Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Coppello said:

You'd amortise it over 3 years initially as there's no obligation to extend the contract and therefore the initial life is just 3 years. I actually don't know the answer to the second question as I've never really thought about it. I thought it was simply different wording calling something a new deal - obviously exercising an option to extend what happened yesterday is a little different. 

Regarding the amortisation you'd rebase the remaining "cost" of the transfer fee over the new period. For example, let's just take the COD example, using £3m as a transfer price (as dividing £2m over 3 years is horrible!): 

- We purchased him in 16/17 for £3m on a 3 year deal.

- We'd amortise that £3m over three years (£1m per year). However, let's say we exercised the option two years into the contract, you'd rebase the amortisation charge. So there's £1m left on the balance but now two years left of the contract. Therefore the charge would then change to £500k per year.  

That's a very high level summary and it obviously gets a little more complex than that. One of the good things about the sales of Bobby Reid and Joe Bryan in the summer is that they're academy graduates and would therefore not have any value on the balance sheet before their sale. Therefore, the transaction value will be pretty much pure profit which will help with things from an FFP perspective. 

I wondered if given contracts tend to run out on 30th June for players.

If we renewed it, i.e. exercised the option at the end then it would be pure profit as 3 years is up and maybe treated as a new deal? However, doing it now which is give or take 2 and a half years in, would have the remaining balance- £500k in the £3m over 3 years scenario- set over the new lifespan of the deal i.e. now until June 2020? In other words, £500k/1.5 rather than contract run down, amortised £3m/3 then option exercised in say May or June 2019 which could in theory have a zero remaining balance.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wondered if given contracts tend to run out on 30th June for players.

If we renewed it, i.e. exercised the option at the end then it would be pure profit as 3 years is up and maybe treated as a new deal? However, doing it now which is give or take 2 and a half years in, would have the remaining balance- £500k in the £3m over 3 years scenario- set over the new lifespan of the deal i.e. now until June 2020? In other words, £500k/1.5 rather than contract run down, amortised £3m/3 then option exercised in say May or June 2019 which could in theory have a zero remaining balance.

I very much suspect there’s a trigger point in the contract that says the option has to be exercised by 31st January, or else the player is eligible to start talking to other clubs re being a free-agent in the summer.

Also, not sure how we deal with contracts til 30th June annually, but our accounts up to 31st May.  Would we amortise 11/12ths in the accounts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I very much suspect there’s a trigger point in the contract that says the option has to be exercised by 31st January, or else the player is eligible to start talking to other clubs re being a free-agent in the summer.

Also, not sure how we deal with contracts til 30th June annually, but our accounts up to 31st May.  Would we amortise 11/12ths in the accounts?

Probably right- it does very get very complex in terms of rounding, 31st Jan would make sense for exercising an option in fact.

That's a good point that, maybe 1/12 would go into the next year or maybe it would be rounded to include the 1/12th. No idea however on this latter point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Probably right- it does very get very complex in terms of rounding, 31st Jan would make sense for exercising an option in fact.

That's a good point that, maybe 1/12 would go into the next year or maybe it would be rounded to include the 1/12th. No idea however on this latter point.

...and probably something we don’t really need to worry ourselves about 😝

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 2019, perhaps the end of March 2019?

EFL have advance financial information- Companies House accounts while not the whole picture give a fair barometer, but the problem is that most clubs don't submit their accounts to Companies House until end of Feb, end of March.

As for the EFL- they received accounts for last season by December 1st of 2018, clubs had to submit them by then to the EFL (but not, confusingly, Companies House). I think they have to submit this season's projected accounts by March or end of March this year- given transfer window shut, a projection to May 31/June 30 2019 should be feasible.

Sanctions or otherwise (in theory) are based on the previous seasons 2 real accounts and this seasons FFI, also known as projected accounts.

There's a significant lack of public transparency on this however- commercial reasons probably dictate this.

 

Quote

 

Appendix 5 - Financial Fair Play Regulations

APPENDIX 5 FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY RULES

 

PART 1 – CHAMPIONSHIP FAIR PLAY RULES

 

Notes:

Capitalised Terms have the meanings ascribed to them in Regulation 1 or 16 of the Regulations of The League unless otherwise indicated.  The following Rules are supplemental to the Regulations.

This Part consists of the Championship Fair Play Rules which continue to apply for the purposes of reporting in respect of Season 2015/16, and the consequences arising from those reports.  Part 2 contains the Profitability and Sustainability Rules which are applicable for Season 2016/17 onwards.

 

1              Fair Play Requirement

1.1          All Championship Clubs are required to meet the Fair Play Requirement (as defined in Rule 1.2) for each Reporting Period (as defined in Rule 1.4) following the commencement of these Rules. The first Reporting Period for the purposes of these Rules will cover the 2011/12 Season but the consequences of failing to fulfil the Fair Play Requirement will not be effective until 1st December 2014 (see Rule 6 below).

1.2          The Fair Play Requirement is a measure whereby a Championship Club’s Fair Play Result must be:

1.2.1       an amount equal to £nil or greater; or

1.2.2       an amount less than the aggregate of the Permitted Allowances (defined in Rule 5) in relation to the relevant Reporting Period.

1.3          The Fair Play Result is an amount equal to a Championship Club’s profit / loss before tax, after adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4.2.

1.4          A Reporting Period is the period over which a Championship Club is assessed for the purpose of the Fair Play Requirement.  For each Season the Reporting Period is (subject to Rule 2.2 or Rule 2.3) the immediately preceding 12 month period recorded in the Championship Club’s Annual Accounts.  For example, for those Championship Clubs with a financial year ending in the period May, June or July the Reporting Period for the 2014/15 Season is the 12 month period ending May, June or July 2014.

2              Variations From ‘Standard’ Reporting Periods

2.1          Championship Clubs may not adjust Reporting Periods for subsequent Seasons without the prior written consent of The League, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

2.2          If:

2.2.1       the Annual Accounts for any Championship Club are for a period other than the 12 months described by Rule 1.4, then that Championship Club must prepare 12 Month Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3); or

2.2.2       any Championship Club has a financial year ending other than during the period May, June or July, then that Championship Club must prepare Additional Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3).

2.3          The 12 Month Accounts and the Additional Accounts (as applicable) must be an additional set of full accounts (in the same manner and with the same degree of verified detail as if the Championship Club was obliged to lodge those additional accounts at Companies House) reviewed by the Championship Club’s auditor for a 12 month period ending during May, June or July so as to provide The League with a set of accounts aligned to the Reporting Period as defined in Rule 1.4.

 

3              Submission of Fair Play Information

3.1          By the 1st December in each Season a Championship Club must submit its:

3.1.1       Annual Accounts;

3.1.2       12 Month Accounts; or

3.1.3       Additional Accounts,

for the immediately preceding Reporting Period together with a Fair Play Calculation (in the form prescribed by The League from time-to-time, and which as at the date of the implementation of these Rules is as set out in Part 1 of Appendix G) for the same Reporting Period (together the Fair Play Information).

3.2          References in these Rules to “Accounts” shall mean the Annual Accounts, 12 Month Accounts or Additional Accounts as applicable to that Championship Club.

3.3          By way of example, by 1st December 2012 each Championship Club must submit it’s Fair Play Information for the financial year ending May, June or July 2012 (exactly which date will be determined by the year end date of the Accounts).

3.4          For the avoidance of doubt the Fair Play Information must be supplied notwithstanding the fact that for the Season covered by the Reporting Period the Championship Club was either a Premier League Club relegated into the Championship (Former Premier League Club) or a League One Club which was then promoted into the Championship (Promoted League One Club).

3.5          The Fair Play Information must:

3.5.1       relate to the Championship Club or if applicable (as detailed in Regulation 16.4) the Group of which the Championship Club is a member;

3.5.2       be approved by management, as evidenced by way of a brief statement (Board Statement) confirming the completeness and accuracy of the information (in the format required by The League from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is as set out in Part 2 of Appendix G), and signature on behalf of the board of directors of the Championship Club; and

3.5.3       be accompanied by a statement confirming the completeness and accuracy of the information (in the format required by The League from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is as set out in Appendix H) by the auditor of the Accounts.

3.6          The League may require a Championship Club to provide such further information as it deems necessary (acting reasonably) for the purposes of enabling The League to assess whether a Championship Club has fulfilled (or not) the Fair Play Requirement.

3.7          Any such request shall be made in writing (including by email to the Club Secretary) and shall be responded to in full within 10 Normal Working Days of any such request being made.

3.8          Each Championship Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Championship Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement).  Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Championship Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit Fair Play Information which is intended to seek to or does take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the Fair Play Requirement.

 

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Out of interest, when is it likely to be known if clubs have exceeded the FFP allowances?

Seems strange that it might occur after the transfer window closes.

FFP is calculated over s 3 year rolling period, the first of which comes up this March. This means that clubs have effectively had 3 years notice of the day of reckoning.

If , as I am sure they do, they maintain management accounts, and they are properly conversant with ffp rules( ignorance of the rules is not a defence) they will know how close they are to the limits well before now.

I'm guessing most clubs financial year end will be around March/April time , and if so, they have 2 windows from the end of their second year until the ffp reckoning. If they are aware that they might be close to breaching that should give plenty of time to make transfers that would redress the problem.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not City or even Championship related, but I saw this online- here is a club I never assumed would slip into possible FFP issues- if indeed these projected accounts for last season (accounts overdue) but particularly moving forward for them, this and next, in the right ballpark.

Dxs0X9fXgAYLpEb.jpg

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have a go!

Purely focusing on us here and not the context, the rules the regs etc- we as with all regular Championship clubs can lose £39m over 3 seasons. We have fallen below this happily in the accounts between 2015/16 to last season, once the allowable costs- namely Infrastructure Expenditure, Youth Expenditure, Community Expenditure and Women's football expenditure all factored in.

BCFC Holdings Losses by season- before allowable expenditure:

  • 2015/16- £14,798,070- Minus allowable expenditure of £2.7m.
  • 2016/17- £6,346,035- Minus allowable expenditure of £4.5m.
  • 2017/18- £25,164,281- Minus allowable expenditure of £4.7m

Total losses- £46,299,386- Minus allowable losses of £11.9m.

Total FFP adjusted losses therefore appear to be £34,399,386.

This is good because it means that 2015/16 losses are removed from the record and the starting point is therefore 2016/17 and that is before even taking into account the sales and cost reductions of this summer i.e. Hegeler, O'Neil, Steele all off the wage bill even though we got no fee.

Our current FFP position therefore would be based on the last 2 seasons and before taking into account this season, 2 year FFP losses of £22,310,316 which means we can lose if we wish up to £16.69m roughly this season in FFP terms (that's before the allowable expenditure).

I'm hoping after the big sales and some of the aforementioned players who departed without a fee but less wages that we may break even this season. If we break even this year and our allowable costs are say £4m, that would be a profit in FFP terms this season of £4m which would take our overall FFP losses for this and last season down to £16,464,281. Which would mean a good roll of the dice possible in 2019/20- by which I mean only sell if we want to and add some decent assets- not go nuts but add our decent assets.

If we are still at this level in 2020/21 and didn't  go on a wasteful spending spree next season or this January- sort of just spending because it's there- then we could have a big war chest in 2020/21, good scope to gamble if we wished.

As a little end note, not knocking the board or anything but last season had there been a guarantee it would have got us over the line, we could seemingly have added another £4.5m to the expenditure if other allowance based figures are broadly right- that's not on a fee that's total of wages, fee, signing on fee etc but we could have. The trade off would probably have been bigger cutbacks this season had the gamble not paid off and we may have been hamstrung moving forward for a year or 2.

Forgot to add- Transfer income or revenue gained by sell on fees offset operating losses. Quite important!

Adjusted Loss excluding Profit on Transfers or Sell on fee Revenue:

  • 2015/16- £14,434,719 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £81,358). Other financial items took our overall losses to what they were which was £14,798,070..
  • 2016/17- £18,515,320 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £13,603,739).  Other financial items took our overall losses to what they were of £6,346,035.
  • 2017/18- £25,165,335 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £296,625). Other items took the losses to what they were of £25,164,281.

Basically our operating loss averaged out as it appears on the accounts is £19.37m per season. FFP exclusions over the 3 years appear to average a shade under £4m so we need an average of £2.37m per season of Profit on disposal of Player Contracts or a reduced wage bill or other expenditure by similar margins just to stay within FFP. This summer though should provide a huge boost moving forward.

Reduced amortisation also helps with this overall improvement in financial position- because I believe when a player is sold, their amortisation is therefore off the books. Same when they leave as a free agent. (That goes for Djuric, Hegeler, Magnússon, Engvall- but not Reid or Bryan as the latter were academy so zero amortisation cost. Flint kept renewing so there maybe some there too).

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The finances are all very interesting but does anybody know, real world, what the actual sanctions are for breaching FFP? There was talk of a fixed levy taken from TV monies but I'm not sure this has ever been sanctioned (why further push a club into debt if it risks their existence?) I know there have been a few transfer embargoes but are they that stringent? Seem to recall a few clubs who were constrained managing to take in players on loan if it was an emergency, they were over 6ft, bald or any other get-out they could summon up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The finances are all very interesting but does anybody know, real world, what the actual sanctions are for breaching FFP? There was talk of a fixed levy taken from TV monies but I'm not sure this has ever been sanctioned (why further push a club into debt if it risks their existence?) I know there have been a few transfer embargoes but are they that stringent? Seem to recall a few clubs who were constrained managing to take in players on loan if it was an emergency, they were over 6ft, bald or any other get-out they could summon up.

My understanding is that financial penalties are still available, although I'm not sure about any sort of levy on TV money, and that transfer embargoes can still be applied. I know Forest, Brum and Wednesday have had embargoes enforced, but am not sure if this was through FFP breaches.

However, with the change to a 3 year rolling accounting period for ffp, the first deadline for which we are fast approaching, the big change is the ability of the EFL to deduct points. Because clubs have to provide projected accounts in March of the third year, it means the EFL will be able to assess whether they have breached ffp limits before the end of the season. That means if the circumstances justify it, they can make a points deduction that potentially prevents a team achieving promotion if they have breached ffp limits.

The key with points deduction is whether the EFL will do it, especially if it involves a club like, say, Vila, and it would deny promotion. However, I think they would have to if they are to ensure that all clubs adhere to ffp rules and limits. Points deduction is the real sanction for breaching ffp

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The finances are all very interesting but does anybody know, real world, what the actual sanctions are for breaching FFP? There was talk of a fixed levy taken from TV monies but I'm not sure this has ever been sanctioned (why further push a club into debt if it risks their existence?) I know there have been a few transfer embargoes but are they that stringent? Seem to recall a few clubs who were constrained managing to take in players on loan if it was an emergency, they were over 6ft, bald or any other get-out they could summon up.

I believe it has been a work in progress but now they're getting somewhere.

They should have thought ahead really, the EFL etc- but then they are the EFL so what do you expect? Initially the punishment was pisspoor- a fine if you got promoted under the old rules and then you had to if you were the EFL fight for it and it got redistributed amongst the rest of the clubs. If you stayed down, a transfer embargo. Point is that was clearly inadequate.

The new 3 year rolling rules that began in 2015/16 mean that if you breach it you can get a points deduction for example, perhaps even get demoted from top 2 to top 6 or top 6 to out of playoffs.

In terms of transfer embargoes- they are pretty strict. Well Bolton's was anyway in 16/17 to last season. Birmingham's seems a bit too light but where they went wrong was signing a left back called Pedersen on a permanent deal when under embargo- that really pissed off the EFL and other clubs. They are the first big test case of this- hearing in February as they have put a horse and cart through the rules. Talk of up to a 15 point deduction for them, that is in this case 12 for the initial offence and 3 points for an aggravated breach (the aggravated breach as in signing Pedersen when they were under embargo).

Now the embargoes. They tend to mean the following:

  • You cannot spend money on a player in the form of a transfer fee.
  • You cannot pay an agents fee.
  • You cannot pay a loan fee.
  • You cannot register a player over a specified maximum wage (in Birmingham's case, it is possibly £10,000 per week).

This appears to be a soft embargo. A hard/full embargo means you cannot register players full stop.

At the same time, as well as punishment, the EFL don't want to cripple clubs or **** them over basically.

Bolton's was very strict at times- imagine being a Championship club unable to sign players on more than £4,500 per week! 🤔

https://bolton.vitalfootball.co.uk/bolton-embargo-goalposts-moved/

This year will be the big test though- this is the first full 3 year cycle where you can argue discount a year for reasonable adjustment because rules changed from £5m loss in a season to sudden 3 year rolling (2015/16) and 2016/17-end of this season. Well a lot of clubs have surely flouted it to varying degrees. Birmingham's hearing in February will be very telling and should set a big precedent moving forward.

Accounts for this season, plus the prior 2 seasons will be assessed in March 2019.  EFL have all this info (ahead of Companies House in quite a few cases). Think full accounts for last season had to be submitted in December and accounts projected for this season by the clubs submitted in March 2019.

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

Mr P's provided a very comprehensive response to the what ifs, but there appears to be no direct correlation between 'crime and punishment'.

So if withholding payments have now gone how are the infringements assessed ( £x overspend = y points: is that a one-off,  i.e. I reckon we could live with a 3 point deduction and still go up hence may risk overspending by.. or would an accumulative £x overspend in the second year ( or previous period) be worthy of greater punishment, 6 points say?)

I also don't get the bit about embargoes, which as Mr P implies were written with an intent to drive a coach and horses through them. If in Brum's case they were embargoed how did they sign and register a player without EFL consent (or did they sign him without an ability to play him, else did EFL themselves screw up?) That's what I meant by it all appearing a tad lax, a touch old boys network and dependant upon how much the top table likes you.

Is there an appeals system, or arbitrage? Does punishment against one period receive some form of 'relaxation' else may one be subject to double jeopardy?

Rules designed by committee methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BTRFTG Will address your points fully later. To say on it briefly though it still seems a bit of a work in progress.

Quick update.

Birmingham surely now for the high jump. Selling Che Adams could have alleviated their 3 year loss quite a bit- 12 pts + 3 pts for an aggravated offence had been mooted? Would seem quite fair.

Aston Villa have made some cuts but I think a drop in the ocean set against their losses. Hope they're likewise going to get what they deserve this or next season. 15 points fair?

Sheffield Wednesday had a £15m hole apparently in the 3 seasons from 2015/16 to last season. They've hardly made swingeing cuts though they're in a bit or a better place than the other 2. Again a points deduction next season maybe?

Stoke if they don't go up this year, may have some issues next.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really hope Aston Villa get punished the worst- they seem to not even be paying lip service.

This January- just taken a look- they have:

  • Brought Kalinic for £5.4m (a Croatia international keeper).
  • Brought Guilbert for £4.5m from Ligue 1.
  • Loaned in Mings, Hause and Tom Carroll.
  • Kept Abraham.

Yes, they cancelled Moreira (half-season loan), Bolasie (half-season loan), loaned out Bree, Guilbert, Hogan (half season loans) and McCormack (went to one club, and then another) but their 3 year breach must be approaching huge levels.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true...it sets a huge precedent. Will affect Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday right now or should and quite a few clubs down the line. £7m seems a bit low too, £11m the most widely quoted overspend.

I think for a start they need to sell Adams and Jota quite a creator so he can also either get a big fee or wages and a good loan fee by another club.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/birmingham-city-could-face-new-charge-over-che-adams-xtd0dbnd8

Quote

 

Birmingham City could face new charge over Che Adams

matt hughes, sports news correspondent

methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fbab
Share
Save

Birmingham City’s decision to reject several bids for the striker Che Adams this week could lead to a second charge of committing an “aggravated breach” of the EFL’s profit and sustainability rules, which would trigger a second points deduction in as many seasons.

The Sky Bet Championship club are already facing being docked up to 15 points this season as a sanction for missing the EFL’s spending limits by £7 million over the three seasons from 2015 to 2018, with an independent disciplinary commission due to rule on the case this month. This has led to fears that the team, who are 12th in the table, 16 points off the bottom three, could be dragged into a relegation battle. Ironically, such concerns influenced their reasoning in rejecting offers from Burnley and Southampton for Adams, who has scored 15 league goals this season.

This may have been a serious miscalculation, however, as the club club need to raise considerable funds and/or make significant savings by the end of the season in order to comply with the EFL’s rules, with a failure to do so raising the prospect of a double punishment.

If it is proved that they rejected formal bids for Adams during the relevant accounting period — there have been reports of four offers of up to £12 million for the 22-year-old — the EFL may deem it to be an aggravated breach for deliberately ignoring the profit and sustainability rules, which could trigger an additional nine-point deduction, which would be applied next season.

Birmingham are contesting an aggravated breach charge for their signing last summer of the former Denmark Under-21 international Kristian Pedersen despite being under a transfer embargo.

 

 

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

Wigan's results are out.

Not quite sure how they did it but they had a pretty low loss last season despite the parachute payments ending, the solidarity payments being lower in League One as well as the TV cash down there also being lower and a reduced profit on transfers...so they're nowhere near FFP basically. Income fell by 73.38% and yet loss was as below- not so much.

Loss last year? £7,668,613 from a profit of £4.256,253 the prior season. It's all pretty much in the accounts on their site but still struggle to see how they balanced that and their losses were not bigger. Nowhere near FFP basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really need the EFL to come down hard on Brum to set a precedent for Villa if needed.

Thought the Swansea / Leeds / Dan James But was worth copying in full.  It’s not just a case of agree a fee, the terms that go with it are key also.

Loan terms cost Leeds
Huw Jenkins, the Swansea City chairman, vetoed the club’s decision to sell the winger Daniel James to Leeds United at 10pm on Thursday after discovering the terms of the payment structure, which would have meant that they did not receive any money for one of their best players until June. The club had agreed to loan James for £1.5 million for the rest of the season, with Leeds obliged to buy him for a set fee of £7 million if they are promoted to the Premier League.

On closer examination of the paperwork, however, Jenkins found that Leeds were not obliged to pay the loan fee for the 21-year-old winger until June 30, with any subsequent transfer fee payable in instalments over four years. That deal would have significantly strengthened Marcelo Bielsa’s Leeds squad, as they chase promotion, for no initial outlay.

Leeds are unhappy at the late collapse of the transfer but may benefit in the long run as James has only 18 months left on his contract and Swansea have not offered him a new deal, so he is likely to be available for much less this summer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Really need the EFL to come down hard on Brum to set a precedent for Villa if needed.

Thought the Swansea / Leeds / Dan James But was worth copying in full.  It’s not just a case of agree a fee, the terms that go with it are key also.

Loan terms cost Leeds
Huw Jenkins, the Swansea City chairman, vetoed the club’s decision to sell the winger Daniel James to Leeds United at 10pm on Thursday after discovering the terms of the payment structure, which would have meant that they did not receive any money for one of their best players until June. The club had agreed to loan James for £1.5 million for the rest of the season, with Leeds obliged to buy him for a set fee of £7 million if they are promoted to the Premier League.

On closer examination of the paperwork, however, Jenkins found that Leeds were not obliged to pay the loan fee for the 21-year-old winger until June 30, with any subsequent transfer fee payable in instalments over four years. That deal would have significantly strengthened Marcelo Bielsa’s Leeds squad, as they chase promotion, for no initial outlay.

Leeds are unhappy at the late collapse of the transfer but may benefit in the long run as James has only 18 months left on his contract and Swansea have not offered him a new deal, so he is likely to be available for much less this summer.

Amazed Swansea haven't offered a new deal.

I'd do it purely for the added value when selling.

Plus if they've offered a contract and he refuses and decides to run down his contract and go for free they can get a tribunal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

They probably have and he’s turned it down on interest from other clubs.

Its only because the bit you pasted said they hadnt.

Whether he accepts or not is unimported as far as the tribunals go- as far as I'm aware. I think the only condition is it can't be a pisstake offer, like 1/4 of whatever he's currently on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Its only because the bit you pasted said they hadnt.

Whether he accepts or not is unimported as far as the tribunals go- as far as I'm aware. I think the only condition is it can't be a pisstake offer, like 1/4 of whatever he's currently on.

They have to offer him a contract of at least equal to his current contract.

yes, re pasted bit, I missed that, but they don’t have to offer him anything yet....of course it would be good if they could tie him to a new deal.  But they don’t have to let him go in the summer, and they can wait til next summer to offer him another contract.  Gonna piss the player off, yes, but it’s in their control to some extent.

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

On 03/02/2019 at 01:21, Mr Popodopolous said:

If this is true...it sets a huge precedent. Will affect Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday right now or should and quite a few clubs down the line. £7m seems a bit low too, £11m the most widely quoted overspend.

I think for a start they need to sell Adams and Jota quite a creator so he can also either get a big fee or wages and a good loan fee by another club.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/birmingham-city-could-face-new-charge-over-che-adams-xtd0dbnd8

 

 

IF this happens it could be the defining moment for FFP in English football.

Somwhow I suspect it won’t be a points deduction punishment.

I also believe that Villa, who must also have issues, have spent in Jan comfortable in the knowledge that any punishment will be financial.

Otherwise their actions are bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

They have to offer him a contract of at least equal to his current contract.

yes, re pasted bit, I missed that, but they don’t have to offer him anything yet....of course it would be good if they could tie him to a new deal.  But they don’t have to let him go in the summer, and they can wait til next summer to offer him another contract.  Gonna piss the player off, yes, but it’s in their control to some extent.

Knew there was a condition about the contract offered, just couldn't remember what it was.

Agree it's not panic stations yet. More surprised that a highly rated player hasn't been offered a new deal with 18 months left.

 

Would be akin to us not offering COD one wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Knew there was a condition about the contract offered, just couldn't remember what it was.

Agree it's not panic stations yet. More surprised that a highly rated player hasn't been offered a new deal with 18 months left.

 

Would be akin to us not offering COD one wouldn't it?

In fairness, he’s only played 1st Team football this season.

Signed a contract until 2020 (back in Nov 17), and BBC report it as “at least” until 2020....so might even be a year option....meaning no rush during the window just gone.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

IF this happens it could be the defining moment for FFP in English football.

Somwhow I suspect it won’t be a points deduction punishment.

I also believe that Villa, who must also have issues, have spent in Jan comfortable in the knowledge that any punishment will be financial.

Otherwise their actions are bizarre.

I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a conversation with the EFL.

 "Don't worry, you won't get a points deduction, we'll agree a purely symbolic fine then you can carry on as before. If we want to make an example of somebody we'll go after some penniless League 2 club."

Cynical , moi?😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a conversation with the EFL.

 "Don't worry, you won't get a points deduction, we'll agree a purely symbolic fine then you can carry on as before. If we want to make an example of somebody we'll go after some penniless League 2 club."

Cynical , moi?😉

Exactly.

Otherwise Villa’s actions in particular, would be utterly reckless and I just don’t see them doing that considering the ‘potential ‘ consequences.

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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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