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

I accept it on balance but it just sticks out like a sore thumb compared to so many other grounds- either transactions or valuation (not cost but valuation) in accounts. Albeit of varying methods- comparable , some have sponsorships which can enhance- doesn't make a lot of sense.

I wondered about that- £4.16m initally as per the valuer down to £1.1m was it- good point about over-riding dominance of DCFC lease that I'd never really considered. Zero non matchday revenue to Derby could justify it though maybe?

The shunting around of the valuation was interesting- wasn't it about £57m or something BEFORE Derby pushed back on it- why the EFL accepted the higher of £81.1m and not £74.4m feels odd too- surely the £74.4m for DRC was more reliable for such a transaction- sure the valuation company (name escapes me) had the initial DRC at quite a bit lower, maybe £58m.

Lastly, the fact is that the accounts- look at Derby 2016/17 accounts- the ground was possibly net of depreciation not materially different to valuation as per their own Accounting Policies- yet it shot up in a year to £81.1m!

I'm sure that they- and Sheffield Wednesday and possibly Aston Villa, Reading the 2nd sale would not receive on the open market the terms they did by their owners. Sure of it.

I'd hope they will!

Could they win a reprimand like Birmingham, or something to keep on the permanent/relevant FFP record I wonder?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreed valuation of Pride Park may well be complete nonsense - but until the EFL firstly follow the correct EFL processes and secondly appoint real experts they cannot argue otherwise.

My argument would have been - would an open market purchaser pay £81.1 million for an asset achieving a guaranteed gross rent of £1.1 million a year?  But then again I don't work for the EFL. 

As regards other rents and income I would be looking for a real history.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Those two being sold should mean we'll meet the 4 years to 2021 P&S limits. We were hoping to get more for Bennett and actually sell Malone and Jozefzoon, which may have meant keeping one of Lowe/Bogle.

The coronavirus impact and P&S period changing to 4 years appears to have saved us from a hefty penalty, for what would have been the 3 years to 2020. Although, if it wasn't for the extended season, we would have almost certainly sold players to stay within limits anyway.

We've got a paper thin squad now, with only 16 senior players, one of which we're doing whatever we can to offload, and another two of those having played fewer than 100 professional games. From the 16, 4 are currently injured, with 2 only just returning to the team following injuries.

Mark Ashton here.

Do you need any midfielders - I could do  deal for a job lot? :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that some of the SWFC and DCFC fans are more than delusional.

However the 12 point deduction for SWFC and the current mutilation of the DCFC squad is sufficient recompense from my perspective 

Edited by Hxj
corrections
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I do agree that some of the SWFC and DCFC fans are more than delusional.

However the 12 point deduction for SWFC and the current mutilation of the DCFC squad is sufficient recompense from my perspective 

Agree on both counts. The PL 2 thing is a regular refrain but what's in it for the PL?

Cocu appears to be after a winger and a striker though so not that weakened...yet. Bennett was a fringe player, unsure how much Malone featured- Carson was a GK who Man City have chosen to loan twice- some savings and who knows a loan fee? Not like he was featuring that regularly. Talk of Nathan Byrne in as well.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

EFL MUST shut that loophole or get clubs to agree in sufficient numbers, to prevent Derby- or any other club for that matter from selling and leasing back fixed assets to try and duck FFP, in Derby's case it'd be the training ground if it's possible- unsure who owns the Training Ground, whether it's club or AN Other.

Derby's current squad FWIW, as per Wikipedia.

Quote

Current squad

As of 7 September 2020[63][64]

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

 
No. Pos. Nation Player
1 GK Scotland SCO David Marshall
2 DF England ENG Andre Wisdom
3 DF Scotland SCO Craig Forsyth
4 MF Scotland SCO Graeme Shinnie
5 DF Poland POL Krystian Bielik
6 DF Netherlands NED Mike te Wierik
8 MF England ENG Max Bird
9 FW England ENG Martyn Waghorn
10 MF Wales WAL Tom Lawrence
14 FW England ENG Jack Marriott
16 DF England ENG Matt Clarke (on loan from Brighton & Hove Albion)
17 MF England ENG Louie Sibley
18 FW England ENG Morgan Whittaker
 
No. Pos. Nation Player
21 GK Netherlands NED Kelle Roos
22 MF England ENG George Evans
25 MF United States USA Duane Holmes
26 DF England ENG Lee Buchanan
27 GK Slovakia SVK Henrich Ravas
30 GK Nigeria NGA Emmanuel Idem
32 FW England ENG Wayne Rooney (captain)
33 DF England ENG Curtis Davies
38 MF Republic of Ireland IRL Jason Knight
45 MF England ENG Josh Shonibare
46 MF England ENG Jordan Brown
47 DF England ENG Harrison Solomon
MF Netherlands NED Florian Jozefzoon

Lacks balance in some areas yes but not bad tbh! Certainly for a club with a possible £31m FFP loss in 2018/19 and £20m spike in amortisation in 2019/20!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness to the Derby fan who stuck it up on Twitter and their forum- it is possible that there are flaws with the EFL as it stands.

I don't think they enforce rules quickly enough, efficiently enough, without fear or favour for a start- or haven't so far!

Also though- and for once this isn't a dig ;) I don't see how club CEOs on the board is a good thing. External regulator could be the fairest all round- club reps...system may need some changes? Not individuals, the system!

Forgot to add- Parachute Payments. Parry has spoken out quite strongly against these but further action is needed- hand in hand with the correct enforcement of, including tightening up of loopholes for FFP.

While I'm at it, the legal action and suing for big money is worth a look. Disputes between club and body have to be settled via arbitration apparently. ⬇️

Quote

Does the law impose limits on the available remedies? Are some remedies not enforceable by the court?

The parties are generally free to agree on the powers exercisable by the tribunal to grant remedies (Section 48). Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the tribunal has the same powers as the English High Court and the county court (Section 105(1)) to order:

  • a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
  • specific performance of a contract (other than a contract relating to land); or
  • rectification, setting aside or cancellation of a deed or other document.

For public policy reasons a tribunal does not have the power under English law to award punitive damages, nor is it likely that an English court would have the power to enforce such an award. A tribunal may also not order imprisonment or the payment of fines

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9fe151f5-ebb4-43f8-9664-9d149170e158

If an organisation agrees in writing- which clubs do as part of their membership of the EFL- to Arbitration, this feels likely that Derby- or anyone else- would be unlikely to be able to take action to gain punitive damages. At least in terms of their membership!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I accept it on balance but it just sticks out like a sore thumb compared to so many other grounds- either transactions or valuation (not cost but valuation) in accounts. Albeit of varying methods- comparable , some have sponsorships which can enhance- doesn't make a lot of sense.

I wondered about that- £4.16m initally as per the valuer down to £1.1m was it- good point about over-riding dominance of DCFC lease that I'd never really considered. Zero non matchday revenue to Derby could justify it though maybe?

The shunting around of the valuation was interesting- wasn't it about £57m or something BEFORE Derby pushed back on it- why the EFL accepted the higher of £81.1m and not £74.4m feels odd too- surely the £74.4m for DRC was more reliable for such a transaction- sure the valuation company (name escapes me) had the initial DRC at quite a bit lower, maybe £58m.

Lastly, the fact is that the accounts- look at Derby 2016/17 accounts- the ground was possibly net of depreciation not materially different to valuation as per their own Accounting Policies- yet it shot up in a year to £81.1m!

I'm sure that they- and Sheffield Wednesday and possibly Aston Villa, Reading the 2nd sale would not receive on the open market the terms they did by their owners. Sure of it.

I'd hope they will!

Could they win a reprimand like Birmingham, or something to keep on the permanent/relevant FFP record I wonder?

£81.1m originally. Marked down to £74.4m to get through the P&S submissions, with view to enter further discussions at a later date. At the later date, both sides agreed to using the £81.1m figure.

 

 

9 hours ago, downendcity said:

Mark Ashton here.

Do you need any midfielders - I could do  deal for a job lot? :) 

Probably the only position we don't need any players.

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

EFL MUST shut that loophole or get clubs to agree in sufficient numbers, to prevent Derby- or any other club for that matter from selling and leasing back fixed assets to try and duck FFP, in Derby's case it'd be the training ground if it's possible- unsure who owns the Training Ground, whether it's club or AN Other.

Derby's current squad FWIW, as per Wikipedia.

Lacks balance in some areas yes but not bad tbh! Certainly for a club with a possible £31m FFP loss in 2018/19 and £20m spike in amortisation in 2019/20!

The training ground is owned by the club

9 hours ago, Hxj said:

Well the DCFC website claims 4 goalkeepers and six defenders - and people complain about our squad - plus Rooney is a year older - even easier for someone to close him down so he passes backwards.

Regarding the squad based on the OS:

Goalkeepers: 1st choice, 2nd choice, keeper we want to loan out, U23 keeper
Defenders: 5 competing for a start, 1 ageing pro who will have limited game time, 1 U18 player
Midfielders: 1 player coming back from a year long injury and will still be out for a couple of months, 1 CB/DM cover, 2 U23 players, 6 others
Forwards: 2 are wingers, 2 are forwards

25 players listed in total, with 4 of them have never kicked a ball in professional football, and a further 7 have played fewer than 100 games.

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

In fairness to the Derby fan who stuck it up on Twitter and their forum- it is possible that there are flaws with the EFL as it stands.

I don't think they enforce rules quickly enough, efficiently enough, without fear or favour for a start- or haven't so far!

Also though- and for once this isn't a dig ;) I don't see how club CEOs on the board is a good thing. External regulator could be the fairest all round- club reps...system may need some changes? Not individuals, the system!

Forgot to add- Parachute Payments. Parry has spoken out quite strongly against these but further action is needed- hand in hand with the correct enforcement of, including tightening up of loopholes for FFP.

While I'm at it, the legal action and suing for big money is worth a look. Disputes between club and body have to be settled via arbitration apparently. ⬇️

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9fe151f5-ebb4-43f8-9664-9d149170e158

If an organisation agrees in writing- which clubs do as part of their membership of the EFL- to Arbitration, this feels likely that Derby- or anyone else- would be unlikely to be able to take action to gain punitive damages. At least in terms of their membership!

....and one of ours is a board member!!!

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

£81.1m originally. Marked down to £74.4m to get through the P&S submissions, with view to enter further discussions at a later date. At the later date, both sides agreed to using the £81.1m figure.

 

 

Probably the only position we don't need any players.

I think the EFL should've insisted for P&S purposes of the Depreciated Replacement Cost of £74.4m personally. There and then- DRC feels a more reliable and measurable method than the profits one, for these kinds of transactions.

However on the price- looking at comparable stadia, capacity, region, year of setup- feels too high. Sorry but that combined with the ridiculously low rent...hell even set against one or two other suspect RPTs for P&S it comes out high!

Comparisons:

Birmingham- £22.76m- Annual rent £1.5m

Reading- £26.5m- Annual Rent £750,000

Reading Mk. 2- £37.5m- Annual Rent £1.5m

Aston Villa- £56.7m- Annual Rent £2.6m (I think). Though this has a problem with lease length arguably.

Sheffield Wednesday- £60m- Annual Rent ??- Though it is mooted as £3m per season- nice little millstone!

If any commercial revenue from non matchday flows to Derby or Sevco 5112- or is it Gellaw Newco 203 now- the EFL must revisit the rent, perhaps add in a market rent for P&S purposes.

I suspect your owner will therefore given the club own it, sell and leaseback Moor Farm next. Hopefully the EFL will shut the loophole pronto.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

v) Events leading up to the sale of Pride Park

66) In early 2018 Mr Morris began to consider how increased revenue might be generated from Pride Park. He concluded that there could be significant financial benefit to be derived from developing Pride Park into a multi-use, covered stadium, and began to explore the availability of funding for such a project. However, potential funders were reluctant to consider investing in such a project while Pride Park was owned by the Club; they were only prepared to consider investing if Pride Park was ‘extracted’ from the Club, and developed as a stand-alone venture.

What evidence have we actually got for this apart from the oh so reliable words of a certain owner? Were there any genuinely dated emails or documentation backing this up?

Quote

72) The evidence before us – which we accept – was that (for their own separate reasons) each of the Club and Mr Morris wished the sale of Pride Park to take place at a ‘fair price’ i.e. at a price which fairly reflected its value. However, neither had an up to date valuation of Pride Park. Accordingly, in May 2018 the Club approached Jones Lang Lasalle (‘JLL’) to value Pride Park. Negotiations for JLL to prepare a valuation were progressed, information was provided to JLL by the Club and, as we set out below, in late June 2018 JLL did indeed provide a valuation of Pride Park:

a) JLL assessed the Fair Value of Pride Park on a Profits basis at £81,100,000

b) JLL assessed the Fair Value of Pride Park on a Depreciated Replacement Cost (‘DRC’) basis at £74,400,000, and

c) JLL assessed the Market Rent of Pride Park on the basis of a sale and leaseback agreement at £4,160,000 per annum.

DRC seems absolutely fair enough to me for this. Profits basis? Not so much! Market Rent falling by £3.06m per season- that's different approach wise!

Quote

77) On 26 June 2018 the Club

a) Forwarded to the EFL an email that purported to have been sent to the Club by JLL at 18.01 on 21 June 2018 in which JLL

i) Explained that it (JLL) had ‘calculated a [DRC] of £74.4m’ for Pride Park, based on a cost of £3,000 per seat, based on a total number of 33,455 seats, assuming an economic life of 60 years and based on an underlying land value of £4.1m

ii) Explained that it (JLL) assessed the Fair Value of Pride Park on a Profits basis at £81.1m. We set out below why we say ‘… purported to have been sent to the Club by JLL …’

b) Forwarded 2 calculations that purported to have been attached to JLL’s 18.01 21 June 2018 email setting out ‘JLL’s workings’:

i) The first calculation set out how JLL had come to assess the Fair Value of Pride Park at £81.1m on a Profits basis

ii) The second calculation set out how JLL had come to assess the Fair Value of Pride Park at £74.4m on a DRC basis Again, we set out below why we say ‘… purported to have been attached …’

c) Forwarded an extract from a valuation of Pride Park that JLL had undertaken for the Club in 2013

d) Informed the EFL that as and when it received further information from JLL (including a summary report), it would forward the same to the EFL.

78) On 26 June 2018 the EFL emailed the Club confirming that ‘if the final report is an official signed report by JLL and includes the information in the emails and the calculations then I would have thought this would be reasonable to support a sales price’.

So far, so meh...though the valuation sticks out like a sore thumb! Looks alright when £4.16m in rent is factored in.

Quote

79) On the same day

a) JLL provided a valuation letter to the Club confirming

i) Its assessment of Fair Value on a Profits basis at £81.1m, and

ii) Its assessment of Fair Value on a DRC basis at £74.4m JLL also confirmed a market rent for Pride Park of £4.16m on a sale and leaseback of Pride Park to the Club on reasonable terms

The valuations and proposed rent are still broadly consistent...until.

Quote

b) The Club provided that valuation letter to the EFL. In its covering email the Club explained that it had concluded that it was intending to use JLL’s market rental valuation as a basis for calculating the annual rent payable by the Club after sale – in particular, annual rent would be £1m per annum on the basis that the Club would have access to Pride Park for approximately 100 days a year and would incur associated running costs.

Like I say not one penny of Pride Park commercial income that is non football related should flow to Derby. Running costs I assume ncluded within the rent? Interesting use and reiteration of the term 'purported' higher up. 👀

Now this bit is farcical- clear breach of the agreement.

Quote

82) On the same day the Club

a) Entered into a contract to sell Pride Park to Gellaw at a price of £81.1m. The TR1 records that the sale was also completed on 28 June 2018

b) Entered into a leaseback of Pride Park at a rent of £1,139,726 per annum, albeit without there being any restriction on the number of days for which the Club would have access to Pride Park for football purposes

100 days vs no restriction on the number. Pearce Out!!

This bit is rather unusual.

Quote

83) On 30 June 2018 JLL provided a formal ‘Valuation Advisory’ of Pride Park. That document was reviewed by the Club and on 3 July 2018 the Club provided certain comments and corrections. JLL appears to have accepted those comments and corrections, and later that same day provided its ‘final’ valuation report to the Club (‘the 2018 JLL report’). We return to consider that report in greater detail below – it suffices for the time being to say that JLL

a) Continued to value Pride Park on a Profits basis at £81.1m

b) Continued to value Pride Park on a DRC basis at £74.4m

c) Continued to assess the market rent of Pride Park on the basis of a sale and leaseback agreement at £4.16m

Professional valuers- JLL renowned professional valuers- taking advice and implementing it from a club??

Toxic club and the sooner Pearce is removed from the EFL board the better.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

This bit is bloody ridiculous.

Quote

b) In the documents disclosed by the Club there was indeed an email sent by JLL to the Club at 18.01 on 21 June 2018, to which a document titled ‘JLL – Derby County – Pride Park – Valuation Model 1 – 21 June 2018.pdf’ was attached. However

i)That email stated (under the heading ‘Fair value on basis of Depreciated Replacement Cost’)

(1) ‘Having reviewed evidence we have adopted a cost of £3,000 per seat for Pride Park, based on a total number of 33,435 at the venue’

(2) ‘We have assumed an economic life of 50 years’ (not 60 years)

(3) ‘In total we have calculated a [DRC] pf £57.8m’ (not £74.4m)

ii) The attachment comprised the calculation by which JLL had arrived at a DRC valuation of £57.8m (not £74.4m). That calculation

(1) Used a cost per seat of £3,000

(2) Used a capacity of 33,455 39

(3) Assumed economic life for the stadium of 50 years, giving an adjusted remaining economic life of 28 years

(4) Assessed depreciation at 44% and functional obsolescence at 5%

c) In the Club’s disclosure there was a further email sent by JLL to the Club at 15.17 on 25 June 2018, to which a document titled ‘JLL – Derby County – Pride Park Valuation Model – Cost v2 – 25 June 2018.pdf’ was attached:

i)The email (in response to a query from Mr Holt at the Club ‘How are you getting on with the revised DRC workings? Is it possible these could be sent across ahead of my 4.30pm meeting’) read ‘… as discussed, we are comfortable revising this as discussed this morning. See attached

ii) The attachment comprised the calculation by which JLL had arrived at a DRC valuation of £74.4m. That calculation (

(1) Still used a cost per seat of £3,000

(2) Still used a capacity of 33,455

(3) Assumed an economic life for the stadium of 60 years, applied a maintenance adjustment of a further 5 years ‘due to good cap-ex’, and so assumed an adjusted remaining economic life of 43 years

(4) Assessed depreciation at 28.3% and functional obsolescence at 5%.

85) Without hearing from Mr Holt it is impossible to be certain exactly

a) How the ‘JLL email’ sent to the EFL on 26 June 2018 came to be sent as it was, or

b) How the attachment sent to the EFL on 26 June 2018 came to be labelled as it was. The strong suspicion is however that (1) the wording of/figures in JLL’s 21 June 2018 email to the Club was changed by Mr Holt before he forwarded the same to the EFL, (2) the attachment to JLL’s 25 June 2018 email was relabelled by Mr Holt to make its nomenclature consistent with the other attachments sent by JLL on 21 June 2018, and (3) Mr Holt replaced the actual attachment to JLL’s 21 June 2018 email with that ‘renamed’ attachment; it is difficult to conceive of any other sensible explanation

Disgusting club, disgusting hierarchy- minority, maybe a reasonable minority of fans equally so! 🤮🤢

No offence, but I hope there is a new Derby journey ahead- not on a Cup run or on a promotion push- but into admin! 👋

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

I think the EFL should've insisted for P&S purposes of the Depreciated Replacement Cost of £74.4m personally. There and then- DRC feels a more reliable and measurable method than the profits one, for these kinds of transactions.

However on the price- looking at comparable stadia, capacity, region, year of setup- feels too high. Sorry but that combined with the ridiculously low rent...hell even set against one or two other suspect RPTs for P&S it comes out high!

Comparisons:

Birmingham- £22.76m- Annual rent £1.5m

Reading- £26.5m- Annual Rent £750,000

Reading Mk. 2- £37.5m- Annual Rent £1.5m

Aston Villa- £56.7m- Annual Rent £2.6m (I think). Though this has a problem with lease length arguably.

Sheffield Wednesday- £60m- Annual Rent ??- Though it is mooted as £3m per season- nice little millstone!

If any commercial revenue from non matchday flows to Derby or Sevco 5112- or is it Gellaw Newco 203 now- the EFL must revisit the rent, perhaps add in a market rent for P&S purposes.

I suspect your owner will therefore given the club own it, sell and leaseback Moor Farm next. Hopefully the EFL will shut the loophole pronto.

 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What evidence have we actually got for this apart from the oh so reliable words of a certain owner? Were there any genuinely dated emails or documentation backing this up?

DRC seems absolutely fair enough to me for this. Profits basis? Not so much! Market Rent falling by £3.06m per season- that's different approach wise!

So far, so meh...though the valuation sticks out like a sore thumb! Looks alright when £4.16m in rent is factored in.

The valuations and proposed rent are still broadly consistent...until.

Like I say not one penny of Pride Park commercial income that is non football related should flow to Derby. Running costs I assume ncluded within the rent? Interesting use and reiteration of the term 'purported' higher up. 👀

Now this bit is farcical- clear breach of the agreement.

100 days vs no restriction on the number. Pearce Out!!

This bit is rather unusual.

Professional valuers- JLL renowned professional valuers- taking advice and implementing it from a club??

Toxic club and the sooner Pearce is removed from the EFL board the better.

Move on and forget about the stadium valuation. The EFL already has.

  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This bit is bloody ridiculous.

Disgusting club, disgusting hierarchy- minority, maybe a reasonable minority of fans equally so! 🤮🤢

No offence, but I hope there is a new Derby journey ahead- not on a Cup run or on a promotion push- but into admin! 👋

Fancy a bet on which club makes it to the Premier League first? 🤐

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

 

Move on and forget about the stadium valuation. The EFL already has.

Sorry it's very questionable, elements of it.

50 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Fancy a bet on which club makes it to the Premier League first? 🤐

Probably Derby- Moor Farm for £60m anyone?? :whistle2:

At what point in normality does a valuer take advice and make revisions at the request of the very party seeking the valuation.

Quote

"Dear Uncle Mel (as in the nickname),

"Moor Farm is worth £60m with 10p a year rent!

"EFL must accept this as it's Independent"

"Your Mate, The Independent Valuer."

Quote

"Dear Uncle Mel (as in the nickname),

"Finance it through a loan- against the club, the asset, the lease- or something!

"Cashflow in and maybe the P&L boosted a bit- yet at no risk to you

"Your Mate, Andy/James D."

EFL have to shut that loophole pronto! It's one of the few gaping loopholes- or amend it in such a way that it is an EFL hired valuer who can make the call for P&S purposes.

Reading DCFCFans again as I do periodically.

Tbh Pearl Ram, I just have little time for loophole seeking, regulation spirit flouting, close to cheating, smugly owned clubs/top brass such as your club appears to be and have respectively.

I'd hope clubs are exploring whether there are ways to remove Pearce from the board. Some leaks from EFL meetings if appropriate as happened to Redgate a few weeks back wouldn't go amiss either.

Maybe Admin is a bit much but EFL and clubs need to be monitoring Derby like a hawk IMO. I fully expect a ridiculous overvaluation of Moor Farm in a sale and leaseback with a worked down rent.

He could call the purchasing company "Uncle Mel's PissBoilers PLC" :P

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

They've signed Nathan Byrne...

I don't know, are the EFL busting a gut to shut the loophole? One of their sensible posters seems to think they have amortisation hitting £20m for a number of years! Though I've also read on DCFCFans that their wage bill is £15-20m per season so...?

Would hope if and when the loophole is shut, the weakening of their squad can continue.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon Jordan not happy about the EFL appeal! Mel's cheerleader Jim White adds little of interest, but it seems a bit of a pointless appeal.

Loopholes need shutting- Amortisation one and the Fixed Asset one.

Jim White is just a shill though.

Maybe it's to establish the principle of rule changes- or maybe to get Derby some kind of reprimand/warning so that they can push for harder penalties moving forward if there is another overspend.

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

Derby's squad seems thinner than I thought. I hope this is jkust annoying niggling injuries but rolling that disrupt rhythm but not serious or terminal.

Apparently Rooney and Waghorn out Saturday- Holmes too though tbh know little about him. Read some contradictory reports about Bielik fitness also.

Shame that... :laughcont: :whistle2:

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

They've signed Nathan Byrne...

I don't know, are the EFL busting a gut to shut the loophole? One of their sensible posters seems to think they have amortisation hitting £20m for a number of years! Though I've also read on DCFCFans that their wage bill is £15-20m per season so...?

Would hope if and when the loophole is shut, the weakening of their squad can continue.

If I’ve understood that post correctly, that’s £20m total amortisation still to show up in the accounts. £10m this season, £5m next (Lawrence and Evans’ contracts end), then £5m over the following two seasons (Bielik’s contract ends). 

As we both know, some of those players will sign extensions delaying the amortisation shown. 
 

Looking at the squad, I’d be surprised if first team wages were much higher than £20m. Total club wages will probably be £5m higher. 

 

How would changes to the amortisation and stadium rules affect solidarity payments from the PL? I thought I read a while back though our rules need to be aligned with there’s so ensure EFL clubs still get those payments. The best part of £5m for Championship clubs, £700k for L1 and £500k for L2. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

If I’ve understood that post correctly, that’s £20m total amortisation still to show up in the accounts. £10m this season, £5m next (Lawrence and Evans’ contracts end), then £5m over the following two seasons (Bielik’s contract ends). 

As we both know, some of those players will sign extensions delaying the amortisation shown. 
 

Looking at the squad, I’d be surprised if first team wages were much higher than £20m. Total club wages will probably be £5m higher. 

 

How would changes to the amortisation and stadium rules affect solidarity payments from the PL? I thought I read a while back though our rules need to be aligned with there’s so ensure EFL clubs still get those payments. The best part of £5m for Championship clubs, £700k for L1 and £500k for L2. 

Ah okay, I was just skimreading the Derby forum tbh- I'll try and find the exact post but I'll go with your info as you are closer to the club!

Yep, kicking the can down the road slightly- or spreading the cost over 2 rather than one?

That's an interesting one with P&S then- playing vs club- the consolidated accounts would make an adjustment upwards but not take account of all the wages and costs. I did note reading the Written Reasons that it seemed to switch from club to consolidated between 2015/16 and 2016/17- ie 2015/16 was club accounts and then consolidated from 2016/17 onwards?

I think the EFL Report into Bury's demise did state or suggest that? One report by Matt Hughes suggested that the PL and EFL were in talks about it- but that news seems to have vanished. Clearly the PL have a role with the alignment of the regulations but I question how willing the PL would be to impose punitive penalties on a newly promoted club at the request of the EFL. That's irrespective of the rights and wrongs but even with the alignment I'm not wholly sure the PL would enforce a soft embargo or points deduction carried over to the fullest extent possible anyway.

In a way, the stadium rule being amended would be in the interests of PL clubs because fixed asset sale and leasebacks are excluded from the UEFA regs so any PL club qualifying for Europe would need to have compliance irrespective of that anyway. As Aston Villa would've found out had they qualified for Europe- they were one game from it- that £36m profit wouldn't have counted in UEFA's calculations.

I also would love them to massively reform parachute payments- think Parry deems them a problem too.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was looking around about vague FFP related stuff and found this- might be interested @AnAstonVillafan

Now that £93m will of course be inclusive of promotion bonuses so the fall and boost to P&S- because remember Promotion Bonuses seemingly excluded from P&S calculations- will be a bit overstated but that is notable, reducing wage bill by even say £10-15m on promotion!

I might also add, though the TV money goes up of course from Parachute Payments to PL, so does the amortisation, the HS2 revenue surely won't be replicated- if it is MPs need to be asking q's IMO as it's public money, are HS2 covered by FOI, another angle- and the rolling up of two years into one is both a good thing and a bad thing- it means that it adversely impacts some clubs but helps others. I'm not even sure the 2nd tranche should be included as it was classed as "Exceptional Operating Income" but that's another debate! Still by my very rough maths, Aston Villa could've lost £44m in the PL assuming non included costs remained the same this was in 2019/20 but it's £62m over 3 seasons in FFP terms and £88m in accounting IF the costs that are allowable remain the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for our level, slightly conflicted!

Cardiff v Sheffield Wednesday- can't they both lose! :laughcont: On one hand you have the -12 dodgers but OTOH Cardiff are Cardiff!

Nice to see Derby lose as well- long may they lose!

Still no sign of accounts from either.

Derby's loss was to Reading though and once again there must be questions with respect to compliance even with the rolling up process.

Long may all 3 of the above lose though.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

EFL have actually deigned to update the relevant section of their site! P&S below old rules, no longer

Some Derby and Sheffield Wednesday fans don't like the EFL or Parry but this is a sign it's better run in some ways- for about 3-4 years the old rules just sat alongside the new rules higher up the page and in some areas it was unclear where one set might end and the other begin- which sums up Harvey's stewardship of the Football League tbh. :whistle2:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

There still is nothing about fixed asset profits being excluded- hope the EFL(possibly in conjunction with the PL) move on that and soon!

The big changes thusfar are a) The rollng up of 2019/20 and 2020/21 into one period and b) Covid losses.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Was looking around about vague FFP related stuff and found this- might be interested @AnAstonVillafan

Now that £93m will of course be inclusive of promotion bonuses so the fall and boost to P&S- because remember Promotion Bonuses seemingly excluded from P&S calculations- will be a bit overstated but that is notable, reducing wage bill by even say £10-15m on promotion!

I might also add, though the TV money goes up of course from Parachute Payments to PL, so does the amortisation, the HS2 revenue surely won't be replicated- if it is MPs need to be asking q's IMO as it's public money, are HS2 covered by FOI, another angle- and the rolling up of two years into one is both a good thing and a bad thing- it means that it adversely impacts some clubs but helps others. I'm not even sure the 2nd tranche should be included as it was classed as "Exceptional Operating Income" but that's another debate! Still by my very rough maths, Aston Villa could've lost £44m in the PL assuming non included costs remained the same this was in 2019/20 but it's £62m over 3 seasons in FFP terms and £88m in accounting IF the costs that are allowable remain the same.

Those wage figures are all over place. Gregg Evans needs to go back to writing for the Birmingham Evening Mail. If you add up the estimated players wages, you get nowhere near £93m or £65m.
Note also that John Terry gets an approx. £75,000 a week retainer so there is the possiblity that staff wages are included in his figures.

We've been prudent on wages since our return to the Premier League but it's now acknowledged that to compete we are going to need an uplift in quality which means paying players more money. Most difficult aspect is removal of deadwood in the squad.

 

Why should MPs be asking question about HS2 compensation? In my mind it is fair and correct.



 

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...