The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

I've looked at their Accounts over the last few years and I don't think they on balance have an FFP issue to 2021/22 ie 2018/19, the combined rollup and this season but if they stay down they might! Remember the higher loss limit in the PL...their Upper Loss Tariff is £55.5m by my calculations- whereas going into next season=£39m.

Definitely agree, likely Sala.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's not entirely FFP related but relates to finance and financial woes. Regular readers of this thread may recall the bit about EFL Charges for non-payment of wages or late payment- and guess which two Championship Clubs were up before the beak.

Anyway, verdicts or more like 'Agreed Decisions' are out.

Along with the exclusion of Stadium Sales from P&S and the publishing of Embargoes and reasons for them it's another step forward on one level, because Shaun Harvey did Sweet FA about this kinda thing IIRC when he was in charge up to 2019...

...However, like with the Stadium Sale bit it's good but not quite good enough IMO. It's obviously a notable improvement but to me, 1 month wage issues well that can happen, suspended 3 pts but thereafter 3 pts per month- with the suspended penalty also kicking in by 2nd breach. In layman's terms, 3 pts per month.

Bit confused at the difference in sentences too and any Derby fans reading this might be surprised to know I'm surprised from the POV that relatively speaking this seems harsher than it should be as set against SWFC.

3-4 months=6 points if it happens again but once when anticipating a takeover, ie 1 month=3 pts if happens again- would love to know how they worked that one out, SWFC should surely be at least another 3 pts? Skimread the verdicts.

My problem with the Stadium Sale rule change is that it seems not to exclude Training Grounds or in some cases, land alone can be depending on location, size of site etc but definitely Stadium, Training Grounds- in theory could sell and leaseback Club Shop and Carpark but these assets are easier to compare, so how big an artificial gain I don't know...simple exclusion of all Profits on Tangible Fixed Assets from P&S or all Sale and Leaseback arrangements from P&S would solve it imo- as in only if sold for real, ie Housing could that be quite fair to include. Sale and Leaseback though it can be legitimate, is all too often an obvious fiddle/loophole depending on POV.

Probably just best to exclude all Fixed Asset Profits and Losses from P&S though- everyone knows where they are.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

Can't get the link to paste but more evidence from the BBC of the EFL getting tough on big clubs. I'm sure the same generosity will be shown to small ones. Won't it?

Derby County and Sheffield Wednesday will start next season on the same points mark as all their rivals after receiving suspended points deductions.

Assuming they comply with EFL rules on the payment of their players, both will escape any immediate points penalties.

Championship side Derby have accepted a suspended three-point penalty, to be implemented only if the club fail to pay their players before 30 June 2022.

Relegated League One Wednesday accepted a suspended six-point deduction.

This will only come into effect if the club do not pay in full the arrears owed to the players on or before 5 July 2021 and/or they fail to pay their players before 30 June 2022.

It is understood that these arrears have now been paid.

If Wednesday pay their players up until 31 December 2021, the sanction will be reduced to a suspended three-point deduction.

Both cases refer to last season's Championship, in which Wednesday began the season under a 12-point deduction, later halved to six, before being relegated by three points, while Wayne Rooney's Derby stayed up on the final day thanks to nearest rivals Rotherham shipping a late equaliser at Cardiff.

An EFL statement said: "In December 2020, Derby County failed to pay their players as per the terms of the agreements between the club and its players and were charged with misconduct under the EFL regulations.

"In the months of March 2021, April 2021, May 2021 and June 2021, Sheffield Wednesday failed to pay their players as per the terms of the agreements between the club and its players and were charged with misconduct under the EFL."

Derby have endured a turbulent few weeks, having been hit with a £100,000 fine last month for breaching rules relating to financial fair play.

There was also uncertainty over which league the Rams would be playing in next season after the EFL announced an "interchangeable fixture list". But the EFL decided not to implement the decision to deduct points.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Tbh @chinapig

Not fully sure I agree. Small steps for a start, let's remember in 2018/19 there were multiple non wage payment incidents and possibly one stretching back to 2017/18 in the case of Macclesfield.

EFL under Shaun Harvey did nothing- Bury rode to promotion and Bolton fought against relegation the two high profile examples without censure or intervention as wages were either late or unpaid. The Governance that occurred with Bolton, Bury, Macclesfield arrived after he had left.

Suspended sentences will hold a Club's feet to the fire- any failure before next June and Bang, -3 or -6 automatically, hopefully fresh charges would follow too over that offence.

I don't think it's enough but I credit improvement when I see it. Much more needs to be done, ie why wait until now when in Derby's case when it was December/January 2020/21.

Sheffield Wednesday would be harder to penalise in the existing season given this occurred March-June.

3 pts=1 month. To be applied automatically, moving forward IMO.

As for the line on that BBC article, it wasn't unfortunately the EFL's decision to make IIRC. The Independent Panel set the sentence and I hope the implications of that remain in full force for the Club.

Resubmit Accounts for 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 the correct way by 18th August. This will have a knock-on effect on multiple periods.

[Mr Popodopolous]

It also depends on the players too, and whether they want to lodge complaints. They don't usually in these situations.

I think deductions for it should be taken out of their hands, because especially if it's recurring, it gains an unfair advantage for that club and points are a fair solution.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

54 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tbh @chinapig

Not fully sure I agree. Small steps for a start, let's remember in 2018/19 there were multiple non wage payment incidents and possibly one stretching back to 2017/18 in the case of Macclesfield.

EFL under Shaun Harvey did nothing- Bury rode to promotion and Bolton fought against relegation the two high profile examples without censure or intervention as wages were either late or unpaid. The Governance that occurred with Bolton, Bury, Macclesfield arrived after he had left.

Suspended sentences will hold a Club's feet to the fire- any failure before next June and Bang, -3 or -6 automatically, hopefully fresh charges would follow too over that offence.

I don't think it's enough but I credit improvement when I see it. Much more needs to be done, ie why wait until now when in Derby's case when it was December/January 2020/21.

Sheffield Wednesday would be harder to penalise in the existing season given this occurred March-June.

3 pts=1 month. To be applied automatically, moving forward IMO.

As for the line on that BBC article, it wasn't unfortunately the EFL's decision to make IIRC. The Independent Panel set the sentence and I hope the implications of that remain in full force for the Club.

Resubmit Accounts for 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 the correct way by 18th August. This will have a knock-on effect on multiple periods.

I take your points but I would like to see an automatic 3 point deduction if, say, a club fails to pay its players twice in the same season with further deductions for subsequent failures.

The problem is that the EFL is the clubs not an independent governing body. I suspect many clubs don't want a stronger regime in case they want to break the rules themselves in future.

And decisions of the Independent Panel and subsequent appeal decisions seem to be remarkably timid. I suspect a plea bargain was agreed with Derby and Wednesday in this case.

Let's see if Swindon get a feeble penalty for paying their players late but short of government intervention I don't expect football's governing bodies to ever get their act in order.

Love the game, hate the business.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In this case, IIRC it didn't go to an Independent Disciplinary Commission because these were 'Agreed Decisions'.

About Independent Panels and Appeals, the one I don't get is the halving of the Sheffield Wednesday deduction but on the plus side at least that - 6 still did for them.

1) The deduction was - 12 as the overspend was £15m and above. Based on the Birmingham case and their own one in July, that is - 12.

2) The fact the EFL didn't push for a further 3 on top- see the Birmingham case, 7 for the overspend, 3 for a rising trend in losses and 1 back for cooperation.

3) Like Birmingham, SWFC also had 3 successive seasons of rising losses.

4) Even if the initial 6 halved, that extra 3 should have remained based on the Birmingham case.

5) Unlike Birmingham, there was no prompt admission or cooperation following the Charge.

6) Sheffield Wednesday were allowed to roll it forward, why. I think the EFL should challenge this bit or the valuation at least, £60m is seriously toppy.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

My understanding is that the EFL as a corporate group has been genuinely knocked for six by the amount of bad publicity in respect of the disciplinary processes.  They didn't really understand that company accounts are freely available, easy to access, and generally easy to read, plus of course it is obvious from other public records (such as the Land Registry) who has done what and when.

So from a point where little was done on financial compliance, we are now at the point where this season:

1.  Sheffield Wednesday ended up with a 6 point penalty;
2.  Derby County got a £100,000 fine and a requirement to restate all the defective accounts;
3.  A large number of clubs were put on a soft transfer embargo for not submitting accounts to Companies House on time;
4.  Sheffield Wednesday have a 6 point suspended penalty for not paying some of their players over an extended period;
5.  Derby County have a 3 point suspended penalty for not paying any of their players for one month;
6.  Hull City are on a transfer embargo as a condition of the loan they took out;
7.  Reading are on a transfer embargo for a breach of P&S rules;
8.  Derby County are on a transfer embargo for numerous offences.
9.  We have publication of the Embargo List, with reasons.
10.  Fixed asset sale profits no longer count for P&S purposes

I'm more than happy for now.  I would love to see further progress, but good so far.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Do you know the remarkable thing however?

Lots of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday fans still think they're hard done by, EFL agenda etc.

They really don't or don't want to get it.

That puts things into a different light @Hxjthings seem to be moving forward.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Jerseybean]

Derby, Hull and Reading all impacted by an embargo…

https://t.co/zBi8QxDAJ3?fbclid=IwAR02-mm4blhBRezlobmTx4KClW0n4aKmOgQPy3cp1AZsOaT1ehneMEEXwTc

 

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, chinapig said:

Can't get the link to paste but more evidence from the BBC of the EFL getting tough on big clubs. I'm sure the same generosity will be shown to small ones. Won't it?

Derby County and Sheffield Wednesday will start next season on the same points mark as all their rivals after receiving suspended points deductions.

Assuming they comply with EFL rules on the payment of their players, both will escape any immediate points penalties.

Championship side Derby have accepted a suspended three-point penalty, to be implemented only if the club fail to pay their players before 30 June 2022.

Relegated League One Wednesday accepted a suspended six-point deduction.

This will only come into effect if the club do not pay in full the arrears owed to the players on or before 5 July 2021 and/or they fail to pay their players before 30 June 2022.

It is understood that these arrears have now been paid.

If Wednesday pay their players up until 31 December 2021, the sanction will be reduced to a suspended three-point deduction.

Both cases refer to last season's Championship, in which Wednesday began the season under a 12-point deduction, later halved to six, before being relegated by three points, while Wayne Rooney's Derby stayed up on the final day thanks to nearest rivals Rotherham shipping a late equaliser at Cardiff.

An EFL statement said: "In December 2020, Derby County failed to pay their players as per the terms of the agreements between the club and its players and were charged with misconduct under the EFL regulations.

"In the months of March 2021, April 2021, May 2021 and June 2021, Sheffield Wednesday failed to pay their players as per the terms of the agreements between the club and its players and were charged with misconduct under the EFL."

Derby have endured a turbulent few weeks, having been hit with a £100,000 fine last month for breaching rules relating to financial fair play.

There was also uncertainty over which league the Rams would be playing in next season after the EFL announced an "interchangeable fixture list". But the EFL decided not to implement the decision to deduct points.

What's all this about Derby "accepting" a  suspended 3 point penalty? 

Surely a punishment for breaching law/rules is given to the offender - whether they like it or not. This makes it sound as though this has all been cosily agreed, by negotiation, behind closed doors (or across a dining table!?!) 

If this goes on much longer and the EFL backtrack much further they will be giving Derby a 6 points flying start over the rest if the championship and £10m to help them get back on their feet. 

I do not apologise fir my cynicism! 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

33 minutes ago, downendcity said:

What's all this about Derby "accepting" a  suspended 3 point penalty? 

Surely a punishment for breaching law/rules is given to the offender - whether they like it or not. This makes it sound as though this has all been cosily agreed, by negotiation, behind closed doors (or across a dining table!?!) 

If this goes on much longer and the EFL backtrack much further they will be giving Derby a 6 points flying start over the rest if the championship and £10m to help them get back on their feet. 

I do not apologise fir my cynicism! 

 

 

In lieu of and avoiding a Disciplinary Process, clubs and the EFL can agree to a, ell "Agreed Decision".

Applied to both Derby and Sheffield Wednesday here, Not entirely sure why, seems a bit odd- there seems to be provision within the EFL Regs but why exactly.

I don't really know if it's appropriate tbh. However on the plus side, IF the EFL stick to the letter of the law with the Embargo, maybe Derby will have to include the kids they fielded at Chorley among their 23/24 man squad. 

At Chorley they fielded a scratch team due to a Covid outbreak, most of them kids who played their one and only game but by EFL Regs for such offences, they could be construed as players of "Professional Standing" or whatever the exact term is.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

but why exactly

It simplifies and speeds up justice and it reduces costs significantly.

Team A has breached FFP by say an amount which it means a 6 point penalty arises.  If both parties so wish, why not agree a 6 point penalty arises. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It simplifies and speeds up justice and it reduces costs significantly.

Team A has breached FFP by say an amount which it means a 6 point penalty arises.  If both parties so wish, why not agree a 6 point penalty arises. 

Thanks, does make sense- still think suspended penalties can send the wrong message a bit but can also look to good behaviour for the upcoming year.

Should ask while I remember, what's your thinking on Pearce claiming as we saw in the Written Reasons last week that Derby might have a further Profit- perhaps a significant one- on Pride Park?

Edited July 10, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In lieu of and avoiding a Disciplinary Process, clubs and the EFL can agree to a, ell "Agreed Decision".

Applied to both Derby and Sheffield Wednesday here, Not entirely sure why, seems a bit odd- there seems to be provision within the EFL Regs but why exactly.

I don't really know if it's appropriate tbh. However on the plus side, IF the EFL stick to the letter of the law with the Embargo, maybe Derby will have to include the kids they fielded at Chorley among their 23/24 man squad. 

At Chorley they fielded a scratch team due to a Covid outbreak, most of them kids who played their one and only game but by EFL Regs for such offences, they could be construed as players of "Professional Standing" or whatever the exact term is.

Quite so doing deals over an expensive dinner is built into the rules. The only question remaining is who pays for the dinner.

No doubt as a part of the transparency the EFL is suddenly claiming we will be told who did the deal, when and where.

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It simplifies and speeds up justice and it reduces costs significantly.

Team A has breached FFP by say an amount which it means a 6 point penalty arises.  If both parties so wish, why not agree a 6 point penalty arises. 

And what if Team A says we will only agree to a suspended penalty or it will cost you (the EFL) a lot of time and money to go through due process?

Still, as in politics, we all agree that these things are agreed by decent chaps in back rooms. Don't we?

[Hxj]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Should ask while I remember, what's your thinking on Pearce claiming as we saw in the Written Reasons last week that Derby might have a further Profit- perhaps a significant one- on Pride Park?

I am sure that his statement is as honest as all the others.  Whilst there might be a further profit, that means that there also might not be.  Surprising that given the time passed he doesn't actually know there is.

A bit like all the official DCFC statements that fail to mention whether they fail the P&S loss limits or pass them.  That would be something that I would have checked when the EFL first got concerned. If I passed I could have restated the accounts, agreed to a non-points sanction and moved on.

39 minutes ago, chinapig said:

And what if Team A says we will only agree to a suspended penalty or it will cost you (the EFL) a lot of time and money to go through due process?

Technically it is for the EFL to propose an 'agreed sanction' with a list of reasons and for the club to accept or reject.  In addition costs follow the decision so if the club was sanctioned at any hearing it would have to pay some costs as well.  That said we all know that the decisions are not made in a vacuum.  However I don't see a conspiracy here, but then I generally don't.  I would consider the suspended (until the end of the 2021/22 season) 3 point penalty for a one month failure to pay the players an entirely reasonable sanction. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Hxj

[chinapig]

46 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I am sure that his statement is as honest as all the others.  Whilst there might be a further profit, that means that there also might not be.  Surprising that given the time passed he doesn't actually know there is.

A bit like all the official DCFC statements that fail to mention whether they fail the P&S loss limits or pass them.  That would be something that I would have checked when the EFL first got concerned. If I passed I could have restated the accounts, agreed to a non-points sanction and moved on.

Technically it is for the EFL to propose an 'agreed sanction' with a list of reasons and for the club to accept or reject.  In addition costs follow the decision so if the club was sanctioned at any hearing it would have to pay some costs as well.  That said we all know that the decisions are not made in a vacuum.  However I don't see a conspiracy here, but then I generally don't.  I would consider the suspended (until the end of the 2021/22 season) 3 point penalty for a one month failure to pay the players an entirely reasonable sanction. 

Personally I won't have faith in the outcome until I have faith in the process and those controlling it.

You may think otherwise but the history of the governance of the game doesn't lead me to accept the word of those in power.

Wholesale reform of governance is required but I doubt it will happen because there are too many powerful vested interests.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Been meaning to return to this thread for a while, but have not.

Few quick updates.

Derby County

Still nothing at CH for the Club, Sevco 5112 Limited, Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, DCFC, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited. It does seem that they can sign some players under EFL conditions though, maybe 4 or 5- or read Nixon said 4 plus Davies, perhaps they're trying to swing it in his case as a player coach- still showing as under Embargo for 4 reasons at EFL, 3 x Accounts and 1 x HMRC- one reporter suggested movement on that this week which may ease Embargo a bit more...shouldn't ease it much given no Accounts! No Confirmation Statements for 2021 either for Sevco 5112 Limited- and 2020 in their case- Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited- Club one isn't due until November.

The conditions remain similar I assume, ie wage limits, no transfer fees etc.

Reading FC

Seemingly they can now sign players, on a higher wage than Derby but unsure how many. This could be like the Birmingham scenario of 2018 whereby they could sign up to 6 players under EFL Restrictions but were Charged with failure to 2018 and put under a Business Plan for 2 years...sold Olise for £8m, Aluko and Baldock left, but it's not enough! New sponsors at Madejski Stadium but again not enough...and you can't backdate of course! Richards went, Nevers went- some compensation but won't be huge. Not even been able to sign free agents up to now and it clearly states on the EFL Embargo Reporting Service, that they are under Embargo for "Breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules". Puscas could also leave on loan, there is interest anyway.

Stoke City

This is an interesting one. They caused a bit of a stir given the significant Impairment of Player Registrations but the Profits made have been minimal and perhaps non-existent.

It could be argued that this justified their Impairment as they could not make the necessary downsizing without, or it could be argued that the players had more takers than they (Stoke) believed in the last 12 months! Selling Collins an academy Product for £12-12.5m to Burnley surely helped a lot and may have given them some breathing space to help to restructure responsibly- unclear if they have 'sold' any Fixed Assets or not- in particular the Stadium.

Anyway, the Ins:

• Bonham- Free, Gillingham (GK)
• Wilmot- £1.5-2.5m, Watford (CB)
• Vrancic- Free, Norwich (CM)

The Outs:

• Bauer- Undisclosed, UFA (RB)
• Collins- £12-12.5m, Burnley (CB)
• Wimmer- Free, Rapid Vienna (CB)
• Lindsay- Undisclosed, Preston (CB)
• Martins Indi- Undisclosed, AZ Alkmaar (CB/LB)
• Woods- Free, Birmingham (CM)
• Mikel- Free, Kuwait SC (CM)
• Cousins- Free- Wigan (CM)
• NDiaye- Free- Aris Thessaloniki (CM)
• Sorensen- Undisclosed- Lincoln (CM)
• Vokes- Undisclosed- Wycombe (CF)

Loans Out:

• Etebo- Watford (CM/AM)
• Afobe- Millwall (CF)

Feeling Tom Edwards might still be on loan at an MLS club too.

Plus a clutch of younger players either loaned out or released. Not really counting them much though.

1. Gunn was on a pretty much season long loan from Southampton.
2. Norrington-Davies half-season from Sheffield United
3. Matondo half-season from Schalke.
4. Clarke half-season from Tottenham.

All returned, not replaced.

Now a number of these, perhaps a decent number were already on loan in 2020/21 and before in some cases, so in some ways Stoke haven't lost too much, but otoh it's an impressive offloading! Can't even say it's all part of a Covid plan either as attempted downsizing began in January 2020 and perhaps before at times in Summer 2019- think their plan was that without Covid they would loan out and loan out...and sell in final year of deal.

EFL certainly need to investigate, add back any excess Profit made this season on any Impaired in 2019/20 to those joint figures and significantly assess this but also in fairness, the offloading has been significant.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[CyderInACan]

On 10/07/2021 at 16:24, chinapig said:

Quite so doing deals over an expensive dinner is built into the rules. The only question remaining is who pays for the dinner.

I’d imagine that if the dinner guests were the owners of Derby and Sheff Weds that they’d, in all likelihood, be looking at a deal to sell their dinners back to the restaurant for about £30m each! 

[Davefevs]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Been meaning to return to this thread for a while, but have not.

Few quick updates.

Derby County

Still nothing at CH for the Club, Sevco 5112 Limited, Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, DCFC, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited. It does seem that they can sign some players under EFL conditions though, maybe 4 or 5- or read Nixon said 4 plus Davies, perhaps they're trying to swing it in his case as a player coach- still showing as under Embargo for 4 reasons at EFL, 3 x Accounts and 1 x HMRC- one reporter suggested movement on that this week which may ease Embargo a bit more...shouldn't ease it much given no Accounts! No Confirmation Statements for 2021 either for Sevco 5112 Limited- and 2020 in their case- Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited- Club one isn't due until November.

The conditions remain similar I assume, ie wage limits, no transfer fees etc.

Reading FC

Seemingly they can now sign players, on a higher wage than Derby but unsure how many. This could be like the Birmingham scenario of 2018 whereby they could sign up to 6 players under EFL Restrictions but were Charged with failure to 2018 and put under a Business Plan for 2 years...sold Olise for £8m, Aluko and Baldock left, but it's not enough! New sponsors at Madejski Stadium but again not enough...and you can't backdate of course! Richards went, Nevers went- some compensation but won't be huge. Not even been able to sign free agents up to now and it clearly states on the EFL Embargo Reporting Service, that they are under Embargo for "Breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules". Puscas could also leave on loan, there is interest anyway.

Stoke City

This is an interesting one. They caused a bit of a stir given the significant Impairment of Player Registrations but the Profits made have been minimal and perhaps non-existent.

It could be argued that this justified their Impairment as they could not make the necessary downsizing without, or it could be argued that the players had more takers than they (Stoke) believed in the last 12 months! Selling Collins an academy Product for £12-12.5m to Burnley surely helped a lot and may have given them some breathing space to help to restructure responsibly- unclear if they have 'sold' any Fixed Assets or not- in particular the Stadium.

Anyway, the Ins:

• Bonham- Free, Gillingham (GK)
• Wilmot- £1.5-2.5m, Watford (CB)
• Vrancic- Free, Norwich (CM)

The Outs:

• Bauer- Undisclosed, UFA (RB)
• Collins- £12-12.5m, Burnley (CB)
• Wimmer- Free, Rapid Vienna (CB)
• Lindsay- Undisclosed, Preston (CB)
• Martins Indi- Undisclosed, AZ Alkmaar (CB/LB)
• Woods- Free, Birmingham (CM)
• Mikel- Free, Kuwait SC (CM)
• Cousins- Free- Wigan (CM)
• NDiaye- Free- Aris Thessaloniki (CM)
• Sorensen- Undisclosed- Lincoln (CM)
• Vokes- Undisclosed- Wycombe (CF)

Loans Out:

• Etebo- Watford (CM/AM)
• Afobe- Millwall (CF)

Feeling Tom Edwards might still be on loan at an MLS club too.

Plus a clutch of younger players either loaned out or released. Not really counting them much though.

1. Gunn was on a pretty much season long loan from Southampton.
2. Norrington-Davies half-season from Sheffield United
3. Matondo half-season from Schalke.
4. Clarke half-season from Tottenham.

All returned, not replaced.

Now a number of these, perhaps a decent number were already on loan in 2020/21 and before in some cases, so in some ways Stoke haven't lost too much, but otoh it's an impressive offloading! Can't even say it's all part of a Covid plan either as attempted downsizing began in January 2020 and perhaps before at times in Summer 2019- think their plan was that without Covid they would loan out and loan out...and sell in final year of deal.

EFL certainly need to investigate, add back any excess Profit made this season on any Impaired in 2019/20 to those joint figures and significantly assess this but also in fairness, the offloading has been significant.

A team that might be a competitor to make it into the bottom 8 this season.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 29/07/2021 at 00:59, Mr Popodopolous said:

Been meaning to return to this thread for a while, but have not.

Few quick updates.

Derby County

Still nothing at CH for the Club, Sevco 5112 Limited, Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, DCFC, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited. It does seem that they can sign some players under EFL conditions though, maybe 4 or 5- or read Nixon said 4 plus Davies, perhaps they're trying to swing it in his case as a player coach- still showing as under Embargo for 4 reasons at EFL, 3 x Accounts and 1 x HMRC- one reporter suggested movement on that this week which may ease Embargo a bit more...shouldn't ease it much given no Accounts! No Confirmation Statements for 2021 either for Sevco 5112 Limited- and 2020 in their case- Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited- Club one isn't due until November.

The conditions remain similar I assume, ie wage limits, no transfer fees etc.

That'll be because the club are in discussions with the EFL regarding the accounts. We want to get them right before formally submitting, and unsurprisingly, there are a few disagreements on what is acceptable or not - either a new amortisation policy or the extra £30m relating to the stadium.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That'll be because the club are in discussions with the EFL regarding the accounts. We want to get them right before formally submitting, and unsurprisingly, there are a few disagreements on what is acceptable or not - either a new amortisation policy or the extra £30m relating to the stadium.

Yeah, an extra £30m and a new Amortisation policy that isn't in keeping with the EFL's requirements for P&S purposes won't fly IMO. It's possibly cherry picking, from a still negative Retained Earnings/Accumulated Profit and Loss Account position!

• The Policy was Proceeds - Carrying Value. Carrying Value was inclusive of that upward Revaluation- double-counting?
• The EFL can also point to their Agreement in 2018- Sold at this Price and this Profit was banked, we will not allow any adjustments to this for P&S purposes.
• Bit in Accounting about Upward Revaluation going through Profit and Loss but only to the extent that it reverses a Prior Impairment- there has IIRC been no Impairment on Pride Park?
• Nothing in the P&S Regulations about Transfer of Reserves and Inclusion in Calculations.

If I'm the EFL I'd still play hardball with any club and Derby included, even to the extent that if new Owners come in, it wouldn't wipe the slate clean- e.g. Club loses £28m in T-1 and T-2, aggregated loss means T cannot exceed £11m. I've no idea on the figures but it needs to remain as it is as if Mel Morris still owned the Club.

There is an argument though that says it's only legally binding for P&S purposes, ie the Restatement? Seen that argument before but I suppose Club would argue better safe than sorry. OTOH, how many of Club DCFC Limited, Stadia DCFC Limited, DCFC Academy Limited are applicable in terms of Player Amortisation specifically- as this and Profit on Disposal seems to be the main sticking point.

How does this affect the Confirmation Statements that are outstanding too?

Of course, while the disputes/debates roll on, I'd keep the Embargo on to the fullest extent possible- seems only fair. You comply to the required Standards without question or live with the consequences- any easement between now and 18th August 2021 also would enable a Club to take advantage in a short window between them and possible next stage of Disciplinary so the EFL are spot on if they play hardball throughout.

EFL need to refuse the £30m especially, Amortisation harder to say.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As an aside, I've never known a Club in respect of the FFP disputes or similar- be it fanbase or manager ie Rooney, whinge so much as is happening now. Like the Club think the Regulations are not something they need to concern themselves with- it's incredible, yes there has been some pushback but not to the extent of Derby fans when weighted thinking back to Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday.

When Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday were in the shit, I don't recall Monk bleating to the media so much- maybe if it's survival you want, he should be the one you hire in a tricky situation.Compare it to Rooney's comments of late...part of the challenge, not his fault but in a way walk or suck it up.

Reading Social Media as well, is there a large sense of denial among a lot of Derby fans? What is the general perception among a lot, I'm only an outsider going on what I read either from Rooney or a variety of fans views online.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Speculation that Blackburn have a LARGE FFP hole. Speculation only of course.

I don't know if it means an FFP hole going into 2021/22 ie Projected to fail to 2021/22, or already...if it's the latter why are they a) Not listed on the Embargo Reporting Service and b) Why have no charges materialised yet?

They certainly have not yet signed anyone this Summer though and some noises seem to suggest that Armstrong needs selling if they are to buy anyone.

Blackburn's Transfer Activity this summer:

Out:

1. Bell- Luton- Free
2. Bennett- Shrewsbury- Free
3. Downing- Released
4. Evans- Sunderland- Free
5. Holtby- Released
6. Mulgrew- Dundee United- Free

Clutch of younger players too but no significant first team importance and tbh Mulgrew appeared not to have played for Blackburn last season and Bennett too.

Loans last season- obviously not there now.

Douglas, Trybull and Elliott.

Certainly looking weaker as it stands...and furthermore, Nyambe and Rothwell had year options activated in 2021...but they expire in 2022- as well as not option based, but the contracts of Kaminski, Lenihan, Chapman, Johnson, Armstrong and Brereton!

[Davefevs]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Speculation that Blackburn have a LARGE FFP hole. Speculation only of course.

I don't know if it means an FFP hole going into 2021/22 ie Projected to fail to 2021/22, or already...if it's the latter why are they a) Not listed on the Embargo Reporting Service and b) Why have no charges materialised yet?

They certainly have not yet signed anyone this Summer though and some noises seem to suggest that Armstrong needs selling if they are to buy anyone.

Blackburn's Transfer Activity this summer:

Out:

1. Bell- Luton- Free
2. Bennett- Shrewsbury- Free
3. Downing- Released
4. Evans- Sunderland- Free
5. Holtby- Released
6. Mulgrew- Dundee United- Free

Clutch of younger players too but no significant first team importance and tbh Mulgrew appeared not to have played for Blackburn last season and Bennett too.

Loans last season- obviously not there now.

Douglas, Trybull and Elliott.

Certainly looking weaker as it stands...and furthermore, Nyambe and Rothwell had year options activated in 2021...but they expire in 2022- as well as not option based, but the contracts of Kaminski, Lenihan, Chapman, Johnson, Armstrong and Brereton!

Got to say I only had a glance at their recent accounts and although over the £39m (or 4 year equivalent), I’m pretty sure they are Cat 1, so probably lob off £5m p.a. so probably ok.  Armstrong going at some point will help, but allegedly a 40% sell-on to Newcastle, so they won’t realise as much from that as necessary.  Looks like they’re budgeting accordingly.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Got to say I only had a glance at their recent accounts and although over the £39m (or 4 year equivalent), I’m pretty sure they are Cat 1, so probably lob off £5m p.a. so probably ok.  Armstrong going at some point will help, but allegedly a 40% sell-on to Newcastle, so they won’t realise as much from that as necessary.  Looks like they’re budgeting accordingly.

Only really a £20-25m sale due to the 40% on any profit to Newcastle probably would make it fully worth their while...agree probably okay but it's tight...what an issue they have moving forward if theoretically Kaminski, Nyambe, Lenihan, Johnson, Rothwell, Armstrong and Brereton all left on a free while right in and around FFP limits- unless they got promoted of course, just in time!

Edited July 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Couple of bits on Derby.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12040/12368415/wayne-rooneys-troubles-continue-at-derby-county-can-englands-ex-captain-somehow-steady-the-ship

We know a lot about it and tbh the £14.6m Profit in the CLUB Accounts isn't what's used for Reporting purposes but let it slide.

Another interesting snippet which sounds like a bit of back to front logic from the pov of the Club...

Quote

In addition, the battle with the EFL shows no sign of abating. Derby must publish their annual accounts by August 18, and while club officials hope this might lead to more lenience from the league organisers, there are other financial experts who've told me it could land Derby in further trouble.

Why would Restating or submitting Accounts that are 1 year and 1 month and 1 month overdue respectively give you more leeway- surely the flipside is that if you don't it means further charges/trouble? The IDC have ordered it, therefore it must be done.

Further charges/trouble would not be for failing FFP, more like misconduct or similar- separate to the FFP issue as no Accounts means no approximate judgement possible. Probably restrictions would roll on as well.

Why would fulfilment of a basic expectation, an order from the IDC lead to greater lenience? That's the wrong way round possibly.

My thinking is that to 2018 it's hard to call either way but any overspend would be modest if it exists, but that to 2019 there could be a big problem. The latter would, perhaps even to 2018 would, require fresh charges in the event of any overspend- but surely this wouldn't take too long to draw up?

Quote

The possibility of a points deduction still hangs over Pride Park, if they are found guilty of any further financial misdemeanour. A number of Championship rivals are pushing for that, feeling that Derby obtained an unfair advantage with regards to the overall spending limits imposed by the EFL.

Rightly so too.

Now Nixon, seems that it goes from 5 to 4...and on £4,500 per week as it stands.

Seems fair to me- if you don't get the contract offer in by the deadline, how can a free agent be treated as an existing player.

Although why the end of July given their Accounts run until 30th June- linked to the extra months wages maybe that players get when departing clubs?

Edited August 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Couple of bits on Derby.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12040/12368415/wayne-rooneys-troubles-continue-at-derby-county-can-englands-ex-captain-somehow-steady-the-ship

We know a lot about it and tbh the £14.6m Profit in the CLUB Accounts isn't what's used for Reporting purposes but let it slide.

Another interesting snippet which sounds like a bit of back to front logic from the pov of the Club...

Why would Restating or submitting Accounts that are 1 year and 1 month and 1 month overdue respectively give you more leeway- surely the flipside is that if you don't it means further charges/trouble? The IDC have ordered it, therefore it must be done.

Why would fulfilment of a basic expectation, an order from the IDC lead to greater lenience? That's the wrong way round possibly.

My thinking is that to 2018 it's hard to call either way but any overspend would be modest if it exists, but that to 2019 there could be a big problem.

Rightly so too.

Now Nixon, seems that it goes from 5 to 4...and on £4,500 per week as it stands.

Seems fair to me- if you don't get the contract offer in by the deadline, how can a free agent be treated as an existing player?

Although why the end of July given their Accounts run until 30th June- linked to the extra months wages maybe that players get when departing clubs?

Given Tracey Crouch's recent comments about the football authorities being reluctant to take firm action this may be a tipping point for the EFL.

If they bend over backwards to be lenient to Derby it will support Crouch's case for an independent regulator. Something I'm sure the EFL won't want - who knows what independent scrutiny might uncover after all?

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Couple of bits on Derby.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12040/12368415/wayne-rooneys-troubles-continue-at-derby-county-can-englands-ex-captain-somehow-steady-the-ship

We know a lot about it and tbh the £14.6m Profit in the CLUB Accounts isn't what's used for Reporting purposes but let it slide.

Another interesting snippet which sounds like a bit of back to front logic from the pov of the Club...

Why would Restating or submitting Accounts that are 1 year and 1 month and 1 month overdue respectively give you more leeway- surely the flipside is that if you don't it means further charges/trouble? The IDC have ordered it, therefore it must be done.

Further charges/trouble would not be for failing FFP, more like misconduct or similar- separate to the FFP issue as no Accounts means no approximate judgement possible. Probably restrictions would roll on as well.

Why would fulfilment of a basic expectation, an order from the IDC lead to greater lenience? That's the wrong way round possibly.

My thinking is that to 2018 it's hard to call either way but any overspend would be modest if it exists, but that to 2019 there could be a big problem. The latter would, perhaps even to 2018 would, require fresh charges in the event of any overspend- but surely this wouldn't take too long to draw up?

Rightly so too.

Now Nixon, seems that it goes from 5 to 4...and on £4,500 per week as it stands.

Seems fair to me- if you don't get the contract offer in by the deadline, how can a free agent be treated as an existing player.

Although why the end of July given their Accounts run until 30th June- linked to the extra months wages maybe that players get when departing clubs?

End of July will be because clubs are contracted to to pay a months severance upon expiry of contract on 30th June.  If a player finds a contract elsewhere, the. They forego the month’s “pay”.  So Derby we’re probably waiting to see if they could save Davies’s month’s money….it’s backfired.