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

IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Yes, the 3 years to 2018. Normally, a club should be punished the season following that 3 year period, with the business plan part of that. If found guilty, that should have been in the 18/19 season. The earliest our potential penalty can be imposed is almost certainly the 20/21 season. It just so happens that our actual business plan has tied in nicely with what the EFL's business plan probably would have been anyway - the higher wage earners have left, and we've promoted youth. With a couple more expected to leave, we're currently looking at going into next season with only 15 over 20's in the squad, with only 3 or 4 expected to come in. One of those 15 hasn't even played a professional game yet.

I don't think we're far off the £13m annual target anyway.

Without checking, I think it was introduced in the 15/16 season. It's been long enough for the 'advantage' gained from reduced amortisation and profit on disposal to have balanced out. A historical correction would result in us gaining an advantage in the immediate present - I think this is going to be a bit of a sticking point with the verdict. I'll be very surprised if we aren't forced to change our amortisation policy in line with others, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't gain any advantage.

Club. For the 3 years to 2018 there isn't much between the two (once you account for our c£6m annual academy spend), although it would result in us being a lot closer to the limit in the following periods.

It may be my own bias, but I could see SWFC getting punished whereas we do not. Them including the stadium sale in the 17/18 accounts seems wrong. Whereas us having a stadium valued roughly in line with inflation and accounting for stadium improvements looks fine. The amortisation policy being approved every year since 15/16 also looks difficult to penalise. I think the EFL executive(s) part in this will see at most a slap on the wrist for both clubs though.

The rules suggest this is arguable, ie the following 3 year period- the 'T' is a Projected Account based rule and therefore punishable in that the same season- I've read them in depth and my reading is that the EFL have not been enforcing this correctly, under Harvey in particular! Parry time will tell.

I'm far from convinced that the £13m loss thing anyway- once the stadium adjustment if it comes in factored in, let's not forget a loan cancellation of around £12m classed as revenue in 2015/16- FFP rules suggest that this, with the exception of the interest incurred, should be excluded! You take out the stadium sale, before we even get onto debate over amortisation and it's a £25m operating loss in 2017/18- a £25m operating loss that was inclusive of the playoffs- though admittedly not the final, a profit on transfers and Rowett compensation! Sevco 5112 accounts look even worse!

Will post some stuff later about the respective regulations. 'T' indicates in-season assessment and if necessary referral to a Disciplinary Commission however!

The fees still have to be amortised though, don't they- whether short or over time, they have to be amortised in full- the question is how much did the stadium sale offset this and how big will the hit for 2018/19 and I guess possibly 2019/20 be- they have to be amortised in full- whether it's straight line or whatever- Impairment would be one way out but no because Impairment of Player Registrations also counts against FFP. Has to be accounted for one way or another!

Depends what % has been amortised doesn't it? If it's changed from one to the other, then that adjusts figures even if it's the 3 years to last season for 2016/17 and 2017/18 as well for the worse- and also if it's the 3 years to 2019/20, it changes them for the better a bit. OTOH is there an argument that disposal of player registrations may have yielded a higher profit?

I don't agree- because the club is quite clearly gaining revenue from Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC, Derby County Academy but offloading at least some of the costs-- have I missed any- think the EFL should be looking at the group figures too- in addition I looked at your club summary of FFP in 2015/16- as in website statement- the Loan cancellation is another interesting angle that could change things materially. Loan cancellations and FFP, my reading of the regulations is that they don't count with respect to revenue or as a method to offset losses- save for an interest waiver. Perhaps a wage and some cost adjustments added back into the club accounts? Revenue for Sevco 5112 oddly is even slightly lower than the club one season! The Sevco shows the academy expenditure for a couple of seasons- and some other allowable costs. Think you need some combination of club and Sevco 5112 to get a full FFP picture personally- then again Sevco 5112 accounts for 2016/17 accounts were 10 months so may require a bit of adjustment again!

There is also the question of how Infrastructure expenditure should be accounted for. Should it simply be "Purchase of Tangible Assets"- that was how your club statement for 2015/16 and 2016/17 accounts seemed to present it- or should it be when it's hit the balance sheet? For FFP it's profit and loss so certainly that feels incorrect too. Said your loss for 2015/16 FFP was around £9m- unsure how that fits tbh, what are the included and excluded items?

I'd also add, Sheffield Wednesday's feels overvalued! Absolutely overvalued- gone through it before on a spreadsheet, their accounts back to 1990 and cannot fathom how the hell it goes for £60m- based on precedent, valuation- their work on it in 1990s and for Euro 96 certainly enhanced it but £60m- not one set of prior accounts suggests anything like! I question a number of valuations but theirs is somehow the most expensive of all- or at best second most- come on!

As for Derby. Doesn't account for Pride Park being seemingly valued at £50m or £49m or whatever the exact number was by the EFL hired independent valuer though does it. Possibly different valuation methods will throw up different outcomes. I note that the difference pretty much between the sale price/valuation by your hired valuer and the EFL's is the revaluation reserve. Factor in a grant as well and it's right in that range. Sure when looking at the two Birmingham clubs the grant seemed to be a factor with respect to the profit on disposal.

I fear both will get nothing though because of the actions of the EFL Executive in 2018- and in the case of amortisation, possibly before! Big suspended penalty for each maybe, in conjunction with a slap on the wrist- as in do it again and the clubs will get a major whack.

EDIT: I also note that there was no Fair Value Adjustment to Pride Park- or any of the assets- on acquisition in 2015/16. Does this suggest that valuations were broadly in line at purchase date?

In the first set of Sevco 5112 accounts for Assets acquired it basically says:

Quote

26   Acquisitions and disposals

         Acquisitions

                                                                                  Vendors' book value £000              Fair value adjustments £000        Fair value to the group £000

       Assets and liabilities acquired

        Tangible Fixed Assets                                             55,601                                                                -                                                              55,601   

This is the relevant section anyway. It suggests to me that the Vendors' book value for the Tangible Fixed Assets on acquisition is equal to Fair Value. That's all Fixed Assets, not just the ground btw.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got bored with the home working IT system failing completely today.

So looked at the 2019 accounts for Bournemouth and Watford.  Both are a complete mess and unless they bounce back quickly or make wide ranging disposals both are going to have major FFP problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hxj said:

Got bored with the home working IT system failing completely today.

So looked at the 2019 accounts for Bournemouth and Watford.  Both are a complete mess and unless they bounce back quickly or make wide ranging disposals both are going to have major FFP problems.

I thought Watford made a profit unless that was 2018.

Wasn't aware they were that badly off, Bournemouth yeah- their problems are well documented.

Ake already off for £40m or so- bear in mind too that the higher loss limits in the PL, so that'd be £83m losses allowable for them both and £61m for Norwich in the 3 year period to 2021- subject to equity too I guess.

EDIT: Just had a quick look on Twitter and wow. Amortisation costs alone for Bournemouth in 2018/19, were £36,195,000. £32,424,000 loss in the PL with their gates coming down looks catastrophic for sure.

Not looked in great depth but assuming their owners will put in the equity to top them- Bournemouth and Watford- up to or near their loss limits at the upper level as opposed to the lower one.

I wonder how Aston Villa might have looked had they come straight back down. I note that their fans appear to think it's cancelled this year- at least from quick Twitter searches which may or may not be representative. :dunno:

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Good thread with respect to the relegated clubs.

Wonder what Bournemouth's allowable and therefore excludable costs might be? I'll hazard a guess at £5-7m per season.

Further, from another Swiss Ramble Tweet, it appears that their TV reliance for most recent accounts- so 2018/19- was high indeed.

EZFbApmWoAIQtWN?format=jpg&name=large

88%- Kinnell! A number of clubs had it high but Huddersfield and Cardiff didn't run at a significant loss, Watford had a profit but a loss surely likely in 2019/20.

It did though surprise me a bit, to read that Bournemouth don't plan to sell anyone else aside from Ake.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's good!!

Matt Hughes was right, about punishments next season. Despite the fact he writes for Daily Mail, he's a good journo!

Wonder if other clubs will be happy with this- probably the least they deserve tbh, Sheffield Wednesday.

EFL should appeal it to try and get it into 2019/20 maybe.

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

Guess this is the right thread for this. Sheff Wednesday will be deducted 12 points from next season.

 

That should put the cat among the pigeons!

Wigan, thanks to underhand tactics by their owner and going into administration, were handed a points deduction conditional on if it would relegate them it would be applied this season, otherwise it would be applied next season.

Wednesday, for financial shithousery offences committed in a previous season, are awarded a points deduction that would relegate them this last season, but in their case it is deferred until next season.

Can someone explain how the two clubs have been treated equally fairly?

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

Just in case some of you didn’t read it fully (I didn’t)....this is from an independent board.  Both Wednesday and EFL have 14 days to appeal.  Suspect Wednesday will from a “too big a penalty” point of view.  EFL may do from a “wrong season” point of view.  Other club’s, e.g. Charlton, may take legal advice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Has any justification been given for next season regardless of who handed out the punishment 

Something song the lines of the date of the hearing was set before lockdown. This meant it would have originally been after the 19/20 season ended. The intention was always for the (potential) penalty to be applied in the 20/21 season, and it would be unfair for it to be brought forward because of a delay to the season out of everyone’s control. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Something song the lines of the date of the hearing was set before lockdown. This meant it would have originally been after the 19/20 season ended. The intention was always for the (potential) penalty to be applied in the 20/21 season, and it would be unfair for it to be brought forward because of a delay to the season out of everyone’s control. 

Unfair to who?

Wigan went into administration at a time that would originally have been after the end of the 19/20 season, were it not for the delay out of everyone's control. Had the season ended as normal, Wigan would have gone into admin during the close season and I think I'm right in saying their 12 point deduction would have been applied next season.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Hxj

Make you quite right about Bournemouth- saw this Tweet by Kieran Maguire about their 2018/19 accounts.

Total Player Costs- that'd be Wages + Amortisation- 112% of Turnover.

All that while in the PL- in excess of 100% of turnover! 😱

I'll lazily assume that £112 in player costs per £100 in income is equating to 112% of income- but FFP trouble ahead?

Howe has left today, wonder if these two are linked...?

Sure they'll raise transfer income, sure their wages will overall come down and sure there will be Covid related exclusions- but is it enough?

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

@Hxj

Make you quite right about Bournemouth- saw this Tweet by Kieran Maguire about their 2018/19 accounts.

Total Player Costs- that'd be Wages + Amortisation- 112% of Turnover.

All that while in the PL- in excess of 100% of turnover! 😱

I'll lazily assume that £112 in player costs per £100 in income is equating to 112% of income- but FFP trouble ahead?

Howe has left today, wonder if these two are linked...?

Sure they'll raise transfer income, sure their wages will overall come down and sure there will be Covid related exclusions- but is it enough?

Bournemouth have quite a few players other teams want. Ake to man City for £40m, Kelly is wanted by Liverpool that'll probably be £15m+, Wilson wants to leave. King and Lerma will get offers. Begovic will probably leave as well, Rico has interested parties. 

They shouldn't have too much of a problem with FFP given the 2019-20 and 20-21 seasons are combined into one block for FFP

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, BetterRedthenBlue said:

Bournemouth have quite a few players other teams want. Ake to man City for £40m, Kelly is wanted by Liverpool that'll probably be £15m+, Wilson wants to leave. King and Lerma will get offers. Begovic will probably leave as well, Rico has interested parties. 

They shouldn't have too much of a problem with FFP given the 2019-20 and 20-21 seasons are combined into one block for FFP

We still don't know if the EFL- unless it's been confirmed elsewhere- about if the EFL will be doing this.

How do you combine something with such differing loss limits as well- in the EFL it's £13m per season and in the PL it's £35m per season (plus allowable costs).  Could you maybe adjust that aspect to £24m but that in turn could unfairly disadvantage them this season- they'll need to come up with something anyway!

Clearly they will and need to sell players- Ake, Kelly, Wilson, King, Lerma, Begovic, Rico- all could leave. I'd add Brooks as well maybe?

Whether they go straight back up however- will be interesting to see.

Oh yeah, the combination point. That's at UEFA level for UEFA competitions- we don't know yet if the EFL will- or indeed if clubs in the EFL will vote for it, and by the EFL I mean largely the Championship- possibly it'll be decided at the EFL end of season AGM in mid-August?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One I'm quite interested in right now is Stoke.

They've sold nobody of note post 2018/19, their parachute payments drop heftily this coming season as they always do in Year 3. Meanwhile at the same time as that, the total rolling 3 year loss allowed drops to- exclusive of allowable costs- £39m from £61m.

Sale and leaseback- well the property itself is seemingly owned by Stoke City (Property Limited) and has been for a while.

There doesn't appear to have been any change of company structure just yet but they strike me as possible candidates to try and pull a fast one with the sale and leaseback trick...?

For those who are interested:

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/69f7d814-c806-4ccc-b451-aba50d6e8de2/FRS-102-FRS-applicable-in-the-UK-and-Republic-of-Ireland-(March-2018).pdf

154/404 as you scroll down. At the top of the screen- the page number itself, at the bottom, appears to be 150.

Section 17, PPE.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some forward looking figures for Bournemouth.  Assuming £25 million loss for FFP 18/19 (£32 million accounts loss) and 19/20 plus estimated lost income and current rules.

Best estimate is that they will comply easily in 2020/21 then the pain really begins to hit.  More about the overall problems faced than the individual detail.

AFCB.thumb.jpg.dc423cf321ea7be669362ea4254255cb.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Some forward looking figures for Bournemouth.  Assuming £25 million loss for FFP 18/19 (£32 million accounts loss) and 19/20 plus estimated lost income and current rules.

Best estimate is that they will comply easily in 2020/21 then the pain really begins to hit.  More about the overall problems faced than the individual detail.

AFCB.thumb.jpg.dc423cf321ea7be669362ea4254255cb.jpg

Yes, that first year down, isn’t the problem, it’s the ones after that, especially if they have a poor season first up.  They start to lose players, can’t attract players, but still have a big wage bill.  They need to sell the likes of Ake for good money and recruit well for significantly less.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Reading under John Madejski were a fairly well-run club IIRC.

However, they're no longer owned by him. Appears that their FFP issues are catching up with them...

Looks fairly blatant that their signings of Joao and Puscas in August 2019 within a month or so of being released from a soft embargo were a shit or bust roll of the dice IMO! Whatever the reasoning it was ridiculous.

The ONE thing the EFL- and I guess rival clubs- have to be alert to is that they don't offload at high prices to Beijing Renhe- in 2018/19 there was an Aluko loan there, for £3m!! I struggle to justify that one alone, that should draw a line under dealings profitable to them with Beijing Renhe I think at least in terms of FFP inflation.

John Swift was off to Sheffield United but a bid was rejected quite late it seems- on the flipside, Ejaria amongst other loanees appears not to have been renewed yet.

Moore, Swift, Meite, Joao and Puscas- you'd think some if not all of these constitute saleable assets. By which I mean genuine sales, as opposed to sales, inflated loans or worse still sale with loan back to Beijing Renhe.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Couple more thoughts on Reading as well.

I think also a couple more saleable assets could be Rafael- well by definition he joined on a free so profit! Not a bad keeper too.

Add Yiadom and Rinomhota- dunno the fees but both cost nothing and decent enough options.  Point is you could get a fee for both, profit.

Loader was one they messed up on! Think Wolves were interested in summer 2019 but they didn't sell. Perhaps fee wasn't much but he's now leaving on a free!! Unsure he developed as hoped.

The more interesting aspect is Howe. Nigel Howe is on or was voted onto EFL Board. He has stated twice this year- possibly more than twice, but certainly twice at least that players need to be sold for FFP.

I'd say he is entirely correct in this assessment yet when it appeared that John Swift was set to move to Sheffield United for £3.5m a couple of weeks ago the plug was pulled.

Perhaps Reading are holding out for more money or looking to encourage a bidding war, but the interesting thing was a claim that the owner- not even the manager but the OWNER- wants to build the side around Swift.

Certainly don't think him and Howe are on the same page. Their FFP compliance is shaky to say the least though.

That said IF the owner is refusing to sell players then more fool him, they'll doubtless get embargoed and beyond.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think that the odd sale for less than £5 million will save them.

The accounting losses totalled £50 million in 2018 and 2019 accounts, probably only missed failure due to the 2017 profit.

Looking at a spectacular failure in 2019/20 season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Agreed. Bit of a firesale needed?

I'm looking at Reading though and their accounts and wondering exactly why/how they have not yet been more proactive going back to last summer even.

Why the EFL appear not to have acted yet, so far as we can see- why their fans on HobNobAnyone, well a proportion have seemed quite blase about it, hell they don't even mention FFP all that much! None of it makes any sense when as you say their accounting losses in the last two seasons are huge. I suppose the EFL are still assessing things but they look on course for a major failure as you say based on 2019/20!

Osho was another given he was from academy who they might have been able to sell- he's just left on a free! £51m in fact their two year football club losses- despite being inclusive of some £14.6m in profit on disposal of fixed assets and inclusive of a £3m loan fee for Aluko!

Or if we use Renhe as the benchmark, that was 'only' £41m in 2 years but included £29m in fixed asset sale disposal profits and the aforementioned joke of a £3m Aluko loan fee.

Here we go, as I thought- possibly conflict between owner and CEO over this issue- well I don't wish to sensationalise, more like disagreement! Could it simply be strongly opposing views?

He's one of their key saleable assets and they HAVE to start selling without necessarily replacing to anything like the same standard, for FFP.

Is their owner stupid- again more fool him but they'd be looking at a big deduction IMO. Sheffield Wednesday one of the 'big hitters'- a team who people possibly were worried wouldn't be docked points or punished that severely have just been docked 12.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently it looks like the Championship table will open with Sheffield Wednesday and Derby County on -12 with Stoke and Reading getting an in year deduction of say 12 points.

mmm - could be an interesting relegation battle - all but over by Christmas!

And people still whine about the Lansdowns!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Surely Reading and Stoke still might have time to rectify with significant player sale profits. That would of course weaken them on the pitch a fair bit and may plunge them into the mire anyway.

I'm slightly wary of Reading pushing at the loophole with their owners Chinese club and selling for inflated fees to them, loaning for inflated fees to them or worst of all, selling and then loaning back to Reading for significant fees- EFL should be all over that.

Stoke, it's not entirely clear their company structure but then I've not looked into it fully. Stoke City (Property Limited)- both that and the football club are under Stoke City Holdings Limited.

I could see scope for fixed asset sale and leaseback, albeit they may need to make some mergers, changes of control or whatever. Again EFL should be all over it!

As for what you say, Lansdowns very good owners in many ways.

Oh yeah, Sheffield Wednesday IF the £38m profit (a joke of a valuation) is counted in full in 2018/19 accounts, this gives them good headroom into 2020/21? That is still a big unknown though.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Someone I know did some work on it which I stuck on here back in November/December time when they were charged.

Part One

Year Valuation listed- DRC £ Cost/Valuation as determined by Directors, listed as 1990 and unchanged in the explanation £ Starting Net Book Value £ Additions at cost £ Depreciation £ Adjustment to Revaluation- Surplus/Deficit £ New Net Book Value £ Revaluation Reserve £ Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve £ New or Unadjusted Revaluation Reserve £ Statement at Original Cost £ Adjustment to Statement at Original Cost £ Depreciation Based on Statement at Original Cost £ New Original Statement at Net Cost £ Question Marks        
1990 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 2,345,000 94,000 N/A 5,561,000 8,000,000 N/A N/A N/A 1,918,000 (1990) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,811,000 (1990) Revaluation Reserve        
1991 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000(1990)  8,000,000 186,000 N/A N/A 8,186,000 6,189,000 6,189,000 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) 86,000 (1991) 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991) Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve        
1992 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 8,186,000 739,000 N/A N/A 8,925,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1993 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 8,925,000 423,000 N/A N/A 9,348,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1994 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 9,348,000 526,000 N/A N/A 9,874,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1995 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 9,874,000 1,721,000 N/A N/A 11,595,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1996 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 13,719,000 4,919,000 N/A N/A 18,638,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)
Where does the extra £2,124,000 come from? Includes other Fixed Assets maybe

Part Two

Year Valuation listed- DRC £ Starting Net Book Value £ Additions at cost £ Depreciation £ Transfer to SWFC Adjustment to Revaluation- Surplus/Deficit £ New Net Book Value £ Revaluation Reserve £ Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve £ New or Unadjusted Revaluation Reserve £ Statement at Original Cost £ Adjustment to Statement at Original Cost £ Depreciation Based on Statement at Original Cost £ New Original Statement at Net Cost £ Question Marks          
1997 23,350,000 (1997) 18,638,000 £610,000 N/A Yes £4,339,000 23,587,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 17,244,000 N/A 19,248,000
Differences between SWFC PLC and SWFC in particular with Revaluation Reserve, but also on cost and valuation
         
1998 23,350,000 (1997) 23,587,000 1,375,000 N/A N/A N/A 24,962,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000 As above          
1999 23,350,000 (1997) 24,962,000 552,000 N/A N/A N/A 25,514,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000 As above          
2000 23,350,000 (1997) 25,514,000 88,000 N/A N/A N/A 25,602,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000 As above          
2001 26,200,000 (2001) 25,602,000 31,000 N/A N/A 566,000 26,199,000 4,339,000 (2000) 566,000 (2001) 4,905,000 (2001) 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000
Still the differences, but less of a gap- the difference maybe a Revaluation Reserve on other assets
         
2002 26,199,000 (2001) 26,199,000 35,000 516,000 N/A N/A 25,718,000 4,905,000 (2001) -98,000 4,807,000 15,795,000 -3,453,000 -423,000 15,372,000
Suddenly costs are aligned on valuation/cost- still a difference in Revaluation Reserve though
         
2003 26.199,000 (2001) 25,718,000 (2002) 24,000 517,000 N/A N/A 25,225,000 4,807,000 (2002) -98,000 4,709,000 15,795,000 N/A -739,000 15,056,000 The sudden fall in 2001/02          
2004 24,800,000 (2004) 25,225,000 (2003) 105,000 496,000 N/A -1,164,000 23,670,000 4,709,000 (2003) -1,164,000 3,545,000 15,795,000 N/A 739,000 15,056,000            
2005 24,335,000 (2005) 23,671,000 (2004) 44,000 489,000 N/A ADD BACK DEPRECIATION 1,529,000 24,775,000 (2005) 3,545,000 1,529,000 5,074,000 16,002,000 44,000 ADJUSTED- 1,371,000 14,631,000            
2006 24,335,000 (2005) 24,755,000 (2005) 42,000 498,000 N/A N/A 24,299,000 (2006) 5,074,000 N/A 5,074,000 (2005) 16,002,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 1,687,000 14,315,000            
2007 25,100,000 (2007) 24,299,000 (2006) 30,000 498,000 N/A ADD BACK DEPRECIATION- 1,485,000 25,500,000 (2007) 5,074,000 (2006) 1,482,000 6,566,000 16,032,000 30,000 ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,008,000 14,024,000            
2008 25,100,000 (2007) 25,500,000 (2007) 75,000 503,000 N/A N/A 25,072,000 6,566,000 -181,000 6,385,000 16,032,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,329,000 13,703,000            
2009 25,100,000 (2007) 25,072,000 (2008) 39,000 504,000 N/A N/A 24,607,000 6,385,000 N/A 6,385,000 16,032,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,650,000 13,382,000            
2010 21,800,000 (2010) 24,607,000 (2009) 224,000 504,000 N/A ADD BACK DEPRECIATION- 1,511,000, but also -3,638,000 22,200,000 (2010) 6,385,000 (2009) -2,309,000 4,076,000 16,256,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,792,000 13,284,000            
2011 21,800,000 (2010) 22,200,000 (2010) 4,000 504,000 N/A N/A 21,700,000 4,076,000 (2010) -179,000 3,897,000 16,260,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,297,000 12,963,000            
2012 21,800,000 (2010) 21,700,000 (2011) N/A 466,000 N/A N/A 21,234,000 3,897,000 -141,000 3,756,000 16,260,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,622,000 12,638,000            
2013 21,800,000 (2010) 21,234,000 (2012) 28,000 466,000 N/A N/A 20,796,000 3,756,000 -141,000 3,615,000 16,260,000 28,000 ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,947,000 12,341,000            
2014 22,250,000 (2014) 20,796,000 (2013) N/A 439,000 N/A ADD ON 1,518,000 PLUS ADD BACK DEPRECIATION 1,758,000 23,633,000 3,615,000 3,163,000 6,778,000 (2014) 16,288,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 4,272,000 12,016,000            
2015 22,250,000 (2014) 23,633,000 (2014) 250,000 445,000 N/A N/A 23,438,000 6,778,000 -119,000 6,659,000 16,288,000 250,000 ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 4,,598,000

11,940,000

 

 

       

£60m sale price/valuation, this is quite the uptick!

Yes it switched from valuation or revaluation model to cost in 2015/16 and yes there was some work- such as a new pitch and scoreboard carried out in Chansiri's early days but still struggling just a tad to square that with a surge from £22.25m, perhaps £24m in 2014 inclusive of land, to £60m sale price! Had it sold for say £30-35m- possibly even then a bit generous given Elland Road was £20m in 2017- then I wouldn't really be wondering.

Just to clarify as well, Part One is Sheffield Wednesday PLC, 1990-97. Then it transferred ownership- transferred not sold, not sold at leased back but transferred no loss and no gain.

Part Two is it under Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited, 1997-2015.

I'd love to know the mechanics of how valuations surge in that way!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With respect to Derby, I read something interesting on their forum. Was posted in January 2020 around the time of the charge but brought up again- seems interesting!

Now we know the Fair Value regs but it is quite interesting to see it verified like this- if of course it has any veracity!

The poster claims to have a passable track record though so...

Quote

Colleague who has more knowledge than I do and has a direct interest re getting paid for some legal work he has done for DCFC understands that the point of dispute on the stadium is to do with whether or not it was an 'arms length transaction'.

If it was an arms length transaction then it does not matter what was paid for the stadium. If it was to interested parties (ie. Uncle Mel) then it has to be at a 'fair value'. The beef is apparently confusion over what was asked approval for and what actually happened.

I am not giving an opinion as to who is right or wrong so dont shoot the messenger just passing on a bit of info from the same person who told me that investment was delayed pending an EFL statement which turned out to be correct.

Might Derby have therefore intimated to the EFL at the time that it was in fact truly arms length, thereby negating the need for an independent check then gone ahead and sold it on their valuation then?? 😱

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

THIS could be interesting.

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/up-nine-championship-clubs-lend-18713049

Seems up to NINE Championship clubs are backing Charlton on the points deduction being in the wrong season for Sheffield Wednesday.

@Davefevs @chinapig @downendcity @Hxj

I would also ask significantly why this was NOT the case or seemed not to have been the case when Gibson wanted an investigation there and then into Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday's finances in 2019.

This is what we have needed since at least January 2019 though when it became clear that Aston Villa were likely to blaze past FFP. We need the clubs to act as one here!

Derby and Sheffield Wednesday breaches appear to have been up to 2018- as for 3 years to last season, we have no idea as neither have deigned to release the accounts yet. 🤷‍♂️

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

THIS could be interesting.

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/up-nine-championship-clubs-lend-18713049

Seems up to NINE Championship clubs are backing Charlton on the points deduction being in the wrong season for Sheffield Wednesday.

@Davefevs @chinapig @downendcity @Hxj

I would also ask significantly why this was NOT the case or seemed not to have been the case when Gibson wanted an investigation there and then into Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday's finances in 2019.

This is what we have needed since at least January 2019 though when it became clear that Aston Villa were likely to blaze past FFP. We need the clubs to act as one here!

Because Ashton wanted a role at the EFL so didn't want to upset big clubs perhaps?

As a club that plays by the rules we have been disappointingly unwilling to put our head above the parapet.

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

Because Ashton wanted a role at the EFL so didn't want to upset big clubs perhaps?

As a club that plays by the rules we have been disappointingly unwilling to put our head above the parapet.

Not just talking about us but point taken.

Agreed- though it is reported that the club are disappointed with those pulling these kinds of stunts- I wonder what the difference it is a year on though, at least 8 clubs supporting Charlton yet when there was something quite significant, it got voted down entirely!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might also add augurs well- as and when Aston Villa return I'd have thought all clubs would be united as one there, pretty much in terms of demands for an investigation/punishment?

Sometimes Aston Villa fans ask me on Twitter why I am so critical. Well it appears the Matt Lawton story about the big 3 Championship clubs who may have been in breach was broadly correct.

It stated Aston Villa losses for the season may have been as high as £60m.

Now consider:

Think was £68-69m- BUT minus £30m for Lerner promotion bonus-£15-16m for promotion costs inclusive of the bonuses- that's a nice easy £23m.

I already have factored in the HS2 would've been in there but costs of promotion would not have been and neither would Xia bonus- bith were contingent on promotion.

Profit on Villa Park- that article pretty much nailed on! £60m or close to- that's a full 12 point overspend over the 3 years and 3 for a deliberate breach as per Birmingham- may get one back due to terrible opwner and one back for not disregarding soft embargo but Matt Lawton- always said he's good.

This surely means that the stadium sale and leaseback must have been arranged/inserted AFTER the projected accounts. Given it was paid for in the form of Loans Receivable, wonder what the hell happened with the EFL analysis! Even a 5-6 points in the season in March/April would have knocked them out of playoff contention.

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...