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)

Cleared of both charges, save for not notifying the EFL in 2015 of the change to amortisation policy. 

Written reasons will be interesting, the EFL have to appeal this IMO. 

Also, the placeman of that ***** Mel Morris needs voting off the EFL board PRONTO.

Residual value of zero assigned to Intangible Assets? Seems bizarre!

I'm not bitter but I hope they default on the loan to Dell and Pride Park becomes Europe's biggest Computing Trade Fair. :)

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

Drive a coach and horses through the rule book ,spend like its gone out of fashion then get a let off by the EFL ..

It is because big billy bollocks (Wayne Rooney’s Derby ) is a bigger club than Wednesday so we have to be lenient .

Wonder if S/Weds will start legal action against the EFL and seek to have their points rescinded.

 

Just to be clear, it's not the EFL who've let them off. I suspect the EFL will appeal the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, selling Pride Park in itself did not break the ffp rules, thanks to the EFL’s own cock up when drafting the new rules.

I think Mr P raised a question mark over the way they accounted for player amortisation, but other than that I think the only thing they could have been penalised for was if Pride Park was sold for anything other than “fair value”.

After Wigan and Wednesday, I suspect the last thing the EFL wanted was potentially damaging and disruptive legal action coming their way, which would surely have been the case had Derby been penalised. On the question of fair value, I guess that both sides would have produced equally convincing evidence proving that their valuation was correct, so an argument the EFL would struggle to win, no matter that many of us feel/felt that Derby pulled a fast one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is they probably aren't breaking any rules, Mel Morris and his lawyers for the club are just very good at finding any loophole to work and it looks guilty to fans given the lengths they stretch the ethical boundaries of the rules.

  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple more lines on it. 

John Percy said Derby WERE under a soft embargo. 

Also this snippet of his article on Derby forum. 

1275091464_Screenshot_20200825-150314_Sa

Says that the prospect of legal action 'cannot be ruled out'. 

Moment that happens, EFL need to bring golden share issue onto the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davidoldfart said:

Drive a coach and horses through the rule book ,spend like its gone out of fashion then get a let off by the EFL ..

It is because big billy bollocks (Wayne Rooney’s Derby ) is a bigger club than Wednesday so we have to be lenient .

Wonder if S/Weds will start legal action against the EFL and seek to have their points rescinded.

 

Actually, it's very much in line with the Sheff Wed judgement. They got found guilty for how they reported the sale of the ground, not the act of selling it. Derby (iirc) were in trouble for inflating the value of their ground, which Wednesday were specifically found not guilty of. And as others have said, I would think that the EFL will appeal

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just ban clubs selling their grounds to their owners in this manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Harry said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

Clearly... confused-face | diari | Flickr

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

Loan charge/security- whatever exact category, Charge I think- was over all the Derby companies.

Think it was secured over the leasehold but it is worth noting that the charge appears on each of the following companies:

  1. Gellaw Newco 203- The overall group company- the top company in the group.
  2. The Derby County Football Club Limited- The club
  3. Sevco 5112- The controlling party of the 3 below, but no longer the club- see the first one.
  4. The Derby County FC Academy Limited- The academy
  5. Club DCFC Limited- Listed as Event Catering Activities.
  6. Stadia DCFC Limited- Think this is the commercial side but not wholly sure on this one. Happy enough to look into that a bit more.
  7. Gellaw Newco 202 Limited- The company who purchased Pride Park.
  8. Gellaw Newco 204 Limited- The controlling company of the company who purchased Pride Park.

Of course, it's all ultimately controlled by Mel Morris.

Over the last two, Rams Investment Limited charge is still listed at Companies House- in addition to this one. Henry Gabay's loan in other words. Maybe this second loan will pay off this one.

Loan to Morris himself but security as mentioned it covers all 8. The last two are not within the group of the first 6- Maguire doesn't see how the loan can count towards FFP.

@redsince1994 3rd party was Michael Dell I think- MSD- he also has made investment in Southampton and Sunderland- and before that, Henry Gabay, Rams Investment Limited- the latter appears on Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited.

Valuation? Reports claimed and this bit is uncertain- but reports claimed that it was the same company who carried out the 2007 and 2013 valuations- though this could have been put out by the club also, written reasons may reveal all! Cannot recall their name but it's listed in accounts up to 2017, they're quite big!

As for the loan itself, I think it's all security as I said above- but including the leasehold of Pride Park. I think.

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

Assuming this is just a way to prove the value of the stadium was legit by opening a line of credit against it. If this ends up in the hands of the club surely there will be repercussions (probably not knowing FFP)

I would be interested to see who the 3rd party is, and who carried out the valuation on their behalf.... and whether they are on Morris' Christmas card list. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As for Derby, I hope the EFL find some grounds to appeal this- throw anything and everything they can at it. If other clubs can give evidence, that would be nice too though I don't know how that all works- maybe they can only give evidence when the club itself appeal against an adverse verdict.

There are things that can be done though! Maybe.

  1. Do not let Mel Morris or Derby directors into your ground- all clubs should do this to them and perhaps Sheffield Wednesday- ostracise the ******* as much as you can.
  2. Raise complaints with the EFL on whatever might be an issue- see their recent loan.
  3. Try to raise some kind of vote to force Stephen Pearce off the EFL board at the earliest opportunity.
  4. Leak any adverse or contentious comments at EFL meetings- see Redgate- into the media to ratchet things up.

Oh and if all else fails, then good old on the pitch. Can't beat them- join them. Can't join 'em- kick 'em!

Two footers for Rooney, Clarke, Bielik, Bogle early doors would be nice. ;) Take one for the team, aka the League- by weakening their side in the League. :)

I assume two footers are straight reds- think Wycombe are quite physical aren't they, gwan! Bit of the old kick them off the park would be alright.

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

EFL must appeal this to see what is what- I don't know if the amortisation model so much reduces the losses as kicks the can down the road- it still has to be amortised in full.

Surely clubs would have to vote on such a change- the other big loophole of course is the fixed asset one, maybe clubs were awaiting the verdict etc before voting on change or otherwise.

If P&S isn't relaxed this year, they may yet fail- Derby that is- along with multiple others.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, redsince1994 said:

Assuming this is just a way to prove the value of the stadium was legit by opening a line of credit against it. If this ends up in the hands of the club surely there will be repercussions (probably not knowing FFP)

I would be interested to see who the 3rd party is, and who carried out the valuation on their behalf.... and whether they are on Morris' Christmas card list. 

As Pops mentions above, the loan is from a company called MSD, and supposedly to the tune of £30m. 
MSD have previously loaned money to Southampton & Sunderland. 
The loan has been charged on Companies House to the football club - but surely they can’t inject money to the football club secured against a stadium that the football club do not own. It’s like you lending me money and saying if I don’t pay you back you’ll take my neighbours house (not mine). 
 

In essence, if Morris doesn’t pay MSD back their £30m if they ask for it, then they’ll own the ground. Even though the club don’t own the ground any more!! 
 

It’s a bloody farce. The fact Derby’s CEO sits on the EFL board is surely a conflict of interest in this matter. 
 

I just can’t see how, within FFP rules, this £30m can form part of any calculations, as it’s not ‘football club’ income - it’s technically a loan to Morris himself (as he bought the stadium). 
 

There’s got to be some sort of investigation into this. 

Edited by Harry
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Harry said:

As Pops mentions above, the loan is from a company called MSD, and supposedly to the tune of £30m. 
MSD have previously loaned money to Southampton & Sunderland. 
The loan has been charged on Companies House to the football club - but surely they can’t inject money to the football club secured against a stadium that the football club do not own. It’s like you lending me money and saying if I don’t pay you back you’ll take my neighbours house (not mine). 
 

In essence, if Morris doesn’t pay MSD back their £30m if they ask for it, then they’ll own the ground. Even though the club don’t own the ground any more!! 
 

It’s a bloody farce. The fact Derby’s CEO sits on the EFL board is surely a conflict of interest in this matter. 
 

I just can’t see how, within FFP rules, this £30m can form part of any calculations, as it’s not ‘football club’ income - it’s technically a loan to Morris himself (as he bought the stadium). 
 

There’s got to be some sort of investigation into this. 

Over 8 companies- the charge appears on crucially the company which owns Pride Park and the company that owns that.

It's the ground, the club, the purchasing company- lock, stock and barrel.

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

Hi Derby fans reading. 👋

Just to clarify, the quotes you are quoting on your forum are me and me alone- largely. I am not necessarily representative in some of my harder views but I do very much dislike your club in a number of respects- because you're grubby. Think a review of Pearce's EFL position is long overdue.

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

EFL must appeal this to see what is what- I don't know if the amortisation model so much reduces the losses as kicks the can down the road- it still has to be amortised in full.

Surely clubs would have to vote on such a change- the other big loophole of course is the fixed asset one, maybe clubs were awaiting the verdict etc before voting on change or otherwise.

If P&S isn't relaxed this year, they may yet fail- Derby that is- along with multiple others.

Swings and roundabouts to an extend.

Take Player A - £10m on a 5 year deal

23 clubs amortise him at a loss of £2m pa, a cost in each year’s accounts.

Derby Dont.  Player A still sits on the books at £10, zero to amortise, zero cost.

That looks unfair, but....

Scenario A: sold

23 clubs sell player A for £10m the following summer.  Each club adds £2m to their transfer profit figure.

Derby sell player A for £10m.  Zero transfer profit.

Scenario B: runs contract down

23 clubs just continue to amortise the £2m in the 5th year.

Derby have to amortise / write off £10m.  That’s a risky strategy.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now Derby are threatening to sue the EFL.

Get that ***** Pearce off the board! Cannot have someone on the EFL Board from a club suing the EFL over a legitimate Investigation.

I expect that is a case of 'if you don't appeal we agree not to sue'

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

I expect that is a case of 'if you don't appeal we agree not to sue'

Would like to see Rooney and co kicked up in the air- esp. Rooney- Game 1. :whistle:

Regulations make me wonder about legal action tbh. Agreement in Writing to Arbitrate- it's uncharted territory this.

You maybe right though. Makes a lot of sense.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WarksRobin said:

There will be 23 clubs watching this eagerly to see whether they can change their accounting approach to reduce their losses. The horse’s head has emerged from the open stable door up the EFL’s arse; can EFL close the door in time?

 

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...