cost method given that it's not brand new and it's in Derby, not the most expensive area of the country. I'm currently working on a stadium valuation at the moment in a more affluent area of the country and I'd be amazed if it comes out at 75% of the fee. I do wonder if we will see a wave of Championship and Premier League clubs following this method which would be absolutely ridiculous. It throws FFP rules into complete disrepute. The fact that it has been audited is a bit of an embarrassment to Smith Cooper (their audit firm) who has signed this off.

As a side note, it is commonly stated that the football club do not own the stadium which is a little misleading. Yes, it's not held in the same legal entity as the footballing activity but it is held in a company that Bristol City Holdings Ltd own 100% of. It doesn't really change things in the grand scheme of things because if it was held in Bristol City Football Club Ltd, Lansdown could still asset strip the football club and sell off Ashton Gate. It's just slightly easier now it's in a separate entity as he could effectively sell shares in it but the Bristol City group still 100% own the stadium. 

 Someone must be telling lies. Everybody knows we are Bristol City (1982) plc Ltd as the faithful and true continually try to remind us. 82.

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

The fact that big clubs appear to thumb their noses at FTP with impunity makes it a fig leaf for me.

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

I predict that within a year the rules will be relaxed to the extent that they will become irrelevant.

It's an interesting one.

I think the rules have loopholes that would be easily amended. See the Derby ground sale as case study a. Some people suggest that fixed asset sales mean it's aok, but others rightly point out an inconsistency which basically reads that if depreciation on fixed assets doesn't count against FFP costs, then sale of assets shouldn't either- certainly not to related parties in a leaseback! Before we even get onto what might have been true value. That's just one example.

Agreed- Birmingham a lot lower profile.

We'll see. I think there are medium and big clubs in favour too. To name 3, Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest. Then you have a majority of medium and smaller clubs who have stuck to standards and want no more than equal treatment under the regs regardless of club size. Need 18/24 having a vote in favour to have them so watered down tbh- dynamics could change of course but I'm not sure I see an appetite among enough clubs to scrap them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

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

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Are the EFL planning on buying their own board room table off themselves?

  • Haha 1
  • Flames 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Since nobody backed Gibson I think we can conclude that they don't give a toss about FFP.

Still, are Derby about to move on to their, (ninth is it?), manager under Morris? What with that and selling off the family silver, a stable, well run club, and an example to us all!

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...