Middlesbrough to sue FL's Derby County

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

Naive perhaps, and I admit I am out of my depth here, but isn’t there any way that clubs could force a vote of no confidence in those who administer FFP in the EFL. if they’re not up to the task then they should be replaced by others who are. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Had they sold it to a truly verifiable third party company/individual and decided to take their chances on it not being turned into luxury flats or something then fair enough. Provided market rent paid.

Had they sold it to a truly verifiable third party company/individual as helping to fund a new ground- fair enough.

Had they sold it to some foreign investors who again must be truly and verifiable third party or individuals who for example then may decide to look to utilise its potential for other uses, bit like AG- as it does have the facilities- on the proviso they keep that cash generated and Derby pay market rent- fair enough.

Hell, had they even sold it at Market Rate to Mel Morris then again...they wouldn't be profiting and they would have been docked points and out the playoffs. It's the "profit" that is the huge game changer here.

Cannot believe this was signed off though- surely if Aston Villa especially and also Sheffield Wednesday have done this post the issue being flagged, it won't be allowed to stand. Surely!!

What if FLDC find themselves in the same position in a couple of years? Can Morris sell the ground back to the club for a quid and then buy it back for another £80m? I bet he`d try to.

[Mr Popodopolous]

26 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I admire your faith in the powers that be but given that it has already been allowed to stand the EFL no longer has a leg to stand on so it will have to be allowed in future.

That being the case other scams will follow, the EFL will roll over and step by step FFP will crumble. It will be like all those ancient laws that are still on the statute book but not enforced.

If Steve is not prepared to publicly back Gibson now he is going to have to decide whether virtue is its own reward or whether he might as well join in the free for all that will ensue.

Haha, faith in the EFL- you're joking I am sure! 

My thinking was more that the anger of the rest of the clubs would be such that EFL would have little choice- if they put it to a vote of clubs basically to disallow profits from deals such as this...that should stack up- provided of course that enough clubs voted for it! Wouldn't be too late now in fact- simple majority, as Sheffield Wednesday have not yet produced accounts and Aston Villa have we think not done it yet, an emergency meeting could get it done. Derby- we can only hope that embargo and points sanctions would follow them into the PL...which supposedly is possible now.

6 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

What if FLDC find themselves in the same position in a couple of years? Can Morris sell the ground back to the club for a quid and then buy it back for another £80m? I bet he`d try to.

I wonder...I have read that it is a one off thing but who really knows. I think Derby would have to buy it back at Market Rate, whatever that might be! Who knows though, with these morons in charge!

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Haha, faith in the EFL- you're joking I am sure! 

My thinking was more that the anger of the rest of the clubs would be such that EFL would have little choice- if they put it to a vote of clubs basically to disallow profits from deals such as this...that should stack up- provided of course that enough clubs voted for it! Wouldn't be too late now in fact- simple majority, as Sheffield Wednesday have not yet produced accounts and Aston Villa have we think not done it yet, an emergency meeting could get it done. Derby- we can only hope that embargo and points sanctions would follow them into the PL...which supposedly is possible now.

I wonder...I have read that it is a one off thing but who really knows. I think Derby would have to buy it back at Market Rate, whatever that might be! Who knows though, with these morons in charge!

What you describe is possible but there is little or no sign of anger on the part of other clubs. If they were angry they could have supported Gibson when he raised it at the EFL meeting and they could be publicly supporting him now.

Not only did they fail to back him but some clubs reportedly argued that the rules should be relaxed. I can't see that the other clubs are suddenly going to grow a backbone and demand sanctions against Derby now; that ship has sailed.

In which case the likes of Villa and Wednesday can carry on with impunity knowing that the other clubs will do nothing. Which means that FFP is already holed below the water line.

[Drew Peacock]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some excellent (as per) analysis by Kieran Maguire- nails it, how the £41m valuation was reached! Credit to him, on his Twitter- breaks it down brilliantly!

Believe that is the Depreciation of Pride Park, must be since construction...because that is very big! Surely not a 1 year one. Yet an 'independent 'valuer nearly doubled it in a year.

But book value and market value are not the same thing.

Although I have no idea how you value a football ground. I expect the surveyor who valued it has no idea either.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://talksport.com/football/efl/549048/derby-mel-morris-middlesbrough-steve-gibson/amp/

Mel Morris has come out swinging.

Perhaps Talksport has missed a section but can anyone interpret this?? Seems a bit of a word salad in places for a start!

[Lez]

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some excellent (as per) analysis by Kieran Maguire- nails it, how the £41m valuation was reached! Credit to him, on his Twitter- breaks it down brilliantly!

Believe that is the Depreciation of Pride Park, must be since construction...because that is very big! Surely not a 1 year one. Yet an 'independent 'valuer nearly doubled it in a year.

Would you be able to translate this into English dont get it at all!

[reddevil]

10 minutes ago, Lez said:

Would you be able to translate this into English dont get it at all!

The stadium was valued in 2017 at c£41m, this was based on the original cost of construction less depreciation (an annual reduction in value based on the expected useful life of the asset, probably 50 years). In the 2017/18 financial year Derby ‘sold’ the stadium for £81m meaning they could book a profit of £40m.

The reason this could be viewed as dubious is the sale was not to 3rd party, but to another company owned by Derby’s owner. There is nothing illegal in that, in business sale and leaseback transactions are quite common usually to allow a company to access cash from valuable assets. However this specific deal does raise three questions

1) is the valuation of the stadium at £81m reasonable, this is subjective as there isn’t an open market for 32,000 seat stadiums in Derby. PSG were done for this a few years ago when they massively overvalued commercial deals from Qatari owned companies so they could show PSG in profit

2) Going forward will Derby be charged market rate rent for the stadium, based on the valuation of £81m this would be around £4-5m per year which be an additional cost they would need to recognise in their accounts going forwards

3) is this in the spirit of FFP. As I understand it you can exclude stadium development costs from FFP so it would be reasonable to exclude profit from stadium trading as well.

From an accounting perspective this is legal, the valuation of the stadium of £81m isn’t hugely unreasonable, however it is difficult to see the reasons for the transaction as anything other than getting round the FFP rules. 

in summary the deal is a bit iffy, but due to the EFL’s incompetence/reluctance to follow through with FFP rules it seems unlikely anything will happen. However it is the only thing a club can do once, so now Derby will have to reign in spending as they have missed promotion and will need to cover the multi million pound rent  charge from  the sale.

The bigger concern is whether other clubs will see this as a get out of jail free card, believe Sheff Wed and Villa have been rumoured to be doing something similar

[Lez]

3 minutes ago, reddevil said:

The stadium was valued in 2017 at c£41m, this was based on the original cost of construction less depreciation (an annual reduction in value based on the expected useful life of the asset, probably 50 years). In the 2017/18 financial year Derby ‘sold’ the stadium for £81m meaning they could book a profit of £40m.

The reason this could be viewed as dubious is the sale was not to 3rd party, but to another company owned by Derby’s owner. There is nothing illegal in that, in business sale and leaseback transactions are quite common usually to allow a company to access cash from valuable assets. However this specific deal does raise three questions

1) is the valuation of the stadium at £81m reasonable, this is subjective as there isn’t an open market for 32,000 seat stadiums in Derby. PSG were done for this a few years ago when they massively overvalued commercial deals from Qatari owned companies so they could show PSG in profit

2) Going forward will Derby be charged market rate rent for the stadium, based on the valuation of £81m this would be around £4-5m per year which be an additional cost they would need to recognise in their accounts going forwards

3) is this in the spirit of FFP. As I understand it you can exclude stadium development costs from FFP so it would be reasonable to exclude profit from stadium trading as well.

From an accounting perspective this is legal, the valuation of the stadium of £81m isn’t hugely unreasonable, however it is difficult to see the reasons for the transaction as anything other than getting round the FFP rules. 

in summary the deal is a bit iffy, but due to the EFL’s incompetence/reluctance to follow through with FFP rules it seems unlikely anything will happen. However it is the only thing a club can do once, so now Derby will have to reign in spending as they have missed promotion and will need to cover the multi million pound rent  charge from  the sale.

The bigger concern is whether other clubs will see this as a get out of jail free card, believe Sheff Wed and Villa have been rumoured to be doing something similar

Excellent thanks for this 

[eastonboy]

1 hour ago, reddevil said:

 

in summary the deal is a bit iffy, but due to the EFL’s incompetence/reluctance to follow through with FFP rules it seems unlikely anything will happen. However it is the only thing a club can do once.

Thanks for the excellent reply, but concerning the last sentence above, what is to stop Mel Morris Traders (Peckham/ London/ Paris/New York) from selling it back to Derby for a nominal fee, say £1m, then re-buying it back for another £80m?

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, eastonboy said:

Thanks for the excellent reply, but concerning the last sentence above, what is to stop Mel Morris Traders (Peckham/ London/ Paris/New York) from selling it back to Derby for a nominal fee, say £1m, then re-buying it back for another £80m?

EFL if they close the loophole or make it specifically a once only thing would be able to solve that one.

I think Derby would have to buy it back at market rate- but maybe another big loophole?

[chinapig]

16 minutes ago, eastonboy said:

Thanks for the excellent reply, but concerning the last sentence above, what is to stop Mel Morris Traders (Peckham/ London/ Paris/New York) from selling it back to Derby for a nominal fee, say £1m, then re-buying it back for another £80m?

Surely all he has to do is transfer the company that 'owns' the stadium to his wife, sell it to Derby as you suggest then set up another company that buys it for, let's say, £100m. Ad infinitum.

I doubt the EFL would bat an eyelid.

[reddevil]

27 minutes ago, eastonboy said:

Thanks for the excellent reply, but concerning the last sentence above, what is to stop Mel Morris Traders (Peckham/ London/ Paris/New York) from selling it back to Derby for a nominal fee, say £1m, then re-buying it back for another £80m?

I can’t see how an auditor would allow this, It would breach a lot of accounting rules and would also interest hmrc as those kind of transactions could be used to avoid tax

[CotswoldRed]

On 26/05/2019 at 21:53, Drew Peacock said:

But book value and market value are not the same thing.

Although I have no idea how you value a football ground. I expect the surveyor who valued it has no idea either.

Surely there are still rules, else you'd be able to make at the numbers at will to wipe out profits, reduce your tax liabilities or even recoup tax from previous years? 

I'm sure the inland revenue don't appreciate numbers pulled out of thin air. 

[Drew Peacock]

2 hours ago, CotswoldRed said:

Surely there are still rules, else you'd be able to make at the numbers at will to wipe out profits, reduce your tax liabilities or even recoup tax from previous years? 

I'm sure the inland revenue don't appreciate numbers pulled out of thin air. 

No, hence the use of professional valuers.   But in this case it looks a little fishy.

[Coppello]

I'm not 100% sure on what grounds Boro can sue Derby in all honesty. If the EFL allow this, surely the impetus should be on challenging the league as those who enforce such rules? Ultimately Derby have exploited a poor loophole in the rulebook which is of course very unethical and has made a mockery of the FFP guidance but it is legal. 

I mentioned previously on the FFP thread that I am currently awaiting the results of a stadium valuation and I should receive the report in the next week or so. It will provide some kind of benchmark for the Derby stadium given that I am based in London and it would be fair to assume the land value is significantly higher. Whilst I can't give away too many details, I'll revisit this thread when I have a bit more information. I have a very, very strong feeling that it will make the Pride Park valuation laughable. 

[chinapig]

5 hours ago, Coppello said:

I'm not 100% sure on what grounds Boro can sue Derby in all honesty. If the EFL allow this, surely the impetus should be on challenging the league as those who enforce such rules? Ultimately Derby have exploited a poor loophole in the rulebook which is of course very unethical and has made a mockery of the FFP guidance but it is legal. 

I mentioned previously on the FFP thread that I am currently awaiting the results of a stadium valuation and I should receive the report in the next week or so. It will provide some kind of benchmark for the Derby stadium given that I am based in London and it would be fair to assume the land value is significantly higher. Whilst I can't give away too many details, I'll revisit this thread when I have a bit more information. I have a very, very strong feeling that it will make the Pride Park valuation laughable. 

The problem is that the EFL is not a separate, independent, body. Instead it's an association of member clubs. So Gibson would in effect be suing all the other clubs.

In governance terms it's a complete dog's breakfast.

 

[Olé]

On 27/05/2019 at 15:19, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://talksport.com/football/efl/549048/derby-mel-morris-middlesbrough-steve-gibson/amp/

Mel Morris has come out swinging.

Perhaps Talksport has missed a section but can anyone interpret this?? Seems a bit of a word salad in places for a start!

Same question from me. There must be a section missing to that article, it makes no sense at all. It jumps straight to quotes from Mel Morris about "bitching" that lack any context.

It seems to imply Middlesbrough have done the same or even that their fans don't think it is a valid claim. I can't make head or tail of it but would like to know what their argument is.

[ScottishRed]

On 26/05/2019 at 18:14, 1960maaan said:

Someone cheats, and not only gets away with it , can potentially be massively profitable from it. Cheat and fail is bad enough, cheat and force others to fail because of that is a whole different matter. 
Can't help feeling if they were mid table going nowhere they might have been looked at differently. Brum got done , but it didn't affect their season too much, a points deduction for FLDC (and/or Villa) would have changed the promotion race massively. You can imagine the heads of the EFL squirming at just the thought of it #bottlejobs.

Standard and style of football is another question in another court. Gibson was an idiot for appointing Pulis, probably looked at Cardiff/Warnock and thought it could work for them. Not so much !

I think we are at a watershed on FFP now. Gibson has thrown his toys out and gone legal - will that work? Doubt it, but at least he has made his feelings clear and tried to do something.

The issue here is not the spineless EFL, its the other clubs in this league who would appear to have let Derby and Villa off the hook at the meeting they had in March. They were the clubs that should have said no, this is not acceptable and forced the EFL to act, they didn't.

Villa are now home free, at least they are if they are not relegated next year, will Derby now feel hot breath on their collar from the EFL? No chance.

I think were are getting to the point where FFP will indeed fade away.

I have no idea why the clubs bottled it back in March, but I have a theory on why the EFL did and that is their fear of a PL 2, which if it came about, would leave the EFL in chaos.

[Llanishen bluebird]

On 26/05/2019 at 18:43, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some excellent (as per) analysis by Kieran Maguire- nails it, how the £41m valuation was reached! Credit to him, on his Twitter- breaks it down brilliantly!

Believe that is the Depreciation of Pride Park, must be since construction...because that is very big! Surely not a 1 year one. Yet an 'independent 'valuer nearly doubled it in a year.

Thanks for posting this , interesting.

 

 

[downendcity]

13 hours ago, Coppello said:

I'm not 100% sure on what grounds Boro can sue Derby in all honesty. If the EFL allow this, surely the impetus should be on challenging the league as those who enforce such rules? Ultimately Derby have exploited a poor loophole in the rulebook which is of course very unethical and has made a mockery of the FFP guidance but it is legal. 

I mentioned previously on the FFP thread that I am currently awaiting the results of a stadium valuation and I should receive the report in the next week or so. It will provide some kind of benchmark for the Derby stadium given that I am based in London and it would be fair to assume the land value is significantly higher. Whilst I can't give away too many details, I'll revisit this thread when I have a bit more information. I have a very, very strong feeling that it will make the Pride Park valuation laughable. 

 

7 hours ago, chinapig said:

The problem is that the EFL is not a separate, independent, body. Instead it's an association of member clubs. So Gibson would in effect be suing all the other clubs.

In governance terms it's a complete dog's breakfast.

From various comments about this issue on OTIB recently, it sounds to me that Derby has not strictly broken any of the ffp rules and on that basis it would probably be fruitless for Boro to take action against the eFL.

However, I wonder whether they are taking action against Derby with reference to a section of the EFL rules that requires clubs to treat each other fairly ( someone posted the section of the rules but I can't find it to quote the exact wording).  If so, then Im guessing their case will be that through the convoluted sale of their ground to circumvent the ffp rules ( or at least the spirit of those rules) Derby has cheated and gained an advantage over all the other clubs that have adhered to the same ffp rules, and especially those that have properly sold assets i.e. players to ensure compliance.

This being the case Gibson is only suing Derby.

I am extremely doubtful as to Gbson's chances of success, but hopeful that even if the action fails it will bring the whole farce of the EFL application of ffp to a head. Consequently, either ffp will be scrapped - although I would have though this unlikely as UEFA and the premier league operate their versions of ffp and would leave the EFL on a limb. Otherwise, the EFL will be forced to review the existing ffp rules, close the loopholes that have been shown up, and hopefully any that haven't yet been exploited, but more importantly they will be forced to ensure vigorous application of ffp sanctions no matter which clubs are involved when breaches are identified.

Even if the legal action is unsuccessful, if it forces these changes then Gibson's action will have been worthwhile.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

I think we are at a watershed on FFP now. Gibson has thrown his toys out and gone legal - will that work? Doubt it, but at least he has made his feelings clear and tried to do something.

The issue here is not the spineless EFL, its the other clubs in this league who would appear to have let Derby and Villa off the hook at the meeting they had in March. They were the clubs that should have said no, this is not acceptable and forced the EFL to act, they didn't.

Villa are now home free, at least they are if they are not relegated next year, will Derby now feel hot breath on their collar from the EFL? No chance.

I think were are getting to the point where FFP will indeed fade away.

I have no idea why the clubs bottled it back in March, but I have a theory on why the EFL did and that is their fear of a PL 2, which if it came about, would leave the EFL in chaos.

Just because the EFL are paranoid about PL2, doesn’t mean there isn’t anything in it.

In a roundabout way, not acting on it might hasten it, as they decrease their ability to enforce their own rules. Birmingham must be gutted they accepted their points deduction in light of Derby, Villa etc. 

Will PL2 happen?

No, unless....a real big fish got relegated - I’m talking a top 6 team here. 

The PL don’t want to share their billions with anyone!  Anyone wanting to form a breakaway league are likely to be left in no mans land. 

So, EFL, go grow some, and ensure teams in your leagues abide by the rules whilst you close the loopholes you’ve created. 

[1960maaan]

Some teams may have held off criticising Derby, Villa etc as they maybe see a loop hole they themselves could exploit, what's good for one ....
 The EFL may have made a rod for their own back, imagine SL gets a major cob on sells the Gate to himself for £200m and then pumps £150m into the club for players. Is there that much difference between that very exaggerated scenario and what Derby have done, and what would the EFL be able to do? 
I honestly believe they bottled it with Derby and Villa because they were going to be involved in the playoffs, while it was likely Birmingham were just going to be mid table. 

[BCFC11]

One thing is for certain, the EFL’s silence over this whole thing is deafening.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 29/05/2019 at 13:39, downendcity said:

 

From various comments about this issue on OTIB recently, it sounds to me that Derby has not strictly broken any of the ffp rules and on that basis it would probably be fruitless for Boro to take action against the eFL.

However, I wonder whether they are taking action against Derby with reference to a section of the EFL rules that requires clubs to treat each other fairly ( someone posted the section of the rules but I can't find it to quote the exact wording).  If so, then Im guessing their case will be that through the convoluted sale of their ground to circumvent the ffp rules ( or at least the spirit of those rules) Derby has cheated and gained an advantage over all the other clubs that have adhered to the same ffp rules, and especially those that have properly sold assets i.e. players to ensure compliance.

This being the case Gibson is only suing Derby.

I am extremely doubtful as to Gbson's chances of success, but hopeful that even if the action fails it will bring the whole farce of the EFL application of ffp to a head. Consequently, either ffp will be scrapped - although I would have though this unlikely as UEFA and the premier league operate their versions of ffp and would leave the EFL on a limb. Otherwise, the EFL will be forced to review the existing ffp rules, close the loopholes that have been shown up, and hopefully any that haven't yet been exploited, but more importantly they will be forced to ensure vigorous application of ffp sanctions no matter which clubs are involved when breaches are identified.

Even if the legal action is unsuccessful, if it forces these changes then Gibson's action will have been worthwhile.

 

Quote

 

3.4

In all matters and transactions relating to The League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and The League with the utmost good faith. Further, each Club shall deliver to the League a copy of the Club Charter signed by the appropriate Relevant Person for and on behalf of the Club. The League shall be entitled to publish the Club Charter.

 

 

 

Could Derby (and Sheffield Wednesday if they've done the same) have been in breach...maybe- "towards each other club" being a key bit? I don't think Derby (plus if true, Sheffield Wednesday) have at all behaved in good faith towards us or any other club in compliance with their actions!

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 29/05/2019 at 09:35, Olé said:

Same question from me. There must be a section missing to that article, it makes no sense at all. It jumps straight to quotes from Mel Morris about "bitching" that lack any context.

It seems to imply Middlesbrough have done the same or even that their fans don't think it is a valid claim. I can't make head or tail of it but would like to know what their argument is.

Telegraph article I found other day suggests a bit more context- possibly, though whether there is any truth in it as it's only the word of Mel Morris is a different matter, but he claims that Middlesbrough sold their loss in 2015/16 to comply with FFP or at least move closer to it, sold it to 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/26/mel-morris-accuses-middlesbrough-owner-steve-gibson-hypocrisy/

Quote

 

Speaking for the first time in detail, Morris said: “I consider the timing of their action to be cynical, an open attempt to try and steal our focus ahead of a crucial game. Fortunately, we are motivated by such actions. I’ll call it out there because I think it needs calling out.

“The sale of fixed assets is allowed in the rules. In 2016 a club [Boro] got promoted who chose to sell the tax loss from the football club to the parent company, because that then makes it revenue which is a positive towards profit, to help remain within Financial Fair Play.

“When I raised that at a meeting in March, the representative from the club said it was allowed in the rules at that time. So is this! What is different? You set the mould and we copied your lead, now you’re bitching. He [Gibson] had the hypocrisy to do that.

“Even his own fans called it out on their forums and said ‘how dare we do this with our own history’. We discussed this issue again in April and there wasn’t a single vote against, including from their own club! They didn’t even vote for their own motion. It is absolutely hypocritical. I didn’t write the rules.

“They had the gall to say to us this is not right. Absolutely unbelievable. Those things to me are just insane."

 

 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Another interesting note in this one, is rent for Derby apparently only £1.1m per year...sounds a bit low for an £80m asset- people were talking about £4-5m on here?

Sounds awfully low though, £1.1m per year- surely if implemented at market rates it is indeed £4-5m?

[1960maaan]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Another interesting note in this one, is rent for Derby apparently only £1.1m per year...sounds a bit low for an £80m asset- people were talking about £4-5m on here?

Sounds awfully low though, £1.1m per year- surely if implemented at market rates it is indeed £4-5m?

It does seem to me (very much a layman) that they are taking the piss. I don't know what Gibson is thinking obviously, but the way I see it is , yes it's not against the rules and everyone is free to use those rules as they wish. The problem is the estimated value Vs the money paid , then as you say what almost amounts to a nominal rent. 
I'm disappointed, though not surprised , that the EFL has seen fit to give FLDC a pass on this. Anyone who has made even the slightest attempt at staying within the FFP guidelines would rightly be pissed off.  I imagine it's too late to do anything now, but what about the next one?

[downendcity]

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Another interesting note in this one, is rent for Derby apparently only £1.1m per year...sounds a bit low for an £80m asset- people were talking about £4-5m on here?

Sounds awfully low though, £1.1m per year- surely if implemented at market rates it is indeed £4-5m?

A yield of 1.375%.

Perhaps SL should get in touch with Mel Morris and suggest that one of HL's advisers would almost certainly be able to achieve far better investment returns on his £80m

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

It does seem to me (very much a layman) that they are taking the piss. I don't know what Gibson is thinking obviously, but the way I see it is , yes it's not against the rules and everyone is free to use those rules as they wish. The problem is the estimated value Vs the money paid , then as you say what almost amounts to a nominal rent. 
I'm disappointed, though not surprised , that the EFL has seen fit to give FLDC a pass on this. Anyone who has made even the slightest attempt at staying within the FFP guidelines would rightly be pissed off.  I imagine it's too late to do anything now, but what about the next one?

I wonder if it is too late though- agree that they seem to be taking the piss as well, it doesn't seem a realistic rent £1.1m, though is there anything to stop Mel Morris setting it at that?

Oh yeah, I wonder if it is too late though, because the EFL have a meeting in that well known English footballing hotbed of- er- Portugal (!?) in June 2019- annual end of season meeting. IF the will and the competence- neither a given with those in charge- was there, I suspect a vote of clubs could be taken both on Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and indeed moving forward as to the rules on profits on assets being sold to related parties being used to offset FFP, whether commercial rent is true rent. EFL FFP rules have suggested that historic breaches can still be pursued- hopefully Gibson as part of his case also will be pushing this angle- will try to find it. Indeed, are UEFA not showing just that with this push to ban Man City?