Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

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

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

Mr Popodopolous

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

Recommended Posts

On 18/06/2019 at 17:14, Begley said:

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 

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling our stadium as Villa has,  because BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then surely Villa were in the same position

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

Edited by downendcity
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling sell our stadium as BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then the same situation would then have applied to them.

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

Very much looking forward to @Coppello 's take here and on the overall situation!

It's a curious one, but I think Aston Villa Limited owned Villa Park.

I still wonder about that sale and leaseback, seems the hardest to pinpoint of the 5 clubs who have done it- whether it was right or wrong.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


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

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling sell our stadium as BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then the same situation would then have applied to them.

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

We report our Football stuff under Bristol City Holdings which encompass BCFC and Ashton Gate Ltd, so I assume (I’m no expert)  should we sell our ground to Lansdown or Pula, the profit from that sale would come under AGLtd and therefore under the reporting of BCH for FFP purposes?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Very much looking forward to @Coppello 's take here and on the overall situation!

It's a curious one, but I think Aston Villa Limited owned Villa Park.

I still wonder about that sale and leaseback, seems the hardest to pinpoint of the 5 clubs who have done it- whether it was right or wrong.

Could well have been the case, but it's interesting  that a Villa fan, with I presume a bit of financial savvy and knowledge of Villa's financial affairs, categorically states that Villa Park was not sold, as would be allowed within ffp and that he also states that VP was previously owned by Recon, not the football club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Could well have been the case, but it's interesting  that a Villa fan, with I presume a bit of financial savvy and knowledge of Villa's financial affairs, categorically states that Villa Park was not sold, as would be allowed within ffp and that he also states that VP was previously owned by Recon, not the football club.

Would be worth digging into.

Aston Villa's structure is interesting- here are the basics using CH below...

  • NSWE UK- owned directly by the owners since July 2018, ie the takeover- prior to that it was Xia and it was called Recon Group.
  • Aston Villa Limited- significant contorl by NSWE UK since April 2016, obviously before then NSWE UK was Recon Group.
  • NSWE Stadium Limited- owned by the owners, but according to CH until 16th May 2019 it was owned by AVL. From that date, it was owned directly by the owners.
  • NSWE Sports Limited- significant control, NSWE UK (formerly Recon Group).
  •  Aston Villa Football Club Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited.
  • Aston Villa FC Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited.

One thing that I cannot fathom is why a variety of the company names kept switching and changing under Xia and to an extent the new owners- seems odd. Not saying any wrongdoing but he did love switching names at times! Bit curious, not least as it is the company number that is key here I think.

Each company will show a history of names and dates that name was valid.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


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

We report our Football stuff under Bristol City Holdings which encompass BCFC and Ashton Gate Ltd, so I assume (I’m no expert)  should we sell our ground to Lansdown or Pula, the profit from that sale would come under AGLtd and therefore under the reporting of BCH for FFP purposes?

You could be right Dave.

As I've previously said Im no corporate finance expert, and Recon may well have been the holding company for the football club. Even so, it's confusing that Begley states "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"

Again there might well be a simple explanation from an accounting standpoint, of which I am unaware . The only thing I can think of is whether this is the corporate equivalent of transfer of equity in residential property, such as might occur following divorce, when a couple transfer the matrimonial home from joint names into the sole name of one spouse, who then pays his/her partner a sum for their share of the equity in the property.

However, even if that was the case,  the new owners would be paying Xia, not AVFC, to reduce his equity stake in the football club, so I confess Im still confused.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Would be worth digging into.

Aston Villa's structure is interesting- here are the basics below...

  • NSWE UK- owned directly by the owners since July 2018, ie the takeover- prior to that it was Xia and it was called Recon Group.
  • Aston Villa Limited- significant contorl by NSWE UK since April 2016, obviously before then NSWE UK was Recon Group.
  • NSWE Stadium Limited- owned by the owners, but according to CH until 16th May 2019 it was owned by AVL. From that date, it was owned directly by the owners.
  • NSWE Sports Limited- significant control, NSWE UK (formerly Recon Group).
  •  Aston Villa Football Club Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited.
  • Aston Villa FC Limited- Controlled by Aston Vailla Limited.

One thing that I cannot fathom is why a variety of the company names kept switching and changing under Xia and to an extent the new owners- seems odd. Not saying any wrongdoing but he did love switching names at times!

confused.jpg.cbd2754b522ac02727781a751f517f2e.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside ownership changes, it appears that:

Quote

NSWE UK.

From 12th May 2016 to 13th July 2017 was Recon Sports Limited.

From 13th July 2017 to 9th October 2019 was Recon Group UK Limited.

Obviously is now NSWE UK, new owners etc- maybe it heralded the end of Xia's involvement in any capacity there? Those two names were under Xia.

Quote

NSWE Sports Limited.

13th July 2017 to 9th October 2017  was Recon Acquisitions Limited.

9th October 2017 to 9th October 2019 was Recon Sports Limited.

As above, NSWE- new owners etc.

Quote

Aston Villa Limited

Inherited as Aston Villa Limited and stayed that way until...

7th August 2017 to 9th October 2017 was Recon Sports Limited.

9th October 2017 to 23rd March 2019 was Recon Football Limited.

On 23rd March 2019 it reverted back to Aston Villa Limited- and so it remains.

Quote

NSWE Stadium Limited

Incorporated on 25th July 2017 as Vilden Limited

Name changes to Aston Villa Limited on 7th August and stays that way until 23rd March 2019.

From 23rd March 2019 to 13th May 2019, changes to Recon Football Limited.

As above, NSWE new owners etc.

What I don't get is why all the name changes- the last two in March 2019 fell into it a bit when new owners owned but Xia was still involved.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Just came across this post from last summer, made by a villa fan.

Obviously we have no way of knowing from what position of knowledge/expertise Begley makes his/her comments, but does it put  the cat among the pigeons, as far as Villa's ffp position last season is concerned?

Our understanding has always been ( continually reinforced with glee by Delta) that Villa Park was "sold" by the football club to another of the owners' companies and the profit thereon was applied to Villa's income, completely within ffp rules and  this enabled them to pass ffp scrutiny. According to Begley's statement, taken  on face value, it seems more to do with addressing Xia's equity position than a sale in the sense that, say, Derby undertook. Also, if the stadium was previously owned by Recon ( a Xia owned company) and if it was sale transaction, then surely the proceeds of sale would be due to Recon and not AVFC.

In a recent post Delta pointed out that perhaps our grievance with Villa is because  we could not enjoy the financial benefit of selling our stadium as Villa has,  because BCFC no longer own Ashton Gate. From  Begley's post, if VP was owned by a Xia owned company Recon, then surely Villa were in the same position

Now Im no accountant or corporate finance expert, so my interpretation might be completely wrong, but can anyone throw more light on this?

 

 

 

I do not post anything with "glee".  Let's get that straight.  I try to post facts in a constructive manner.  I may not post what you all want to read but nevertheless, the arguments are constructive.

I don't believe that there was any need to dilute Xia's shareholding - He was finished at the club the day NS & WE took over.  I also don't believe that Begley was/is correct.  The accounts show that VP was sold by the club (Aston Villa Ltd) to NSWE stadium Ltd.  Without that transaction taking place, Villa would have fallen foul of FFP and that is the reason the ground was sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thought on the overall FFP system. Maybe it already works like this or should, but the EFL have not been enforcing it properly,

Once the precedent set ie points off, for a club, then it is relatively easy in theory to dock points for in-season 3rd year  failures. Simply point at the tariff and sliding scale- aggravating and mitigating factors are less clear cut but if a club is over by x, do you even need an Independent Disciplinary Commission? Just dock them the points in line with their FFP adjusted overspend between 1st March and the end of the season. Also a rule that all such transactions ie ground sales etc have to be in place by the time of the submission dates wouldn't go amiss either. I just wonder why they generally happened quite late in the Reporting Period, in all 3 cases- I say 3, there were 5 but neither Birmingham or it seems/I assume Reading have bothered or needed to register the sales.

Overspend in Projected Accounts is or should be treated as being in breach verbatim.

If Projected Accounts are demonstrably proven to be false after the event, then severe penalties should follow for any club submitting knowingly false projections, in addition to the FFP one- IMO of course.

Worth reading the blogger Al Majir from 2018, he seems or seemed to know things about what was going on behind the scenes with FFP. Had snippets anyway.

We do know though in general that Shaun Harvey wasn't that interested in- or maybe capable of- serious governance at the EFL. You only have to look at the number of clubs charged with not paying wages now...well it happened often last season too and what did the EFL headed up by him do about it?? That alone is a major difference.

That's the strange thing though, I've seen him described periodically as a talented and capable administrator who knows the business significantly or words to that effect- understanding his inaction or poorly handled actions/bungling on many issues is difficult based on that- then again Leeds in admin twice, Bradford once, he was Secretary at Scarborough too- wonder if anything went wrong there under him!!

Talented and capable at leading sides into administration! 🤣

I suppose with his track record he should at least know how way around the process, any port in a storm etc.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2020 at 15:46, Mr Popodopolous said:

They need to find a way to expedite the process, legally speaking

No idea of the legality but could they change it so burden of proof is on proving you've complied rather than being found to have broken? I'm sure clubs would act a hell of a lot quicker if there was a deadline for having to prove they've complied or the EFL can punish them based on what they accuse them of having done (ie exceeded FFP by x million over 3 years)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

We report our Football stuff under Bristol City Holdings which encompass BCFC and Ashton Gate Ltd, so I assume (I’m no expert)  should we sell our ground to Lansdown or Pula, the profit from that sale would come under AGLtd and therefore under the reporting of BCH for FFP purposes?

we cant sell our ground we have already done it so if the club folded the ground is still ours but not sure after the rebuild:dunno: 

Share this post


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

we cant sell our ground we have already done it so if the club folded the ground is still ours but not sure after the rebuild:dunno: 

I'd have to double check of course :dunno:

Lot of accounts to go through, but was it sold as such or was it an asset transfer? Which one we report as our FFP figures to the EFL I'm also unsure on- BCFC Holdings in some ways would make sense but...

The latter point, surely as the ultimate company ie the consolidated accounts, such a transaction can cancel out ie no net gain- maybe that's old rules though?

Asset transfer tends to be at book value or no profit- don't think we profited at all from it but again accounts would reveal all...

Very quick look tells me that it happened sometime in 2005/06 season- Bristol City Football Club Limited accounts made up to 31st May 2006.

Transferred to Ashton Gate Limited- on Bristol City Football Club Limited accounts for that season, check note 8 on Page 13.

Unlike ANY of these transactions, we made zero profit- it was transferred at the price it was on the books. As it should be, unless of course accounting regs stipulated something different then vs now- by which I mean could do it then but not now, would have to be at fair value etc.

Course there's Pula Sport and Pula Limited but I'm just focusing on the easily accessible by CH- was an asset transfer, not a sale as such.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, reddoh said:

we cant sell our ground we have already done it so if the club folded the ground is still ours but not sure after the rebuild:dunno: 

We could sell our ground to any Tom, Dick or Harry, surely?  I don’t believe we have sold it, just transferred it into a different part of the company structure as @Mr Popodopolous states above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't followed this thread as closely as some, but I was just wondering that if there was no promotion/relegation this season if any clubs have gambled on success and are/were in danger of achieving it, or has it mostly been a case of people trying to balance the books this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head.

Think Reading must be in danger...unless there is some major item in their accounts that we aren't aware of yet.

Already sold the ground and their profit in 2016/17 will drop off...they looked to sell it at market rates I am sure because the profit was nothing like the big 3- Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- but when released from a soft embargo they swiftly (within a month anyway) purchased Puscas and Joao!!

Birmingham maybe, albeit a small breach so a small penalty- bit of an unknown- or they might be fine this time to June 2020.

We already have the existing Derby, Sheffield Wednesday cases- who knows if a rolling breach would see them fail last and this season too.

Think Blackburn in a tight spot but okay as of now, ie to June 2020 or whenever their Reporting Period finishes- Stoke could be tough going into next (if we have a next!) season. Noises coming out of Stoke make me think they could try some accounting tricks.

Bit less at risk, Nottingham Forest- maybe but they've sold quite well this season. QPR have some headroom but the end of parachute payments this season won't help- should be fine in both cases for this season though.

Also worth noting that equity limits change things...if equity stuck in it's £13m per season, equity up to £8m, if not it's £5m- but that could literally be anything between £1-8m of equity- ie £1 as opposed to £1m, so you stick a pound in it's £5m + £1 and so on.

There's one big unknown of course- whether Aston Villa will face scrutiny as and when they come back! I fear they are fine but...

Their club statement says they have complied with EFL regulations but there are a few unknowables:

  1. Like with Derby and Sheffield Wednesday, they- especially Derby- were clearly considered fine when Shaun Harvey ran the show. Rick Parry seems much different! Derby even put out a statement last September stating that they had complied...
  2. Still with those 2 clubs, will they- and the bulk of the compliant division- accept Aston Villa not getting any proper EFL scrutiny- both of those got charged well after the event for a start once further investigations uncovered things.
  3. Can someone- anyone- explain to me how Loans Receivable which was how the Villa Park Sale and leaseback was done, can count as profit under the regulations?

Dunno if they offset loans to the equivalent of the sale price and in return got Villa Park? Seems very sketchy from a regulatory POV.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of comparison- essentially and quite rightly so it seems that the EFL can change tack if or when new evidence comes to light:

Last September, not long after news got out about the EFL commissioning independent valuations.

Didn't seem to help them did it! The bolded bits are not dissimilar...actually Derby went quite a bit further and deeper! It aged well. 🙃

Quote

Announcement on Financial Results

Exceptional promotion-related costs of £45.8m including a one-off £30m contingent payment to former owner Randolph D Lerner were substantial contributory factors in the £68.9m loss recorded in Aston Villa’s group accounts for the year ended May 31, 2019 published today. 

The Club’s ultimate parent company, NSWE SCS, introduced £30m by way of a capital injection to enable the Club to settle the liability when former owner Recon Group Limited defaulted on the payment.

The payment was made in accordance with the provisions of the purchase agreement of May 2016 between Recon Group Limited (Buyer), Randolph Lerner / Alfred Lerner Declaration of Trust (together the Sellers) and Zhejiang Ruikang Investment Co. Limited and Jian Tong Xia (together the Guarantors).

The terms of the agreement stipulated that if Recon Group Limited and the Guarantors failed to pay the £30m bonus due to the Sellers on Aston Villa’s promotion back to The Premier League, the Club would be liable for the payment.

On June 6, 2019, Recon Group Limited (Hong Kong) confirmed default on the payment. The liability was settled through payment on July 12, 2019. As a result, the Club made provision for a £30m liability in the 2018/19 year-end accounts.

NSWE SCS is wholly owned by Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris.

During the year the ownership group introduced £105.7m into the Club all of which was in the form of capital injections which resulted in Aston Villa remaining debt free.

Aston Villa can confirm that in the 3-year period ending May 31, 2019, the Club complied with the EFL’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules. After promotion, The Premier League reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with their own policies and procedures.

Turnover in the financial year to May 31, 2019 was £54.3m, a fall of £14.3m compared to the year ended May 31, 2018. This was primarily due to a reduction in Premier League parachute payments in the third successive season the club competed in The Championship.

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While part of me is thinking that some clubs are going to go to the wall during this period, the other part is thinking that the period for FFP compliance could be extended, which might save others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FFP thing is interesting.

Kieran Maguire, as of a few days ago,  believes that existing cases may well carry on as usual, I say clearly the tribunals themselves won't but the process, the fact they have already begun.

However that it might be suspended for the 3 years to this season.

I'm guessing that the Derby and Sheffield Wednesday cases won't be shelved, 3 years to May/June 2019- well it's a bit trickier but the period beginning in 2017/18 to be assesses for this season, yeah shelve it.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olé said:

Plot twist (someone else to sell the ground to)

 

What about the other club - Wayne Rooney's Derby County - are they not part of the deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some clubs are spawny, lucky I must say. 

Aston Villa spring to mind, Derby possibly maybe another, with respect to finance, FFP etc.

One bit of news. EFL have dropped/withdrawn the charges against Chansiri, Meire and Redgate. 

To be specific and clear, these are the personal misconduct charges. 

Part of me wonders if they are not pushing too hard on this aspect due to the exceptional circumstances. For example, might the very solvency of Sheffield Wednesday have been in doubt had Chansiri been banned, in these times with no revenue flowing in?

Share this post


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

Some clubs are spawny, lucky I must say. 

Aston Villa spring to mind, Derby possibly maybe another, with respect to finance, FFP etc.

One bit of news. EFL have dropped/withdrawn the charges against Chansiri, Meire and Redgate. 

To be specific and clear, these are the personal misconduct charges. 

Part of me wonders if they are not pushing too hard on this aspect due to the exceptional circumstances. For example, might the very solvency of Sheffield Wednesday have been in doubt had Chansiri been banned, in these times with no revenue flowing in?

Very flimsy if charges have been dropped due to totally unrelated world events. Surely even the FL would not stoop so low?

Share this post


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

Very flimsy if charges have been dropped due to totally unrelated world events. Surely even the FL would not stoop so low?

It's another one of Pop's famous conspiracy theories.  He thinks that the whole world is conspiring against lil old Bristol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Delta said:

It's another one of Pop's famous conspiracy theories.  He thinks that the whole world is conspiring against lil old Bristol.

Shouldn't you be self-isolating?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It's another one of Pop's famous conspiracy theories.  He thinks that the whole world is conspiring against lil old Bristol.

What is apparent to non belter trolls,  is that the FL do not want a punishment to jeopardise a clubs future. 

Shaun Harvey was careful with the massive fine QPR got- he did not want it to risk them going into administration or worse.

@havanatopia I'm suggesting that maybe it might not have been a top priority for them. Had Chansiri been banned, would he have continued funding them?

I honestly don't know but it was notable that this wasn't thrown out by the Independent panel as such, more that the EFL dropped them- maybe were accepting the inevitable granted but there's no published judgement etc online anywhere.

I'm not wildly bothered if Chansiri is banned or similar, my hope is that Sheffield Wednesday get their comeuppance.

Share this post


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

What is apparent to non belter trolls,  is that the FL do not want a punishment to jeopardise a clubs future. 

Shaun Harvey was careful with the massive fine QPR got- he did not want it to risk them going into administration or worse.

@havanatopia I'm suggesting that maybe it might not have been a top priority for them. Had Chansiri been banned, would he have continued funding them?

I honestly don't know but it was notable that this wasn't thrown out by the Independent panel as such, more that the EFL dropped them- maybe were accepting the inevitable granted but there's no published judgement etc online anywhere.

I'm not wildly bothered if Chansiri is banned or similar, my hope is that Sheffield Wednesday get their comeuppance.

I just wonder whether the current unprecedented situation will give the EFL a get out of jail free card, as regards clubs that have potential ffp issues, either on the horizon or under investigation.

No one yet knows the extent of the financial fallout when things get back to normal and I can well imagine the EFL seeing it as an opportunity to wriggle out of awkward confrontations by effectively wiping the slate clean, on the premise of not wanting to jeopardise any clubs future.  I'm not suggesting it is the right thing to do, but depending on ho long it takes for football to return to normal, quite a few clubs could be financially on the ropes and you can bet the EFL would not then want to be seen as the bad guys, by taking action that could tip a club over the edge. 

They would probably dress it up as an opportunity to re-write the rules, having "learned the lessons`' of the mistakes when drafting the current rules.

  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2020 at 17:30, Mr Popodopolous said:

ESwnxWJXYAAKQWQ?format=jpg&name=large

Oh yes...

Yes indeed!!

Maybe I'll book some leave if it's open to the public.

Just you and one other attending now Mr P! :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I just wonder whether the current unprecedented situation will give the EFL a get out of jail free card, as regards clubs that have potential ffp issues, either on the horizon or under investigation.

No one yet knows the extent of the financial fallout when things get back to normal and I can well imagine the EFL seeing it as an opportunity to wriggle out of awkward confrontations by effectively wiping the slate clean, on the premise of not wanting to jeopardise any clubs future.  I'm not suggesting it is the right thing to do, but depending on ho long it takes for football to return to normal, quite a few clubs could be financially on the ropes and you can bet the EFL would not then want to be seen as the bad guys, by taking action that could tip a club over the edge. 

They would probably dress it up as an opportunity to re-write the rules, having "learned the lessons`' of the mistakes when drafting the current rules.

Maybe the rules can be relaxed due to the effect of CV, but CV cannot and must not be used as an excuse for the misdemeanours that occurred before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maybe the rules can be relaxed due to the effect of CV, but CV cannot and must not be used as an excuse for the misdemeanours that occurred before.

one caveat rovers can't suddenly in vest billions.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

What is apparent to non belter trolls,  is that the FL do not want a punishment to jeopardise a clubs future. 

Shaun Harvey was careful with the massive fine QPR got- he did not want it to risk them going into administration or worse.

@havanatopia I'm suggesting that maybe it might not have been a top priority for them. Had Chansiri been banned, would he have continued funding them?

I honestly don't know but it was notable that this wasn't thrown out by the Independent panel as such, more that the EFL dropped them- maybe were accepting the inevitable granted but there's no published judgement etc online anywhere.

I'm not wildly bothered if Chansiri is banned or similar, my hope is that Sheffield Wednesday get their comeuppance.

In what way is it apparent Pops?  Do you have evidence to support this claim or have you just included the word "apparent" in order to add value to your claim?

You yourself have stated many times that there are numerous sanctions available.  If wrongdoing has occurred then it should be addressed.  In this case, the league have decided that no wrongdoing has occurred and you have decided that this is because of Covid 19.

In your blinkered world, everyone is guilty and those who are not charged have benefited from some warped conspiracy theory or other.

Share this post


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

I just wonder whether the current unprecedented situation will give the EFL a get out of jail free card, as regards clubs that have potential ffp issues, either on the horizon or under investigation.

No one yet knows the extent of the financial fallout when things get back to normal and I can well imagine the EFL seeing it as an opportunity to wriggle out of awkward confrontations by effectively wiping the slate clean, on the premise of not wanting to jeopardise any clubs future.  I'm not suggesting it is the right thing to do, but depending on ho long it takes for football to return to normal, quite a few clubs could be financially on the ropes and you can bet the EFL would not then want to be seen as the bad guys, by taking action that could tip a club over the edge. 

They would probably dress it up as an opportunity to re-write the rules, having "learned the lessons`' of the mistakes when drafting the current rules.

I'm not quite sure why you think the league are faced with "awkward situations"?

They seem to have dealt with both Birmingham and QPR swiftly and effectively.

I have every confidence in the league dealing with these issues fairly.  Points deductions will still be implemented if wrongdoing has occurred and there will be little room for sympathy (that's just a silly suggestion) as Bolton and Bury will confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 sets of results from last season.

Wigan- lost £9.2m last season. That's inclusive of Profit on transfers etc. Only have headline figures.

Huddersfield (in the PL)- made a profit of £3.85m. 

Fulham (in the PL) - made a loss- a LOSS- of £20,448,00. May yet be higher given that Fulham Football Leisure is the immediate parent company and Fulham Cougar HoldCo the ultimate undertaking.

Share this post


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

Thanks. 

Surely that stuff should be on hold in these exceptional times.

I agree but can also see it from other teams situation that it’s been only 2 home games at most so why do clubs need to cut wages so dramatically. Is it because they are on the brink of FFP and where is the missing deferred wages coming from if they can’t pay now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

I agree but can also see it from other teams situation that it’s been only 2 home games at most so why do clubs need to cut wages so dramatically. Is it because they are on the brink of FFP and where is the missing deferred wages coming from if they can’t pay now.

I think it's more cashflow- remember most clubs at this level a) Pay in excess of 100% of turnover in wages and b) Make a loss anyway, even with these exceptional times. You then strip out gate receipts, commercial revenue, etc etc- how is TV money paid as well, is it all in one lump sum or is it in stages?

FFP might be a consideration for some of course, and the League need to look at this closely to see if it isn't a getout.

There is a little thing called solidarity too...why should some get a free pass when society has some significant problems/hardship/people taking a hit in this crisis? Including many fans of clubs. Is the country all in it together or not?

Lastly, if I'm an owner why would I want to subsidise further when I'm already underwriting losses- all in it together is bollocks anyway but let's not at least confirm it.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Rovers and their losses.

I don't think they're that bad considering. Clearly a lower cost base in League One than the Championship- the latter is worst from all angles as high stakes gambling to get into the PL but not all that much TV money at all...growth in costs has significantly outstripped growth in other revenues.

I think if we were in League One, say settled as an upper League One club we would break even or possibly turn a profit- we would sell key players, rely on Cup runs, combined with good revenue streams and SL is one of the more prudent on the wage front (by football standards). Or if we were a bit of a yoyo club between the two divisions, we could certainly break even if not every year then often, or over a period of time- no desire to do that though!

Suggests to me though we certainly don't know for sure, that they rose their wage bill a bit, a % but not massively- the increased amortisation also suggests a bit of extra ambition but it's not huge- dare say their owners can subsidise £3-4m losses for some while to come, question would be do they want to?

One curiosity is that their operating costs for last season as per the Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd accounts have fallen.

For example, in these accounts last season it stated that their Operating Costs were £8,968,183...whereas this year in the Headline figures it states that they were £8,283,814 for the 2017/18 season.

@bert tann any ideas on this?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might have it reasonably under control, with the parachute payments and if they keep costs fairly low. If they're fairly prudent.

Could absolutely constrain them for a year or 2, or longer moving forward though.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


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

They might have it reasonably under control, with the parachute payments and if they keep costs fairly low. If they're fairly prudent.

It could well be the case that this payment will not fall under the parameters of FFP (see Villa's payment to Xia).

You would assume that the new owner was aware that this money would have to be paid.  With that in mind, you'd think a contingency is in place - Either parachute money or a cash injection directly from the new owner.

PS - How much would the McAlpine stadium be worth (dons tin hat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Delta said:

It could well be the case that this payment will not fall under the parameters of FFP (see Villa's payment to Xia).

You would assume that the new owner was aware that this money would have to be paid.  With that in mind, you'd think a contingency is in place - Either parachute money or a cash injection directly from the new owner.

PS - How much would the McAlpine stadium be worth (dons tin hat).

Could well be, I'm thinking of solvency they should be fine from that perspective too of course.

New owner isn't all that rich so Parachute Payments it'd be.

Think clubs doing that will be forbidden sooner or later...at least in terms of revenue for FFP purposes. ;)

Value? Who knows- dunno if it's ever been valued, seems to be or have been carried at cost...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Worth remembering the club only own a 40% stake and the local council and rugby league team have stakes in the stadium company. 

It is. Also means that selling and leasing back the ground as it stands surely a non starter?

Looked up a number of years of what I assume to the stadium company- Kirklees Stadium Development Limited- and so far there's no valuation at all! Seems to have always been carried at cost, that said there are 25 years worth of accounts to look through...fun times!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...