Mr Popodopolous Posted April 26, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Davefevs said: They appear to be a bit of a mess, and good ole Mel over at Derby now struggling because players didn’t like his 50% cut / deferral proposal. Certainly are. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/04/26/derby-county-face-race-against-time-agree-wage-deferral-deal/ Rooney appears to be quite the hypocrite, or bullshitter though- unsure of the right category. A few weeks ago he launched a big old defence in his Sunday Times article of players, saying that of course players would take a hit, it'd help low paid staff etc- obviously linked to whether individuals or the collective able to as well. Maybe I'm being unfair but that Sunday Times article was only a few weeks ago but it may as well be a decade... ...Meanwhile Derby not only furloughed non playing staff, they also according to one report furloughed the players... ...The Under 23 players that is! Edited April 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted April 27, 2020 Report Share Posted April 27, 2020 So something resembling carnage is developing at Derby and Sheff W? And are Brentford suddenly in the dock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 27, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2020 (edited) Derby certainly it looks very interesting at. Sheffield Wednesday seems somewhat opaque. Brentford- hard to say, seems quite complex. It appears to have been a truly arms length commercial transaction but that may not be the full story. It could also be at fairly fair value, and it could be that even with it excluded they wouldn't fail FFP anyway. Found an analysis of their 2017/18 accounts and it outlined future plans/post balance sheet events, or some of them at least from a financial angle. Snippet that I found interesting, and sure you will too @havanatopia Quote The stadium arrangement is a peculiar one, with Brentford entering a development agreement with a third party (not named) who the club will sell Griffin Park to and also the land for the new stadium. Griffin Park is to be sold for £30m while the new stadium is being sold to the developer for £52m. This will raise a huge sum of cash for Brentford and a brand spanking new ground which the club will then have to lease each year rather than own, reducing the initial cash needed significantly. This will see Brentford record a massive profit on the sale of the stadium, meaning Brentford will probably record profits not only for themselves, but also for a Championship club next year. The only issue here is obvious, they will not own their stadium. This may make expanding at a later date difficulty and will also mean they may have little power at a later date if the developer wishes to use the stadium for other uses (e.g. other sporting events etc.). Brentford would be wise to have a number of safeguards in place (which I’m sure they do). It will be interesting to see how this develops (no pun intended) going forward. There is a lot that isn't clear about it, though have some bits of research. I know they're sharing with London Irish. Wikipedia mentions Barratt Homes (as of 2012)- they purchased the land off them apparently in 2012, 2008 was when Barratt themselves had it and in late 2014, they signed a development agreement with Wilmott Dixon. What's not clear or fully clear is if the projected valuation matched with the actual valuation, book valuation etc. Some figures and possible projections in the final note in their 2017/18 accounts don't right now make me any the wiser. Quote 24 Subsequent Events Post year end, the group entered in to an amended and re-stated Development Agreement ("DA") with a third party developer for the new stadium through Lionel Road Developments Ltd, a subsidiary of the company. The agreement incorporates the transfer of various pieces of land (the Central Eastern site at Lionel , the Central Southern site at Lionel Road, the Duffy site and the Capital Court site) to the developer by the group, including its existing stadium at Griffin Park in instalments totalling £30m (of which £2.5m was received in 2014 and £20m was received on 20th August 2018) and a newly constructed stadium at Lionel Road scheduled for completion in 2020 with an agreed value between the developer and group of £52m. Further consideration is also contingent on certain development overage outcomes. The group expects to recognise a net gain on disposal of the above assets of £32.5m in its 30 June 2019 financial statements. The land to be disposed of under the amended and restated Development Agreement has accordingly been presented as stock in these financial statements. The value ascribed to Griffin Park in the DA is £35.7m and this will give rise to a deferred tax charge on the valuatrion uplift of £2.9m. I don't think some of those figures as have yet panned out that way. Gain on disposal was £13.6m. Which is a tad below that £32.5m, unless that gain on disposal is only a section of it. Griffin Park has been sold in order to help to enable the funding of the development of the new ground- unless that did come through but the repayment of loans to Benham offset this as they repaid £18-19m in loans to him- that's a lot in one year and a hell of a lot for a club their size! Seems they sold Griffin Park and banked the cash that season, or have received it now or over the time periods outlined, and are selling the new stadium and leasing it back. Maybe these will appear in the 2019/20 accounts (Covid 19 notwithstanding). Still a bit unclear basically! On a pure football and finance note, repaying Benham that loan now seems a false economy- don't do that, they can afford within FFP to keep Maupay- keep Maupay, and they'd be right up there with the top 2 IMO. Maybe in the top 2. Reach the PL and they can repay him that, more and reduce a reliance on him, for him and them! Bit of a red herring as to the stadium thing but the repayment was in fact £21m! £21m!! Net was "only" £13.95m but maintain, bit of a false economy. Edited April 27, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 28, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2020 Forgot to add in my post @havanatopia Reading's accounts...well worth a look! Have been planning to post some key snippets, but my print screen is playing up but last two seasons- worth checking both "The Reading Football Club Limited" and "Renhe Sport Management Limited"- unclear which is the relevant company for FFP but they ain't pretty! Some of the transactions are interesting too, over the two years and two companies- Related Party Transactions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 28, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2020 (edited) https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-citys-stance-revealed-efl-4048097 Now a fair bit of this is already known but some interesting snippets revealed within nonetheless. Intimates too that we are favourable towards the principle of a wage cap at this level. Quote Internally at City there has been disappointment at the actions of several clubs in their attempts to circumvent the EFL's profit & sustainability laws with Derby County, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday engaging in the controversial practice of the sale-and-leaseback of their stadiums. Given two of these have been subsequently been charged- I'm not saying it's solely down to us by any stretch- but that IS good to hear. It is, I wouldn't expect much less but it's good that we are on the right side. It doesn't mention Birmingham and Reading but their valuations didn't take the piss, unlike Derby and Sheffield Wednesday especially, about Villa Park valuation, it's really hard to say- plus Birmingham have already been punished once and there's much bigger fish to fry. Think Reading should have a case to answer. Quote Along with Middlesbrough's Steve Gibson, Lansdown and CEO Mark Ashton - who serves on the EFL board in a neutral role as an elected Championship representative - have tried to promote and encourage a more sustainable financial path for the league's 24 clubs. Again we basically know this, but it's good to have it reaffirmed. Quote For context, City's total wage bill for 2018/19 was £30.6m and given they are just below average, shows the serious financial management that will be required across the league to fall within the cap. Big challenges ahead if it comes in? Quote EFL clubs may be stricter in future - with instant three point deductions being awarded to the points tally of clubs that fail to pay wages on a single month being proposed. GOOD! It's been a good start in this area this season, number of clubs charged- yet I'm sure it happened frequently last season when Harvey was at the helm and I recall zero charges whatsoever?? Quote Clubs will also need to present business plans to officials before the start of the season. It's about time! Though in theory if rules enforced correctly, I think there is already scope with FFI etc- looked at the FFP rules in some depth and the rules themselves seem sound- I thought with Future Financial Info though, they had the right to request further info if deemed appropriate. Quote The opinion of EFL clubs is that drastic measures need to be taken to protect the league, especially in the bottom two tiers, while Championship clubs spend a surplus of turnover on wages. 100%+ turnover on wages is insanity. Quote The salary cap would need to be agreed by a voting majority, but if it is signed off it would come into play during the 2021/22 season, and it is believed that the measures could be passed at an AGM this summer. Would HAVE to be across the board, no allowances for relegated clubs. Granted that would bring its own problems, not least with competitiveness and ambition but one way or another it has to be enforced for all. One theoretical back of a matchbox solution maybe to incorporate elements of FFP rules to combine with salary cap. E.g. for relegated clubs at least early, transitional arrangements could include the continuation of FFP to take accounts for the fact they cannot get their wage bill down to this level but any overspend, or overspend offset by funny measures and it's straight into a Disciplinary Commission, treated as if in breach. Edited April 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 29, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 (edited) Surprise surprise. Sheffield Wednesday have accepted the 3 month extension that all companies have from say late March onwards (their accounts were due tomorrow at CH) ... Companies are expected to get accounts to CH within 9 months of reporting period ending. Easy, easy, easy to do, Covid19 notwithstanding- actually I'd say they could do it in 6, certainly football clubs given they will have decent sized teams of accountants etc in house surely. Should have been due tomorrow but surprise surprise! Quote Accounts Next accounts made up to 31 July 2019 due by 30 July 2020 Last accounts made up to 31 July 2018 Edited April 29, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 1, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2020 (edited) You were quite right @hodge Quote Leeds boss Marcelo Bielsa is on £3.46million a year and Aleksandar Mitrovic makes £3.54m at Fulham, making them clear leaders among managers and players, although opinion is divided as to whether the highest chief executive salary of £740,000 is Tony Scholes at Stoke or West Brom's Mark Jenkins. About Mitrovic, top earner. Another interesting line too. Quote DERBY SET TO SUFFER DELL DELAY Derby's growing financial problems, which led to their players and staff agreeing wage deferrals this week, have been exacerbated by a delay in concluding a £30m loan from MSD Capital. The proposed loan from the investment company owned by American billionaire Michael Dell has been held up as the firm have previously invested in Sunderland, and there is concern that if either club defaulted MSD could have a stake in two rival clubs. Derby's cash-flow issues have been compounded by the fact that they begin the process of renewing season tickets later than most clubs at the end of April, so have yet to bank any ticket money relating to next season. Edited May 1, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted May 1, 2020 Report Share Posted May 1, 2020 Made sense, big money transfer from Newcastle, Fulham were throwing money everywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 1, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2020 He also agreed a new 5 year deal in summer 2019- think it may have been at similar or even higher wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2020 (edited) Would these Sheffield Wednesday fans like some vinegar with their chips? https://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/289203-no-analysis-of-swfc-accounts-until-at-least-the-end-of-july/ Moaning away about Kieran Maguire and his supposed agenda... Anyway vinegar would go well, because they already appear to be somewhat... And Edited May 4, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 8, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2020 (edited) Read something of interest. DW Stadium- saw it on Twitter, here's the report below. Valued, and seems to be Market Value. £29m, as of February 2020. https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2020/0508/2020050800027.pdf Book value and Market Value appear to not differ by much and a comparable here might be multiples, fractions and percentages- precedent/lessons? E.g. Book Value as of 31st December 2019- listed as £27.74m. Market Value of DW Stadium- £29m. A multiple of 1.045, or thereabouts- or 4.5% added. Interesting to see how it compares to the swinging price of Villa Park in particular. A LOT of transparency though. A lot. ****- it even names the valuer!! If only our own FRS 102 had such, or at least the method and price applicable- the last ones did but it appears not to be a required disclosure in UK atm...HK Accounting Standards? Bear in mind this ground has naming rights which can enhance value- and though it's smaller than say Hillsborough, undoubtedly smaller, it is also more modern and surely has more off pitch facilities let's say. Edited May 8, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 20, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2020 (edited) Interesting development! Found a transcript of it on another forum too. Some interesting claims in there, just skimread it- not looked properly but it seems our system for clubs going into admin is laxer than in a variety of places! Bolded a few interesting segements that immediately stand out, there are probably more tbh. Quote Barnsley are one of several clubs considering legal action against the English Football League if they are relegated this season but Birmingham City, Derby County or Sheffield Wednesday are allowed to start next season in the Championship on minus points because of financial fair play (FFP) sanctions. Derby and Sheffield Wednesday face independent disciplinary hearings related to the sale of their stadiums to their owners, while the EFL has lodged a second appeal against a decision to clear Birmingham of breaking a settlement linked to an earlier breach of the spending rules. Of these cases, the first two are the most significant in terms of what is at stake and their potential impact on this season’s relegation picture, with Derby 12 points clear of Charlton Athletic in 22nd place, the final relegation spot, and Sheffield Wednesday three points worse off than the Rams. Barnsley are bottom, seven points behind 21st-placed Hull City, but their co-owner Paul Conway is in no mood to accept relegation quietly. “People seem to think little old Barnsley will follow the rules and not make a fuss,” Conway told The Athletic. “If we’ve been wronged as a result of the league not following its own rules, then it stands to reason that we’d go against the league and its TV money and ask them to pay us the difference in revenue. We think that’s fair and we hope it will benefit other clubs who follow the rules and try to develop young talent. “I’m an American and in American sports, we self-regulate — if someone breaks the rules, they are cheating the rest of us and we take action. “We went through this two years ago, when we were five minutes from staying up on the last day only for Bolton to win and go above us. Everyone knew they were cheating the system and were hundreds of millions in debt. “We decided not to do anything about it then but our attitude has changed. Relegation to League One cost us about £7 million in revenue. If something like that happens again, we’ll make a claim and we think we’ll have a strong case. We’re not asking for a change in the rules. We are asking for the rules to be followed.” Conway and his fellow investors, who include Chinese-American entrepreneur Chien Lee and Oakland Athletics executive Billy Beane, the man made famous by the book and film Moneyball, bought Barnsley in December 2017. At the time, they had a stable of clubs that included teams in France and Switzerland, although the French side, OGC Nice, have since been sold, with a Belgian team, KV Oostende, recently taking their place. Conway has been trying to buy a team in Scotland. Relegation in their first season in England was followed by promotion from League One last season and while Barnsley have struggled in the Championship again this season, they have done so with the division’s smallest budget and youngest team. Results have improved as the season has gone on. “We operate to a balanced budget —in fact, going to the coronavirus crisis we were positive for the season,” said Conway. “That’s just how we do it but when everyone else in the division is losing £9-10 million on average, we expect the league to apply its rules. It’s pretty funny hearing some of these Championship clubs arguing for a bailout when they’re budgeting to lose money every season. “It can’t continue like this — no other major league acts like this. If you have teams not paying players or defaulting on transfer instalments, that goes right to the core of what a league is for. “These 12-point sanctions (for going into administration) are ludicrous. In Germany, France, Spain, all over Europe, really, if you don’t pay your bills or you are late with your financials, you get demoted two or three divisions. That’s it. You’re down. We operate in four nations and England is the worst.” Conway described the stadium-sale-and-leaseback loophole exploited by Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and others as an “esoteric issue” that will ultimately be decided on whether the valuations the clubs used were independent and commercially justifiable or not. “Everyone gravitates towards the stadium sales but what about the black and white issues?” he asked. “We know of one club that didn’t pay its wages on time. We know of another that has been late posting financial statements. There are questions about contracts — whether they were paid or not. These are black and white issues. “Every club in England seems to get the benefit of the doubt but the clubs who do it right get punished. It shocks me and I don’t understand it. “If people start defaulting on transfer payments, there will be a ripple effect throughout the game. If clubs were struggling to pay their wages before the virus hit, what are they going to be like now? What’s the league going to do about it? “If anything good is to come of this crisis, it must be a cleansing process for the game. The changes we want to see are going to be forced on clubs. Everyone will have less cash. If the EFL doesn’t change, we’ll just see an exodus of talent and those of us who are trying to create value, and are committed to youth, will go elsewhere.” Conway is by no means the only Championship boss to feel this way. Speaking to The Athletic, Luton Town chief executive Gary Sweet said: “All outstanding sanctions absolutely need to be brought to justice prior to any decision to close the season. “However challenging our circumstances at the moment, the EFL’s integrity will be further compromised if clubs who have broken its rules are not penalised.” While another club owner, who did not want to be named, said the Sheffield Wednesday case, in particular, had to be resolved. “(The EFL) is still getting on with it and they are pursuing it ‘vigorously’ — that’s what I’ve been told,” he said. “It might even be automatic relegation. (Sheffield Wednesday owner Dejphon Chansiri) hasn’t got the means to put money against the club’s assets. They’re already up to their necks in debt. They could go.” This source also claimed Chansiri would not be missed, saying “he’s just a horrible individual with no grace or dignity about him…he’s like a version of Prince Andrew in that he has that sense of entitlement”. Wednesday’s alleged misconduct is related to how and when they sold their Hillsborough home to Chansiri, as well as the valuation of that transaction, with the EFL suspecting the Thai businessman and two former club executives misled the league. The club have been under the microscope since last summer when they pushed their usual year-end back from May 31 to July 31, delaying the publication of their accounts for the previous season, when they finished 15th despite significant investment from Chansiri in the team. That meant Wednesday were set to overshoot the league’s spending limits. Under “profitability and sustainability (P&S)” regulations introduced in 2016, losses are capped at £39 million over a rolling three-year period. Wednesday lost nearly £10 million in 2015-16, just over £20 million in 2016-17, and were heading for a pre-tax loss of around £35 million in 2017-18 until they — like Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby and Reading — took advantage of the loophole that allows owners to sell their stadiums or training grounds to themselves for a one-off profit. Wednesday did this by selling Hillsborough to Chansiri for £60 million, which was recorded in the accounts as a profit of £38 million. According to those accounts, which were signed off by the owner on June 20 last year and filed a day later, this turned a loss into a pre-tax profit of £2.6 million. Once deductions were made for infrastructure improvements and the academy, their three-year P&S loss was £19 million — £20 million inside the limit. Dejphon Chansiri Sheffield Wednesday Chansiri paid £60 million to buy Hillsborough (Photo: Robbie Jay Barratt/AMA/Getty Images) The Hillsborough sale was mentioned on the accounts’ penultimate page, where it is said the £60 million will be paid in eight annual instalments of £7.5 million. There was no reference to any rent, though, a key factor in the valuation. But the real issues relate to the timing. According to documents at Companies House and the Land Registry, Sheffield 3 — the company Chansiri set up to buy the ground — was incorporated on June 21, the same day the accounts were filed, and the sale went through a week later. This, though, is a year after Wednesday have accounted for it, which should be too late to count against their losses for 2017-18. Without the sale, Wednesday would have lost more than £57 million between 2016 and 2018 — £18 million over the limit. Last season, Birmingham got a nine-point penalty for going £10 million over the three-year limit for losses. Since then, the EFL has told clubs points will be deducted on a sliding scale: three points for a breach of less than £2 million to 12 if it is more than £15 million. A further nine points can be taken if the panel agrees the breach involved deception or a failure to cooperate. A 12-point penalty applied now would see Wednesday replace Charlton in the bottom three. A 21-point sanction would take them to the foot of the table, 14 off safety with nine to play. Derby were the first club to spot the stadium-sale loophole in 2017 and transformed a huge annual loss into a £40 million profit when owner Mel Morris bought Pride Park for £80 million. Morris has made his intentions to defend his actions very clear, as have Wednesday. Both clubs have also said the decision to charge them is unlawful. The Athletic has been told the club warned then-EFL chief executive Shaun Harvey about their P&S crunch and how they intended to resolve it. After several weeks of talks, the figure of £60 million for the stadium was said to have been approved by the league. This agreement came after the financial year-end but the club will argue this followed consultation with the EFL. While Wednesday waits for the hearing, which The Athletic understands is imminent, they can take some confidence from a small victory in the arbitration stage of the proceedings that saw all the personal charges against Chansiri, former chief executive Katrien Meire and finance director John Redgate dropped. The slow progress of the case has already sparked fears the dispute would spill over into the close season, risking legal action from the relegated clubs, but the possible extension of this campaign into the summer has given the EFL a chance to conclude all these cases this season. Low confidence and a number of error-prone performances, including crushing 5-0 defeats by Blackburn Rovers and Brentford, has seen Wednesday plummet in the Championship standings since Christmas. Their only wins have come against Leeds United in January and Charlton in February. Had they maintained their form from the first half of the campaign, they could perceivably have taken the hit of a points deduction without relegation seeming a certainty. Although Wednesday boss Garry Monk and his players say that the spectre of a potential punishment from the EFL has had no bearing on their haphazard second half of the season, they also face the possibility of losing nine senior players at the conclusion of their contracts on June 30, another huge challenge should the season resume next month. Speaking to reporters on a conference call on Tuesday, Monk said he has been “in regular contact” with club officials about the case but has not heard any news. “All the focus has been on these (training) protocols and all these things on how we return (to action),” he said. Edited May 20, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 22, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) Interesting article from the Birmingham saga, albeit from January. One bit in there I did not know... Quote But one business-plan target, an £8.3m player trading profit, was missed as Adams’ fee is part of £5.5m such profit which will appear in 2019/20’s accounts Given they didn't sell Adams until 1st July 2019, so it appears or will do so in 2019/20 account, this may have been the case- as we know the EFL lost but are appealing it nonetheless. The outcome of said appeal will be instructive. According to their accounts for last season it was a £4.363,729 profit on disposal of player registrations. This is of course distinct from the Profit on Player sales ie the net spend- the actual profit according to the HK BSH accounts was £11m or thereabouts. Anyway they seem on the right road, and can't really quibble too much about £22.76m for St Andrews IMO. Could £22.76m in fact be undervalued? That said from Al Majir, the respected blogger about Birmingham City, there was this entry on the Land Registry back in January- but don't know if it's changed since then! Says it's owned by Birmingham City Football Club PLC albeit this was back in early January- could've changed since? Edited May 22, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted May 25, 2020 Report Share Posted May 25, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/19/sheffield-wednesday-sponsors-owner-not-commercially-active-dejphon-chansiri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 25, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2020 Yeah, I remember that from the time. EFL were not concerted though because these were paying the market rate, fair market value or thereabouts- I think some may have small commercial activities now but like I say the EFL and certainly under Harvey, were not altogether concerned- if at all. On a happier note, the Millwall chairman has spoken out- has Gibson got an ally now? A vocal one I mean. https://the72.co.uk/168524/millwall-chairman-slams-championship-clubs-that-break-the-rules/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 25, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2020 (edited) Well well. Clubs are really starting to make themselves known over this issue- going at each other, or the League. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/barnsley-efl-protest-over-appalling-governance-sheffield-wednesday-left-waiting-2864238 Throw in what we know of Gibson's past actions, Millwall's comments this weekend- well battle lines are becoming drawn in the EFL. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/25/barnsley-relegation-letter-efl @Davefevs @downendcity @hodge @Coppello @Natchfever @Vincent Vega Probably missed a few too but dare say it'll interest you all. Barnsley are really fighting their corner on this one it seems. More than that, IMO they are fighting the corner of the compliant majority- though Birmingham's case seems the least controversial. I believe more clubs sympathise and indeed actively agree with Barnsley, Middlesbrough and Millwall- over 50% certainly- I just wish more would actively, publicly and vocally state it! I think some of the criticism IS a tad harsh because Parry is having to clear or try to clear up an almighty mess by Harvey but I totally understand Barnsley's anger here. I'm starting personally to lean towards an idea of automatic relegation for breaches of FFP. Dunno what anyone else thinks? Edit: Think Luton may also have spoken publicly about the issue of these cases being settled before the end of the season. Edited May 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted May 26, 2020 Report Share Posted May 26, 2020 6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Well well. Clubs are really starting to make themselves known over this issue- going at each other, or the League. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/barnsley-efl-protest-over-appalling-governance-sheffield-wednesday-left-waiting-2864238 Throw in what we know of Gibson's past actions, Millwall's comments this weekend- well battle lines are becoming drawn in the EFL. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/25/barnsley-relegation-letter-efl @Davefevs @downendcity @hodge @Coppello @Natchfever @Vincent Vega Probably missed a few too but dare say it'll interest you all. Barnsley are really fighting their corner on this one it seems. More than that, IMO they are fighting the corner of the compliant majority- though Birmingham's case seems the least controversial. I believe more clubs sympathise and indeed actively agree with Barnsley, Middlesbrough and Millwall- over 50% certainly- I just wish more would actively, publicly and vocally state it! I think some of the criticism IS a tad harsh because Parry is having to clear or try to clear up an almighty mess by Harvey but I totally understand Barnsley's anger here. I'm starting personally to lean towards an idea of automatic relegation for breaches of FFP. Dunno what anyone else thinks? Edit: Think Luton may also have spoken publicly about the issue of these cases being settled before the end of the season. Parry has been served a hospital pass, because he inherited a dogs dinner of ffp problems thanks to the inept governance of his predecessor. However, Gibson notwithstanding, until now I do think the deafening silence on the stadium sale issue from every other club has not made things any easier in terms of the EFL squaring up to "offending" clubs. On the cover 19 thread I posted the comments by the Huddersfield owner about the financial impact of the virus on league clubs, with his stark warning that 50-60 clubs could go out of business. I suspect there are many clubs like Barnsley and Luton, that by necessity have had to be tightly run financially and live within their means even though it means they will struggle to compete at this level. Those clubs will struggle as much as any in the current situation and into the near future, let alone facing the prospect of being relegated without another ball being kicked.I can see how they will now feel even more aggrieved to see clubs that have flagrantly ignored the financial rules apparently sidestepping punishment due to issues caused by the same virus that risks their existence. As for automatic relegation for ffp breaches, I'm not sure. Would it be equitable for a club to be relegated with an ffp overspend of £1,000 over a 3 year period alongside another club that overspent £30m? My feeling is a sliding scale of points deduction depending on the eve of overspend, but make the pints deductions more punitive. Where you could introduce automatic relegation is where a club has, for example, been given a transfer embargo and agreed a plan with the EFL, but where they subsequently breach by failing to adhere to the agreed plan. However, it doesn't matter what penalties are available. First and foremost the EFL need to make the ffp rules absolutely airtight to avoid clubs having loopholes through which they can wriggle in future. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 26, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, downendcity said: Parry has been served a hospital pass, because he inherited a dogs dinner of ffp problems thanks to the inept governance of his predecessor. However, Gibson notwithstanding, until now I do think the deafening silence on the stadium sale issue from every other club has not made things any easier in terms of the EFL squaring up to "offending" clubs. On the cover 19 thread I posted the comments by the Huddersfield owner about the financial impact of the virus on league clubs, with his stark warning that 50-60 clubs could go out of business. I suspect there are many clubs like Barnsley and Luton, that by necessity have had to be tightly run financially and live within their means even though it means they will struggle to compete at this level. Those clubs will struggle as much as any in the current situation and into the near future, let alone facing the prospect of being relegated without another ball being kicked.I can see how they will now feel even more aggrieved to see clubs that have flagrantly ignored the financial rules apparently sidestepping punishment due to issues caused by the same virus that risks their existence. As for automatic relegation for ffp breaches, I'm not sure. Would it be equitable for a club to be relegated with an ffp overspend of £1,000 over a 3 year period alongside another club that overspent £30m? My feeling is a sliding scale of points deduction depending on the eve of overspend, but make the pints deductions more punitive. Where you could introduce automatic relegation is where a club has, for example, been given a transfer embargo and agreed a plan with the EFL, but where they subsequently breach by failing to adhere to the agreed plan. However, it doesn't matter what penalties are available. First and foremost the EFL need to make the ffp rules absolutely airtight to avoid clubs having loopholes through which they can wriggle in future. He certainly has- and the lack of input from other clubs until recent times, Gibson of course standing alone for some while as he did- far from helped the EFL to resolve this, and the silence is something I am not sure on. I think the anger was there from quite a bit before now- an article in the Telegraph in early February showed how it was a bit of a civil war over these issues, but the lack of those who want the rules enforced and who work to those rules- I believe a majority of clubs- was disappointing. In hindsight, you are right- automatic relegation for any and every breach isn't the answer- I was just posting from a position of exasperation at the current mess caused by the prior incumbent. Agreed. Agreed. That's a good shout- breach of plan=automatic relegation. I like that! I think the rules are- with one gaping exception at this level, if enforced correctly quite airtight! The one gaping exception was the puzzling lifting of the fixed asset sale profits rule in 2016- deliberate lifting, error, omission-or anything else? Who knows. There is also the question of whether they were applied correctly of course. Exceptional items are not meant to be waved through but I suspect Harvey did not carry out adequate due diligence for example in this area. Or debt writeoffs on takeover- was he that hot on that, or cancellations of loan- see Derby 2015/16 accounts. The rules themselves when enforced correctly are not bad at all I believe- clearly the fixed asset loophole needs closing quicksharp and should've been already, but other loopholes are quite hard to find- if as I always reiterate, enforced and applied correctly. Take the ground sales. This is IMO based on their rules how it SHOULD work: Projected Accounts include a ground sale- hire valuer and check against within the month, so for Derby it'd be March 2018 IF it was in those as they suggest- I wonder if it was but maybe. More importantly, the EFL valuer and the EFL valuation method takes precedence- that is clear with respect to the Fair Market Value regulation. For Sheffield Wednesday, it was in summer 2018- if the Projected Accounts are to be enforced in-season then there is a question as to whether it can be included in 2017-18 at all- any overspend at that time should be treated as a fail- even if what they say about June 2018 or May 2018 is accurate, it's much too late for the Projected Accounts- or on the EFL website, T Accounting Period for inclusion in that respect. For Aston Villa- again was it included within the 2018/19 Projected Accounts? Should have had full scrutiny there and then! If not, then it's a fail and points docked in-season! If it is, then I would question their arrangements- sold and paid for in the form of loans receivable, very, very dicy. Can the EFL leave that as unfinished business given all the cases they've taken out and might yet against other clubs? I'm not sure they can- think of the litigation potential if they did! For Birmingham- it seems quite clear that the ground sale was not or wouldn't have been in their Projected Accounts for last season. Now I'm not so fussed about this one because a) They were docked 9 points b) They have shown some restraint c) They sold Adams, Jota, Vassell- I think they are downsizing and moving in the right direction and d) Though the EFL have to push for it, one report suggested it was 3 points max. Reading's is most interesting! Sold the ground in 2017/18- nothing on the Land Registry! Sold it from Renhe to a commonly owned company last season for £11m more- sold other fixed assets. I have a feeling that some and maybe not all of these were in the projected accounts especially the second batch- because they were under a soft embargo until late June 2019. Again if it's in-season the EFL should have acted in March 2019, if there was the need. So yeah- Harvey made a dog's dinner of it, as you say! Totally inept governance. Edited May 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted May 27, 2020 Report Share Posted May 27, 2020 7 hours ago, NlGHTMARE said: Our board are arguing that it’s not by necessity, but integrity, the rules are set out and we are respecting and adhering to them, our owners are one of the wealthiest in the league, theirs not many clubs owned by richer people in this division, their point is they’ve not over spent, and took the piss like others have and are doing, because it’s against the rules, and if we aren’t allowed to spend what we want, why are other clubs, we’re having to scrape by on the pittance the club generates because that’s the rules. But other clubs are cheating the rules with loopholes and racking up debt, to gain an unfair advantage, and were paying the price because the EFL aren’t upholding their rules. I think this is the crux of the issue Nightmare. Clubs like Derby, Wednesday etc argue that what they did didn't break the rules, because of the loophole the EFL created regarding the sale of fixed assets. However, I think I'm right in saying that one of the EFL rules is "to act towards the EFL and other clubs in good faith" , and this is the bit that addresses the question of integrity, to which you refer. We also have a wealthy owner and one who built his fortune in the heavily regulated financial services world, so he is fully aware of the importance of compliance. He introduced a new plan/strategy t dress the issues raised when ffp was introduced and one which raised a fair amount of criticism and almost ridicule among many City fans , as they saw it as an excuse for him not putting his hand in his pocket. In order for us to comply, we have seen a number of our best players sold over the last 3 years in order that we remain self sustaining financially and keep within ffp limits. Selling this players will have affected our competitiveness on the pitch. The competition in the championship is tough enough, what with the clubs that enjoy premier league parachute payments. Everyone knows that what Derby and the like did was to breach ffp, i.e. spending beyond the limits, and I think most suspect that they did so knowingly, using the sale of their grounds as a last resort mechanism to dodge the penalties that would otherwise have come their way. While the majority of clubs took whatever steps were necessary to adhere to the financial rules over the preceding 3 years, these other clubs gained an advantage by not so doing and were therefore cheating i.e. gaining an advantage. This does not seem to be the actions of clubs treating the EFL and their fellow competitor clubs in good faith. Unfortunately one of the problems is that because of the loophole the EFL themselves created, the selling of their grounds did not break the ffp rules so it's difficult for the EFL to uphold a rule that hasn't been broken - for example Derby spoke the EFL before going ahead with the "sale" of Pride Park to check that it didn't break the rules!. What the EFL are now doing to try and uphold the rules is to take action where clubs have been seen to overvalue their stadium - a much harder task and one discussed at length on this thread. @Mr Popodopolous Something I forgot to mention. One thing the EFL need to address concerns the reporting of clubs accounts in the ffp process. The understanding was that in the third year all clubs would produce the third year's figures as projected accounts. This would enable them to be provided in March so that any breaches could then be addressed and penalties handed down during the same season. The rationale for this was that if a club had breached ffp, thereby gaining an advantage, they could have points deducted that could prevent them being promoted and thereby benefitting from that advantage as had happened previously with Wolves and Bournemouth. As it turned out it seemed to be an absolute dogs dinner with a few clubs ( I think) not submitting accounts on time. As a result, the stadium sale issue notwithstanding, I don't see how they could have finalised evaluation and, where appropriate, penalties for breaches before the end of the season. I know some clubs have end of year in June/July,but this should not be an issue of projected accounts are required, as Im certain all clubs run strong management accounts. Going forward late submission of accounts should perhaps be regarded as a breach of ffp rules with penalties for such a breach as a "incentive" for compliance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 29, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) On 27/05/2020 at 08:06, downendcity said: I think this is the crux of the issue Nightmare. Clubs like Derby, Wednesday etc argue that what they did didn't break the rules, because of the loophole the EFL created regarding the sale of fixed assets. However, I think I'm right in saying that one of the EFL rules is "to act towards the EFL and other clubs in good faith" , and this is the bit that addresses the question of integrity, to which you refer. We also have a wealthy owner and one who built his fortune in the heavily regulated financial services world, so he is fully aware of the importance of compliance. He introduced a new plan/strategy t dress the issues raised when ffp was introduced and one which raised a fair amount of criticism and almost ridicule among many City fans , as they saw it as an excuse for him not putting his hand in his pocket. In order for us to comply, we have seen a number of our best players sold over the last 3 years in order that we remain self sustaining financially and keep within ffp limits. Selling this players will have affected our competitiveness on the pitch. The competition in the championship is tough enough, what with the clubs that enjoy premier league parachute payments. Everyone knows that what Derby and the like did was to breach ffp, i.e. spending beyond the limits, and I think most suspect that they did so knowingly, using the sale of their grounds as a last resort mechanism to dodge the penalties that would otherwise have come their way. While the majority of clubs took whatever steps were necessary to adhere to the financial rules over the preceding 3 years, these other clubs gained an advantage by not so doing and were therefore cheating i.e. gaining an advantage. This does not seem to be the actions of clubs treating the EFL and their fellow competitor clubs in good faith. Unfortunately one of the problems is that because of the loophole the EFL themselves created, the selling of their grounds did not break the ffp rules so it's difficult for the EFL to uphold a rule that hasn't been broken - for example Derby spoke the EFL before going ahead with the "sale" of Pride Park to check that it didn't break the rules!. What the EFL are now doing to try and uphold the rules is to take action where clubs have been seen to overvalue their stadium - a much harder task and one discussed at length on this thread. @Mr Popodopolous Something I forgot to mention. One thing the EFL need to address concerns the reporting of clubs accounts in the ffp process. The understanding was that in the third year all clubs would produce the third year's figures as projected accounts. This would enable them to be provided in March so that any breaches could then be addressed and penalties handed down during the same season. The rationale for this was that if a club had breached ffp, thereby gaining an advantage, they could have points deducted that could prevent them being promoted and thereby benefitting from that advantage as had happened previously with Wolves and Bournemouth. As it turned out it seemed to be an absolute dogs dinner with a few clubs ( I think) not submitting accounts on time. As a result, the stadium sale issue notwithstanding, I don't see how they could have finalised evaluation and, where appropriate, penalties for breaches before the end of the season. I know some clubs have end of year in June/July,but this should not be an issue of projected accounts are required, as Im certain all clubs run strong management accounts. Going forward late submission of accounts should perhaps be regarded as a breach of ffp rules with penalties for such a breach as a "incentive" for compliance. I fully agree. Indeed @downendcity that is the purpose of the 3 year rule, the projected accounts- 'T' being the third year ie the existing season, T-1 being the actual accounts for the prior season and T-2 being the actual accounts for the season before that- that's the long and short of it. Wolves didn't actually breach numerically, so far as we can see- think they were within it by a few million, due to a profit in 2015/16 or T-2, think the big question with them was regarding Mendes and his ability to funnel them players- most notably Neves- well beyond where they should've been, Porto's youngest ever captain who has already been capped by Portugal... ...Of course he's going to go to a side who although an interesting proposition, finished in lower midtable at this level the prior season! Course he is! Other examples too...but in terms of pure numbers in their accounts, factoring in allowable costs and excluding promotion bonuses as does happen, I think their 3 year losses were £36m or something like it once all that factored in. Bournemouth that's a different matter. They were certainly in breach but as you say, advantage gained- under the old regs all that could happen was a fine if promoted and a transfer embargo if not. Even Shaun Harvey couldn't mess up such a simple system! I do wonder given how they fought it in the PL, in a way Bournemouth did not even though rules only allowed for a fine, what might have happened to Leicester had they come straight back down, as they nearly did in 2014/15 before their surge away from the drop!- Bournemouth quibbled over the fine amount but not principle but the Leicester overspend was quite a bit more dubious and they were fighting it IIRC- that dragged on for 2 years, that could have been very interesting. That again is covered in the regs- or would be if enforced correctly. To an extent anyway, late submission of accounts gets a club an automatic transfer embargo until such time as the accounts have a) Been admitted and b) Reviewed. What is unclear is if that means accounts to CH or accounts to the EFL- the regulations state that the actual accounts for the prior season should be with the EFL by end of February/start of March (I think) and the Projected Accounts for the current season should be there at the start of March too- so T-1 and T respectively. I certainly agree- Kieran Maguire did suggest that it is possible to treat late submission in this respect as a breach in a Tweet a little while ago and I think that would be a strong incentive as you say, to ensure compliance- I see no reason why clubs should submit to the EFL the Projected Accounts and certainly not the actual accounts for the prior season, late. Oh yeah, last point on ground sales- I still wonder how a sale paid for in the form of loans receivable, ie Villa Park, is sensible or acceptable for FFP. Edited May 29, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 29, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) One more interesting thing I saw. Don't know if it was Barnsley, some randomer at Barnsley or at another club, some randomer at the EFL who put the letter into the public domain but here it is, their letter to the EFL. It's pretty small so it's worth clicking on it and zooming in. Edited May 29, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted May 29, 2020 Report Share Posted May 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: One more interesting thing I saw. Don't know if it was Barnsley, some randomer at Barnsley or at another club, some randomer at the EFL who put the letter into the public domain but here it is, their letter to the EFL. It's pretty small so it's worth clicking on it and zooming in. That's what I have to say to Mrs Downend these days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 30, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2020 Not City related, or even Championship related. Doesn't sound though like UEFA have waived FFP regs yet- this is a small technical breach arguably and treated accordingly but there was also talk a little while back of Marseille being referred for possible overspending. https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/newsid=2642049.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 31, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2020 (edited) Was having (yet) another look at Birmingham's results for the first half of this season- using the HK and there will be some guesstimates because the exchange rate, maybe approximations as opposed to nailed on accuracy. Based on a quick look at a chart, the Exchange rate on 31st December 2019 from HK$ to GBP was 0.096813. So 1 HK$=£0.096813. I assume Segementation to be results specifically for the football club as they are part of Birmingham Sports Holdings Limited- based in HK, incirporated in Cayman Islands. Anyway, basically using that, they: Made a profit on transfer, largely the Adams sale of £11,250,057.852 if we are using the calculations and rounding. Impressive- and a reason combined with their 9 points, business plan etc why I'm not so down on them. £22-23m for St Andrews also reasonable, rent £1.25m per season- yeah can't complain. Think they've also been inching forwards with revenue improvements while seeing player costs fall. Or overall costs fall- I'd have to look in depth Sunday proper or Monday. Rather helpfully it shows comparables to the previous 6 month period ie to 31st December 2018. They look good! The 6 month loss was seemingly £3,278,821.806. Nonetheless, that was inclusive of the £11.25m profit on transfers. Extrapolated to no profit on disposal combined with similar costs and it's very close to the £13m loss limit once expected deductions removed. It also stated the 6 month accounts were unaudited, so a bit of caution- still they seem to be moving in the right direction, notably due to the profit on Adams largely. 6 month accounts in HK seem to be generally unaudited, all standard stuff. If anyone wants to read those 6 month accounts- I haven't yet- but the report is below. https://doc.irasia.com/listco/hk/birminghamsports/interim/2020/intrep.pdf Not that there's sufficient detail yet for first half of season wage comparisons, unless I've missed it, but they did get it down by 16.55% in 2018/19 from 2017/18 according to Birmingham City PLC- which is quite good, so I'm not that fussed about their current charge if it's relatively minor! Edited May 31, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted June 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2020 (edited) UEFA hand a one year ban down to Trabzonspor for FFP issues. Seems that they aren't suspending punishment or enforcement just yet, despite what fans of some clubs might suggest. I am working on the assumption of one year as opposed to two that Trabzonspor didn't try and cover it up and treat UEFA and the process with contempt unlike say Man City. Think an important reason for a two year ban handed down was a mix of breach and cover up personally- something that could yet be a factor with clubs in the Championship when it comes tro EFL hearing. Edited June 4, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted June 4, 2020 Report Share Posted June 4, 2020 On 27/05/2020 at 00:17, NlGHTMARE said: Our board are arguing that it’s not by necessity, but integrity, the rules are set out and we are respecting and adhering to them, our owners are one of the wealthiest in the league, theirs not many clubs owned by richer people in this division, their point is they’ve not over spent, and took the piss like others have and are doing, because it’s against the rules, and if we aren’t allowed to spend what we want, why are other clubs, we’re having to scrape by on the pittance the club generates because that’s the rules. But other clubs are cheating the rules with loopholes and racking up debt, to gain an unfair advantage, and were paying the price because the EFL aren’t upholding their rules. I think you feel how I do....we’ve been prudent, staying within the rules. We sold Bryan, Flint and Reid in summer 2018, Webster, Kelly, Eisa and Pack last summer. We’ve spent too, but within our means and FFP. Some clubs are taking the piss. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted June 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I think you feel how I do....we’ve been prudent, staying within the rules. We sold Bryan, Flint and Reid in summer 2018, Webster, Kelly, Eisa and Pack last summer. We’ve spent too, but within our means and FFP. Some clubs are taking the piss. Plus Brownhill this January! Some clubs are taking the piss indeed- more I read about Reading and their exceptional (or should that be 'exceptional') items over the last 3-4 seasons (see the Reading thread), the more annoyed I get at their fans calling for FFP to be scrapped this season. Small forum/online minority though it possibly is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted June 5, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2020 (edited) I note that Macclesfield's latest charge- and I appreciate that it's not FFP- this could have repercussions in due course for points 2 and 3 if rules applied consistently etc! @Davefevs and others- @hodge @downendcity @Vincent Vega maybe interested in the following charges- equally applicable in some FFP cases I'd suggest. Quote Failing to act with ‘utmost good faith’ in respect of EFL matters What is bad faith if not a) Selling a ground (allegedly) in the wrong financial year (Hillsborough), or b) Selling a ground for about £31-32m more than it is worth- see Pride Park and the differing valuations, or maybe c) Selling a stadium paid for in the form of other loans receivable- see Aston Villa. Possibly even d) Selling a ground to Renhe, then reselling it for an increase of £11m the following year ie Reading though that seems in some ways due to the location...I dunno. Ironically, Birmingham maybe the least guilty here! The good news is, there is more... Quote Breaching order, requirement, direction or instruction of the League This could cover the Birmingham charge, albeit the minor one- of the business plan. Who knows which of the others it might cover- or what it might uncover (a certain ex EFL CEO flying solo offering his 'advice and input maybe??) What this does suggest to me is that the EFL would appear to have quite broad powers- but that they were perhaps woefully underused under Harvey! Edited June 5, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted June 5, 2020 Report Share Posted June 5, 2020 10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I note that Macclesfield's latest charge- and I appreciate that it's not FFP- this could have repercussions in due course for points 2 and 3 if rules applied consistently etc! @Davefevs and others- @hodge @downendcity @Vincent Vega maybe interested in the following charges- equally applicable in some FFP cases I'd suggest. What is bad faith if not a) Selling a ground (allegedly) in the wrong financial year (Hillsborough), or b) Selling a ground for about £31-32m more than it is worth- see Pride Park and the differing valuations, or maybe c) Selling a stadium paid for in the form of other loans receivable- see Aston Villa. Possibly even d) Selling a ground to Renhe, then reselling it for an increase of £11m the following year ie Reading though that seems in some ways due to the location...I dunno. Ironically, Birmingham maybe the least guilty here! The good news is, there is more... This could cover the Birmingham charge, albeit the minor one- of the business plan. Who knows which of the others it might cover- or what it might uncover (a certain ex EFL CEO flying solo offering his 'advice and input maybe??) What this does suggest to me is that the EFL would appear to have quite broad powers- but that they were perhaps woefully underused under Harvey! The British legal system comprises the law - established over centuries and through Parliament - that provides a set of rules by which we should all conduct our lives. We all know that breaking those rules will result in prosecution through the legal system and a decision by a jury and , if then found guilty, punishment handed down by a judge, again determined by the law. However, running alongside the law is equity, which is all about fairness, so that something that for example might break the law, might be judged to be unfair in equity and visa versa. I think I'm right in saying that while a criminal act, i'e. breaking the law, is decided by a judge and jury, a case in equity is decided by a judge only. It seems to me that the situation with stadium sales and ffp is a question of law and equity. We all know ( and are told relentlessly by fans of those clubs) that selling a stadium to a related third party company did not break the ffp rules ( thanks only to the EFL cock up). However, while the majority of clubs accepted the new ffp rules and organised their affairs in order to comply with them, other clubs did not do so, or failed to do so diligently enough, thereby gaining an advantage over compliant clubs. In equity I'm pretty sure this would be judged as unfair - in bad faith towards the EFL and other clubs - and if within the British legal system a judge could then award a penalty accordingly. If so, then why can't the EFL excercise similar thinking and judgement? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted June 11, 2020 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2020 https://mobile.twitter.com/wilfordwm/status/1271036156528951297 Seems Birmingham got or will get a reprimand but EFL won their appeal and this gives me a bit of hope as the Derby and Sheffield Wednesday cases...plus who knows in due course perhaps Aston Villa and down the track Reading. First two in here and now are bigger fish to fry! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.