Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

Took a quick look at Aston Villa.

They had a big old write down in 2015/16 of Villa Park- nearly £45m. Reckon they paid nearly double the current accounts listed net book value basically much like Derby- unlike Derby though there appears to be no recent revaluation in accounts- did they have time for all that I wonder given it seemed to be cobbled together quickly to duck FFP- that being the case I wonder if it's why no public EFL statement on having passed/complied.

Derby at least appear to have done things by the book to an extent e.g. getting in a valuer- Aston Villa it's harder to say- they certainly didn't seem to pay in the 25-35% bracket that Reading's owners did though.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Loehmann FFP calculations for Sheffield Wednesday- though their 3 year accounts pure guesswork until their 2017/18 are released.

They've failed FFP if he's right- based on the EFL's own formula it's a 4 point deduction- hell even with the ground sale it intimates they fail to July 2019 but the Bruce deal changes this- I also think some of those estimates are a bit over generous IMO because surely if accounts move by 2 months, while it would take in the Rhodes and Hunt departures which help to mitigate, it would also add 2 months to the wage bill? Plus surely gate receipts etc fall as Sheffield Wednesday did demonstrably worse in 2017/18 than the prior 2 playoff seasons?

Nobody can do their own independent analysis though as there is still no sign of those accounts! One conspiracy theory of mine- just for fun- is a dispute with auditors as Chansiri trying to backdate the sale to 2017/18 accounts which is/has been preventing their release.

Well this is odd- they've just announced the free transfer of Odubajo- good signing I feel and obviously was on the cards for a while.

Can someone explain how you can fail to submit accounts to CH which are well overdue- yet announce any new signings- even free transfers? Surely surely accounts to CH should take precedence over any signings?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BREAKING NEWS.

Sheffield Wednesday accounts out- Hillsborough SOLD for £38m profit.

Their accounts on their site, but not at CH yet. Auditors happy?

Quick scan suggests losses of around £35m in 2017/18- without this of course.

Makes a ******* mockery.

Puzzled as to when the transaction took place too- doubtless it'd show on Land Registry?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

BREAKING NEWS.

Sheffield Wednesday accounts out- Hillsborough SOLD for £38m profit.

Their accounts on their site, but not at CH yet. Auditors happy?

Quick scan suggests losses of around £35m in 2017/18- without this of course.

Makes a ******* mockery.

Puzzled as to when the transaction took place too- doubtless it'd show on Land Registry?

Got to admit I'm a little confused about this one.

Just took a look at their 2017 accounts, on page 26 (29 of the pdf) under note 11, it says that in 2014 the freehold buildings were valued at £22,250,000.

And you thought ours was a big increase! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

Got to admit I'm a little confused about this one.

Just took a look at their 2017 accounts, on page 26 (29 of the pdf) under note 11, it says that in 2014 the freehold buildings were valued at £22,250,000.

And you thought ours was a big increase?

It was!

However this one is ludicrous, it's possible there were some additions and subtractions which took it up to somewhere between £22-23m, but the sale price is truly farcical here- makes your transaction look reasonable and entirely sensible. Maybe with additions it was, but my instinct of Sheffield Wednesday being 2nd only to Aston Villa in my own "FFP League table dodginess" appears right. Even Peter Loehmann a Sheff Wed fan who writes on accounts and is pretty fair-minded, only assumed it was a £12m profit tor Hillsborough in his projections.

Couple of other early points from a quick read of their accounts.

  1.  Accounts only signed off and dated 20th June 2019- just the 3 weeks late.
  2. The profit- of £38m- appears in their profit and loss statement at the start but not in their cash flow. Odd.
  3. How can we be sure it took place within the relevant accounting period? We can't! I have my doubts as to whether it took place by 31st July 2018 but Land Registry would surely show all?
  4. How on earth did their losses soar to £35m without it? Mad.
Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It was!

However this one is ludicrous, it's possible there were some additions and subtractions which took it up to somewhere between £22-23m, but the sale price is truly farcical here- makes your transaction look reasonable and entirely sensible. Maybe with additions it was, but my instinct of Sheffield Wednesday being 2nd only to Aston Villa in my own "FFP League table dodginess" appears right. Even Peter Loehmann only assumed it was a £12m profit tor Hillsborough in hias projections.

Couple of other early points from a quick read of their accounts.

  1.  Accounts only signed off and dated 20th June 2019- just the 3 weeks late.
  2. The profit- of £38m- appears in their profit and loss statement at the start but not in their cash flow. Odd.
  3. How can we be sure it took place within the relevant accounting period? We can't! I have my doubts as to whether it took place by 31st July 2018 but Land Registry would surely show all?
  4. How on earth did their losses soar to £35m without it? Mad.

I thought there was a land registry entry that showed in May of this year it was owned by the club? Can you backdate? I know it was something you questioned about ours until finding that land registry entry from January(?) (ironically on Owlstalk!)

I presume the loss level is because apart from Hunt to you, I don't think they've actually sold anyone else since their owner took over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I thought there was a land registry entry that showed in May of this year it was owned by the club? Can you backdate? I know it was something you questioned about ours until finding that land registry entry from January(?) (ironically on Owlstalk!)

I presume the loss level is because apart from Hunt to you, I don't think they've actually sold anyone else since their owner took over?

I wasn't aware you could backdate and indeed if that Land Registry entry I found was correct and in date then this raises serious questions IMO. Unclear if the one who purchased it was Chansiri himself or his family- doesn't matter in terms of RPT rules, but still not wholly clear.

Loss level probably that, an extension of accounting period meaning more wages amongst other things. Largely that though! Their wage bill did rise by £13.1m that said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wasn't aware you could backdate and indeed if that Land Registry entry I found was correct and in date then this raises serious questions IMO. Unclear if the one who purchased it was Chansiri himself or his family- doesn't matter in terms of RPT rules, but still not wholly clear.

Loss level probably that, an extension of accounting period meaning more wages amongst other things. Largely that though! Their wage bill did rise by £13.1m that said.

I think it was earlier this year their owner told them they would be in very big trouble with FFP if they didn't get promoted? If they had already done the stadium sale then that's not the case? That makes me think it was backdated, they seen us do it (after their owner made those comments) and realised they could do it too?

Does the fact that it was sold (according to Kieran Maguire) to a Hong Kong holding company (so not on Companies House?) make a difference at all? I know they announced it as a related party transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I think it was earlier this year their owner told them they would be in very big trouble with FFP if they didn't get promoted? If they had already done the stadium sale then that's not the case? That makes me think it was backdated, they seen us do it (after their owner made those comments) and realised they could do it too?

Does the fact that it was sold (according to Kieran Maguire) to a Hong Kong holding company (so not on Companies House?) make a difference at all? I know they announced it as a related party transaction.

Yep, earlier this year or late 2018 he said they would indeed be in big- or very big- trouble. I have that feeling that it was backdated but I have no proof so it's purely a hunch based on what you say and what we know- someone on Owlstalk who I recognise from following Kieran Maguire on Twitter reckons that if a process has begun in financial year x, then if it's completed in financial year y that's alright- however there is still potentially nothing on Land Registry which is puzzling.

Shouldn't if it is an RPT. They still need to produce their UK accounts but quite likely the Holding Company in Hong Kong.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked in a bit more detail.

That wage bill! Admittedly some of it will have been from sacking Carvahal and the fact it was 14 month accounts to July 2018, but wow!

D_MMF9aX4AECIHa.jpg

D_MPhptXsAA-NcM.jpg:large

 

Underlying loss £35.5m or thereabouts.- the slightest downward adjustment to that ground transaction profit based on benchmarking could be disastrous- wouldn't that be sad! :whistle2:

Think Reading's £20m NBV, £26.5m gross transaction was by far the most legit.

Interesting thread on this one- BBC Sheffield journo. Cannot fathom how they kept the news of the transaction under wraps for so long and also how they managed to get it into 2017/18 season- and why it still does not appear on Land Registry, Sheffield Wednesday still listed as owner of Hillsborough it appears.

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take as well.

Mike Thornton has received response from EFL on certain aspects- his essay on his site. Doesn't align so well with UEFA rules. My simple solution therefore is that any club who has complied during EFL period only via a sale and leaseback to owners who qualifies for Europe should be refused a UEFA License- whether they win one of the 2 Cups, or they finish 6th in the League within one or 2 seasons up- so Aston Villa basically, no alignment, no license- or in the highly unlikely event Sheffield Wednesday especially win the FA Cup/League Cup this season. Aston Villa might but fulfilment reached through this should be punished with no License for a UEFA competition until the 3 year rolling period has it fall off the books.

https://www.mikethornton.xyz/ffp-eat-humble-pie-or-my-hat/

The potentially highly interesting aspect here too is that EFL FFP regs don't seem to align with UK Accounting law in some aspects? The article may or may not have a valid point.

Back fo my UEFA license point though, the Regs on it seemingly say:

Quote

Under UEFA FFP rules we find
The profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets (including, but not limited to, a club’s stadium and training facilities) in a reporting period must be excluded from the break-even result”

This after all forms the basis for the regs/rules.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says cheats don't prosper eh?

While Sheff Wed fans may wish to kiss Chansiri for this, Gibson too should have given him one- of the Glaswegian variety. ;)

On a serious note if I was a club who had abided or even tried to and I saw this, especially the gross inflation with no real mitigating factors, I would struggle to have cheats in my boardroom at games or to share it with them and remain civil, calm and professional- I really would. Genuinely think ones like this, who effectively cheat the competition should be treated accordingly- as pariahs.

Sounds like Chansiri has kicked Sky out of the training ground over the Bruce stuff- has he banned then?

To me, no Sky access, no Sky money. Your club are arrogant and despicable.  @Owl Visiting

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

My last post was a bit strong but I still stand by what I say about having a serious problem when it comes to sharing a boardroom with such people- edit facility ran out of course.

Idea on Fixed Asset sales, but especially sale and leaseback to related parties.

Set the benchmark on the most realistic sale and leaseback price- Reading's £20m NBV, £26.5m transaction- accept that ratio i.e. 25-35% but no more.

In which case, we would see the gross transaction price:

Hillsborough- adjusted to somewhere between £27.8m and £30m. Profit on NBV between £5.6-£7.78m

Pride Park- adjusted to somewhere between £51,449,516.25 to £55,565,477.55. Profit on NBV between £10,289,903.25-£14,405,864.55.

Villa Park- adjusted to somewhere between £35,434,967.50 to £38,264,764.90. Profit on NBV between £7,086,993.50-£9,921,790.90

Note- this is adjusted for FFP purposes, fair value, not necessarily what would appear in the accounts.

With that Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday absolutely fail- Derby may well not but then their ground the most modern of the 3, Derby has had solid land rise prices and more importantly they sold quite a few unlike the other 2.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting though, specifically on Sheffield Wednesday- credit to BBC, this is where it is from. Mike McCarthy BBC Radio Sheffield.

Quote

Analysis

Mike McCarthy, BBC Radio Sheffield

There are some confusing things about the sale. I've asked Sheffield Wednesday when exactly it took place and they haven't been able to tell me. That immediately sets off some alarm bells.

In December, Mr Chansiri told a fans forum the club had broken the financial rules by an eight-figure sum - so at least £10m. Now for the same accounting period, Wednesday are showing a profit.

So if the ground had already been sold, or a contract was in place to sell it, why didn't Sheffield Wednesday tell anyone about it at that fans forum and put fans' minds at ease?

And why does the land registry still show Sheffield Wednesday as the owners of Hillsborough if it was sold months, possibly years ago?

Already we understand Sheffield Wednesday are working under a soft transfer embargo - that means they can sign some players, but they can't go big on transfer fees or wages.

And, long term, selling the stadium doesn't help much. You can only do it once, and that means Sheffield Wednesday's next accounts are likely to show another big loss. Without the stadium sale they'd have lost £35m this time.

So they still have to cut costs, and that has begun this summer with the release of half a dozen players from the first-team squad. But there's probably a lot more work to do.

This is particularly interesting, some of the bits in bold I mean.

Not too bothered about their fans mind being put at ease, in fact the more edge the better for all I care, but the key questions:

1) Why non-disclosure of when transaction took place?

2) Smoke and mirrors? Either now or then!

3) Land Registry does not take that long to update- how do you backdate a sale so far?

I know Mike McCarthy has basically ripped off some of my q's but won't hold it against him, :laugh: but on a serious note these are all good questions and the EFL should be scrutinising this very closely indeed.

He also states on Twitter that the company listed as owning Hillsborough- well it's unknown.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting though, specifically on Sheffield Wednesday- credit to BBC, this is where it is from. Mike McCarthy BBC Radio Sheffield.

This is particularly interesting, some of the bits in bold I mean.

Not too bothered about their fans mind being put at ease, in fact the more edge the better for all I care, but the key questions:

1) Why non-disclosure of when transaction took place?

2) Smoke and mirrors? Either now or then!

3) Land Registry does not take that long to update- how do you backdate a sale so far?

I know Mike McCarthy has basically ripped off some of my q's but won't hold it against him, :laugh: but on a serious note these are all good questions and the EFL should be scrutinising this very closely indeed.

He also states on Twitter that the company listed as owning Hillsborough- well it's unknown.

That's one of the reasons I was confused about their ground sale yesterday, see my post below:

On 11/07/2019 at 14:07, DerbyFan said:

I think it was earlier this year their owner told them they would be in very big trouble with FFP if they didn't get promoted? If they had already done the stadium sale then that's not the case? That makes me think it was backdated, they seen us do it (after their owner made those comments) and realised they could do it too?

Does the fact that it was sold (according to Kieran Maguire) to a Hong Kong holding company (so not on Companies House?) make a difference at all? I know they announced it as a related party transaction.

I had thought it was earlier this year, but it seems it was actually in December 2018. My 'very big trouble' bit was paraphrased as eight figures seems very big trouble to me! But breaking it by an eight figure sum doesn't fit with their accounts from end of July 2018?

They were also under an embargo from April until mid August 2018, according to this BBC article. Would the EFL not have immediately lifted their embargo once notified of the sale?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

That's one of the reasons I was confused about their ground sale yesterday, see my post below:

I had thought it was earlier this year, but it seems it was actually in December 2018. My 'very big trouble' bit was paraphrased as eight figures seems very big trouble to me! But breaking it by an eight figure sum doesn't fit with their accounts from end of July 2018?

They were also under an embargo from April until mid August 2018, according to this BBC article. Would the EFL not have immediately lifted their embargo once notified of the sale?

The EFL appears to be somwhere between incompetent and corrupt, so we cannot expect them to take appropriate action under any circumstances.

For another example, the takeover of Bury last year was done without complying with EFL rules. Needless to say the EFL did nothing. Nor are they remotely embarrassed to admit it.

I expect any shady dealings on Wednesday's part to go unexamined therefore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The EFL appears to be somwhere between incompetent and corrupt, so we cannot expect them to take appropriate action under any circumstances.

For another example, the takeover of Bury last year was done without complying with EFL rules. Needless to say the EFL did nothing. Nor are they remotely embarrassed to admit it.

I expect any shady dealings on Wednesday's part to go unexamined therefore.

Can clubs not bring about some sort of pressure for this- especially this one because of the set of circs surrounding it?

Aston Villa too if they return- this one seems even more pressing and more "interesting" though- I'd argue regardless of FFP that a serious EFL misconduct hearing is due unless they can produce documentation proving that the accounting period and the transaction were aligned, in real time and in real terms.

Mike McCarthy BBC Sheffield is looking into this/covering it on Twitter.

Indeed there is a possible "smoking gun" so to speak- found on Twitter and Owlstalk.

D-tVHq6XUAAbVIX.jpg

This if accurate surely means that the transaction demonstrably DID NOT take place in financial year ending in July 31 2018- possible backdating job??

Tweet with time and date.

 

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

13 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous for posting these. Really interesting.

Based on what we know of EFL's handling of Birmingham and whatever else, what do you think will (as opposed to ought to) happen to Wednesday, Villa and Derby? 

 

With EFL's track record - bu99er all! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, what will happen?

I fear not a lot- maybe Sheffield Wednesday soft embargo will continue until the end of the summer window on the principle that if their accounts come in late, then the EFL will take a long time scrutinising them and oops transfer deadline will pass. I mean is there definitive proof they have been registered by EFL, could Chansiri have not just released all this ie player announcements and "interesting" accounts as a distraction technique to boost morale what with Bruce maybe leaving?

Aston Villa- really hard to say. I fear nothing but there were rumours at PL were looking into their deal as though it may well be acceptable within EFL regulations, EPL ones are not so clear- @Coppello if he hasn't covered it already maybe best placed to answer if the EPL could dock Aston Villa points for it breaching their rules?

Derby- I had them down as big in breach but their accounts make it less clearcut. A big difference between the first 2 and Derby is they sold 7 players between 2016-17 and season just gone. Did they sign too? Yes, but these were a mix of first team and useful squad that they sold, plus e.g. Weimann and Vydra out Marriott and Waghorn in likely a reduction in total wages. Lee Grant- Squad. Cyrus Christie- First Team, Tom Ince- First Team, Will Hughes- First Team, Jeff Hendrick- First Team, Matej Vydra- First Team and Andreas Weimann- Either First Team or In and around. @DerbyFan may correct me on their status. My point is they're certainly not as bad as the other 2.

To me as a starting point what should happen is that the valuations should be lopped down to a 32.5% profit on NBV as per Reading- precedent, benchmarking. Maybe that Derby pass with that, certainly not the other 2. Remove for FFP purposes the rest of the profit for all 3, then assess afresh.

Sheffield Wednesday probably should be looked at for this and more, hopefully Mike McCarthy at BBC Radio Sheffield will continue his interesting work.

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

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Can clubs not bring about some sort of pressure for this- especially this one because of the set of circs surrounding it?

Aston Villa too if they return- this one seems even more pressing and more "interesting" though- I'd argue regardless of FFP that a serious EFL misconduct hearing is due unless they can produce documentation proving that the accounting period and the transaction were aligned, in real time and in real terms.

Mike McCarthy BBC Sheffield is looking into this/covering it on Twitter.

Indeed there is a possible "smoking gun" so to speak- found on Twitter and Owlstalk.

D-tVHq6XUAAbVIX.jpg

This if accurate surely means that the transaction demonstrably DID NOT take place in financial year ending in July 31 2018- possible backdating job??

Tweet with time and date.

 

Of course they could, the EFL is the clubs. The signs are that, Steve Gibson aside, they are not interested in doing anything though.

Perhaps other clubs are not pressing the case either because they have their own dubious practices they want to keep hidden or because they want the option of circumventing FFP themselves in the future.

As you have pointed out, they quietly changed the rules to allow the sale of grounds to count against FFP. Entirely coincidentally of course, this turned out to be convenient for a number of big clubs.

We know that some clubs wanted to further weaken the rules and I expect that to happen in due course.

What is needed is a reputable investigative journalist from the national media - like David Conn at The Guardian - to get their teeth into this kind of stuff. Problem is it involves clubs who are media darlings so nothing is likely to happen.

.

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

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Of course they could, the EFL is the clubs. The signs are that, Steve Gibson aside, they are not interested in doing anything though.

Perhaps other clubs are not pressing the case either because they have their own dubious practices they want to keep hidden or because they want the option of circumventing FFP themselves in the future.

As you have pointed out, they quietly changed the rules to allow the sale of grounds to count against FFP. Entirely coincidentally of course, this turned out to be convenient for a number of big clubs.

We know that some clubs wanted to further weaken the rules and I expect that to happen in due course.

 What is needed is a reputable investigative journalist from the national media - like David Conn at The Guardian - to get their teeth into this kind of stuff. Problem is it involves clubs who are media darlings so nothing is likely to happen.

 .

The counterbalance there is though that there are other big clubs who comply- they too can perhaps cancel out the weight of the ones with sharp practice.

Well big to medium anyway- Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest.

Agree, David Conn- this sort of thing would be made for him. Given the EFL usually announce rule changes on their site, this one is pretty scandalous.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The counterbalance there is though that there are other big clubs who comply- they too can perhaps cancel out the weight of the ones with sharp practice.

Well big to medium anyway- Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest.

Agree, David Conn- this sort of thing would be made for him. Given the EFL usually announce rule changes on their site, this one is pretty scandalous.

Forest's recent history means they are unlikely to rock the boat I reckon. Leeds appear to have their own financial issues so may want a get out in future perhaps.

Boro are the only ones to put their heads above the parapet and got zero support.

The bad guys have already won I think.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Forest's recent history means they are unlikely to rock the boat I reckon. Leeds appear to have their own financial issues so may want a get out in future perhaps.

Boro are the only ones to put their heads above the parapet and got zero support.

 The bad guys have already won I think.

That genuinely did surprise me- that vote in April- I wonder what would have happened had the vote gone differently, would there have been some sort of demotion from the playoffs for Aston Villa especially, points deductions for Sheff Wed too? Plus maybe Derby- a good alternate history that.

I think Gibson overplayed his hand in that meeting tbh. I understand the urgency too, but at the same time simply a motion of "Disallow profit or profit beyond a certain Reading type ratio on these transactions as a % from FFP calculations, then adjudge it from that new starting point"- I wonder if that might have passed.

Then if it did pass, Aston Villa might have been docked points in-season, Sheffield Wednesday and maybe Derby.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2019 at 17:37, Mr Popodopolous said:

Aston Villa- really hard to say. I fear nothing but there were rumours at PL were looking into their deal as though it may well be acceptable within EFL regulations, EPL ones are not so clear- @Coppello if he hasn't covered it already maybe best placed to answer if the EPL could dock Aston Villa points for it breaching their rules?

In all honesty, I have no idea and I don't think the Premier League do. I'd be shocked if there were repercussions in the PL for their failings in the Championship.

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

:laugh: Sheff Wed fans are somewhat salty, touchy- no surprise though, always considered them quite arrogant as a fanbase/club. Entitled maybe a better term.

https://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/283349-kieran-maguire-article/

I haven't read the article but he does tend to touch a nerve with a lot of people in football. For someone who is trying to become a credible journalist and increase his appearances on Sky/BBC, he doesn't need to write distasteful things about the owners of each club which detracts from his articles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Coppello said:

In all honesty, I have no idea and I don't think the Premier League do. I'd be shocked if there were repercussions in the PL for their failings in the Championship.

I haven't read the article but he does tend to touch a nerve with a lot of people in football. For someone who is trying to become a credible journalist and increase his appearances on Sky/BBC, he doesn't need to write distasteful things about the owners of each club which detracts from his articles.

Agree about him personalising criticism of club owners. However he does make some serious points. 

Elsewhere the Du k & Maguire transfers are mentioned as evidence of the financial madness in football. Although that is true, at PL level with TV money they can"afford" ludicrous fees and wages. 

The real madness is at championship level where clubs are spending more than their revenue on player wages. From a business point of view that is suicidal and unsustainable.

The caveat to that is, of course, promotion and it is the premier league crock of gold at the end of the promotion rainbow that drives clubs and their owners to throw financial common sense out of the window. 

Would Hargreaves Lansdown's accountant have advocated spending more than they earned to bring in the best financial brains in the industry? Yet that is what SL was doing until changing tack and putting the club on its current path. 

Having said all of that you only have to read this forum to see that many fans don't understand basic financial economics - or chose to ignore it- in the clamour for the£40K per week striker that would surely take us to the promised  land. 

 

Edited by downendcity
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coppello said:

In all honesty, I have no idea and I don't think the Premier League do. I'd be shocked if there were repercussions in the PL for their failings in the Championship.

I haven't read the article but he does tend to touch a nerve with a lot of people in football. For someone who is trying to become a credible journalist and increase his appearances on Sky/BBC, he doesn't need to write distasteful things about the owners of each club which detracts from his articles.

I fear you are right, but I believe UEFA regs don't allow profit on stadium sale and leaseback to count towards FFP- PL ones may though, but though I fear you are right I think there should be repercussions as it has effectively allowed them to circumnavigate PL rules to gain a place there- assuming that is that said rules have more in common with UEFA guidelines than EFL ones. God knows why the EFL lifted that regulation though...if they must have it they should set some sort of % of upper limit, ratio, proportion of profit that can count towards FFP. Reading's £6.5m profit on a £20m asset feels somewhat more realistic- that 32.5% or maybe a bracket of 25-35% should be the benchmark IMO when it comes to such RPTs. 

He can touch a nerve, I do agree. His hidden cryptic messages are ultimately pretty harmless though I reckon, can be amusing too. Bit juvenile though?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, billywedlock said:

Until the penalties for abusing the system are 1) Clear 2) Punitive  this will go around in circles for years. 

Relegation by 2 leagues would start to make clubs think 

Like happened to Swindon a long while ago, while for almost exactly the same offence ( IIRC) Man U got a slap on the wrist by way of a a hefty fine.

It made Swindon think, but made Man Utd think how lucky they were to be a rich and successful club!

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Like happened to Swindon a long while ago, while for almost exactly the same offence ( IIRC) Man U got a slap on the wrist by way of a a hefty fine.

It made Swindon think, but made Man Utd think how lucky they were to be a rich and successful club!

Was that a similar timeframe? Certainly I remember reading about Swindon, definitely don't know about Man Utd.

Interesting and funny thing.

Auditor who signed off on Sheff Wed accounts- is or has been by his own admission, a Mr. John Warner, well he is or has been a season ticket holder. Of them Blades? Er, oddly enough no!

Like I say work comes over pleasure but it's a funny thing- not so easy to find this one, but the internet never forgets?

http://www.bqlive.co.uk/yorkshire/2015/09/28/news/golf-s-loss-was-firm-s-gain-6443/

It's a long article so I will just quote the relevant bits.

Quote

GOLF'S LOSS WAS FIRM'S GAIN

Mike Hughes meets John Warner, managing partner at chartered accountants BHP.

 

It was a small matter of 38 years ago that John Warner joined BHP as a chartered accountant. But those first steps on the ladder were not what I would expect from the immaculately dressed polite, almost reserved, gentleman in front of me. After university he spent a year “playing golf and working in a pub” before a “significant” number of job interviews followed.

 

Quote

Out of the office, he and his wife take their dog walking on the North York Moors and the Dales to blow away any lingering cobwebs. The golf is still a hobby as well, with an aim to play the top 100 courses, as well as a season-ticket passion for Sheffield Wednesday. John is a fascinating mix. He has deep knowledge and understanding of the older traditions - which firms lose track of at their peril – and of the 21st Century needs of an accountancy business.

While I am suggesting no impropriety or wrongful conduct, really even if all above board it would appear to an outside observer to have potential for a conflict of interest.

Do I think one has happened here? Certainly not! The problem is that people have to be seen to be above and beyond reproach as well as actually being so, when it comes to certain professions, or certain situations.

Also for double verification- this appears to be same one as the other one, South Yorkshire Investment fund. The article times out, age etc but this search should provide:

Quote

"syif news "john warner" "sheffield wednesday"

Quote

"John, who is an avid supporter of Sheffield Wednesday, said: "I am thrilled to have joined SYIF and am relishing the challenges ahead. "

Like I say just the nature of the beast, surely have to be seen as beyond the fray- can someone who is a supporter, let alone an ST holding one be truly seen as 110% impartial? Again I say yes but! Seems like the sort of thing that should be avoided really, even if all above board which I am sure it is.

https://www.accountancyage.com/aa/interview/2414051/best-practice-bhps-john-warner

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/yorkshire/bhp-merges-with-sheffield-practice

https://www.insidermedia.com/business_directory/profile/profile-5465

Instinctively to me, even if all turns out to be right and above board which I am sure it is and will, it just "feels" a bit of a puzzle to have a season ticket holder or what seems to be a long term fan with a role in auditing a clubs accounts? Maybe it's a lot more common than I've ever assumed!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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