Mr Popodopolous Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, maxjak said: Sorry forgive my lack of understanding'.............What do u mean by 'opened'? I mean it could be an incorrect tweet but basically the old rules appeared to have forbade it- as in profit on sale of fixed assets wouldn't count towards FFP calculations. However for reasons unknown and the year unknown too, it appeared to have been removed, cancelled, deleted- the rules changed and made it an acceptable form of income. Old rules it couldn't have been done like that. I'll try to find the relevant regulations later for a before and after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjak Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 So if that IS the case, then any club can utilise it to circumnavigate the restrictsions, making the rules almost irrelevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 Well there maybe changes after certain clubs appear to have taken the piss. Tying it to net book value, or disallowing any profit over and above a fixed proportion plus hiring an independent valuer to oversee any such moves- as well as an investigation into Derby's value would be a good start. One way out for the EFL maybe to allow every club to do it once then shut off that loophole and while they're at it look for some others to close off too- hire outside experts as I certainly don't trust that Governing body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 Earlier I listened to H&J on Talksport talking about Lance Armstrong's old team manager ( I think) coming on the programme. They talked about whether doping would be discussed and one of them went on to say that in the past he was disgusted by it by more recently has come to understand that teams did it because it was the only way they could remain competitive, This goes to the heart of the integrity of sport, in that cyclists of that era would argue that the ends justified the means in that it was the only way to compete with everyone else who was doping.It is a similar position here, as Mel Morris has openly said that the stadium sale was to avoid a ffp breach, which in turn was a result of them trying to remain competitive. I think Begley ( The Villa fan) has commented that Villa's stadium sale was the only way to avoid breaching ffp. No, the way to avoid ffp breaches would have been to do what just about every other club has done over the 3 previous seasons, which was to either reduce costs, increase income or a combination of both. The problem for Villa was the big reduction of income following relegation and despite the parachute payments they received. They could have made substantial cost reductions, and had 3 years during which they could have addressed that but of course the biggest expense is players, and wages in particular. Reducing players wages almost certainly equates to selling good players and replacing them with cheaper and almost certainly inferior players, but it appears they kept spending in an attempt to gain immediate promotion and thereby rectify the income side of the equation. They have saved their financial bacon by the skin of their teeth, but whichever way you look at it they have cheated, even if what they did is within the letter of the (flawed and cocked up) rules.They and Derby have had little or no respect for the integrity of the game, the championship and the other teams they were meant to be competing against on equal terms i.e. within the same financial rules. That they have "got away with it" doesn't make it right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 Later I'm going to have a bit of an in depth look at Derby's accounts over in the FFP thread. Think with them it depends which were used- regarding their FFP submissions was it Sevco 5112 or was it Derby County FC? If it's the latter I'm not so sure they failed to June 2018 without it. Or it might have been a low loss which yielded a lowish points deduction- if it was Sevco 5112 then yes, totally the ground sale did it- saved them. They might have been even able to argue if it was DCFC a points deduction down owing to key players being sold, fringe players being loaned out as a sign to try and get rid, show willing- reasonable efforts can mitigate. Aston Villa? Size of losses despite parachute payments? It saved them and no mistake. The only real mitigating factors would have been had they done all that stuff I recommended in FFP thread yesterday- had they still failed significant efforts and restraint can bargain the deduction down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Highly interesting bit of a Kieran Maguire Tweet on it. This bit really should be the final straw if true... Deleting such an important rule in error?? In error. Yeah, right. Still, at least I'm not alone in thinking FFP is a farce in the EFL. Though I am certain it is deliberate and more loopholes will be added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, chinapig said: In error. Yeah, right. Still, at least I'm not alone in thinking FFP is a farce in the EFL. Though I am certain it is deliberate and more loopholes will be added. I wonder if he means apparently in error or "apparently in error"- covering himself for legal reasons etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I wonder if he means apparently in error or "apparently in error"- covering himself for legal reasons etc... You may be right, though I would have used presumably rather than apparently in that case. Anyway, Steve Gibson would have paid Maguire's legal costs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppello Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Gpd I hope so!! It'd make a good day even better but I assumed EFL rules permitted it- see Derby. @Coppello Do EPL FFP regs allow stadium sale and leaseback ala Aston Villa. EFL bizarrely appear to. @old_eastender Not sure you could punish Derby as such, after its been signed off but you could definitely look to IMO challenge the valuation and get £20-25m lopped off- which would hamstring them severely and could lead to future FFP difficulties. I saw this a little late but I notice that it's been answered by Kieran Maguire. In all honesty, it's not something that any Premier League club is looking at given that no club is close to failing FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBW Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 Well... if they've sold their stadium they can probably afford an extra £10m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, TBW said: Well... if they've sold their stadium they can probably afford an extra £10m. They might need to get it re-valued ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 22 minutes ago, downendcity said: They might need to get it re-valued ! Let's do a swap, they get Webster, we get Villa Park. Then we charge a ridiculous rent and say "we'll reduce the rent if you let Webster join us on loan until the end of his contract, you pay his wages of course". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: There don't seem to have been that many loopholes utilised to date, ground one aside and it's worth repeating that this wasn't one of them- until it was opened! The reason for that is probably because you generally ‘hunt in packs’ - safety in numbers. This ‘scheme’ will have been identified by an advisor who probably peddled it around all clubs that were close to a breach and no doubt it became an easier sell once they had one signed up. Don’t doubt for one minute there will be a ‘new’ scheme next year. What you need is a general anti avoidance rule, like HMRC and the Treasury finally realised. Otherwise it’s cat and mouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 33 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said: Let's do a swap, they get Webster, we get Villa Park. Then we charge a ridiculous rent and say "we'll reduce the rent if you let Webster join us on loan until the end of his contract, you pay his wages of course". They can't - they don't own Villa Park anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: There don't seem to have been that many loopholes utilised to date, ground one aside and it's worth repeating that this wasn't one of them- until it was opened! Who was the consultant on the revised FFP rules? Christian Purslow!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Who was the consultant on the revised FFP rules? Christian Purslow!!! Poacher turned..............er, poacher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsapper Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 12 hours ago, reddogkev said: Well, imagine if City tried the same thing - the re-sale value of Ashton Gate must be huge, especially with its status as a top concert venue. Now, I'm no real estate expert, but it must be worth at least £110million. Over to you, Steve, do that creative accounting thing, and there you go, money for lots more top players and their salaries in one foul swoop. Just a small thing the Football club does not own the ground! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 11 hours ago, Davefevs said: Who was the consultant on the revised FFP rules? Christian Purslow!!! That'd be pretty scandalous and an enormous conflict of interest if he had any involvement at EFL level- unsure when they were revised and tbh they slipped it out very quietly this rule change... I actually do wonder still about clubs who have complied and some sort of class action against whoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: That'd be pretty scandalous and an enormous conflict of interest if he had any involvement at EFL level- unsure when they were revised and tbh they slipped it out very quietly this rule change... I actually do wonder still about clubs who have complied and some sort of class action against whoever. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-ffp-championship-ceo-15284708.amp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppello Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 11 hours ago, redsapper said: Just a small thing the Football club does not own the ground! It does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.