Sheffield Wednesday charged for FFP

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I'm the last person wanting to defend the EFL over ffp, however, I think the stadium sale issue caught them on the hop. I wonder if the EFL realised that when the new ffp rules were drafted the person drafting them "forgot" to include stadium sales in the section regarding sale of fixed assets.

When clubs then stated they had not broken any ffp rules, the EFL were wrong footed. However, everyone could see the clubs involved were cheating ffp and because of this, and to regain their integrity, the EFL should have immediately pursued the question of the validity of the valuations. As it is it look like Wednesday are in the frame, not so much because Hillsborough was grossly overvalued, but because they falsified the timing of the transaction in the accounts - even this could have been identified ages ago - as demonstrated by our own financial rottweiller,  Mr Popodopolous!

As for Villa, I remember reading their forum 2 summers ago, at the time they were suffering major financial problems with cash flow, when their then owner was struggling to get his money out of the country. Not only were their fans really worried about their survival, when they were saved by bringing in new owners, they strongly suspected they would have major ffp problems that season. If all the warning signs were there at the start of the season, and with Villa being in contention for a play off place after Christmas, you would have thought the EFL would be all over them like a rash when their accounts were presented and especially when the stadium sale was identified.

 

Don’t disagree with any of that.

I will still question the objective of the projected accounts if the EFL don’t act upon them.  Perhaps Villa’s ground sale meant they weren’t in breach of ffp....and it’s not until the stadium valuation is being challenged that their ffp criteria comes into question.

It’s impossible for people like me to understand it all, but it does look like Villa got away with it (for now at least).  The EFL have never come out and said they were happy with Villa (like Villa said was true).

I just hope City have done everything above book....you’d expect an owner like SL to adhere to compliance.

[downendcity]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t disagree with any of that.

I will still question the objective of the projected accounts if the EFL don’t act upon them.  Perhaps Villa’s ground sale meant they weren’t in breach of ffp....and it’s not until the stadium valuation is being challenged that their ffp criteria comes into question.

It’s impossible for people like me to understand it all, but it does look like Villa got away with it (for now at least).  The EFL have never come out and said they were happy with Villa (like Villa said was true).

I just hope City have done everything above book....you’d expect an owner like SL to adhere to compliance.

The EFL expected all owners to comply, as did the owners of most championship clubs.

That's the problem!

 

[daored]

9 hours ago, Up The City! said:

Upon Villas eventual return to the Championship,  they should immediately be demoted to league one and stripped of parachute payments. 

Make an example of them. It's not right that clubs can get away with it by being promoted and gaining all the riches that comes with that.

I don’t disagree with your comments, unfortunately I don’t think the EFL will do it 

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, billywedlock said:

City have done it in a more elegant and legal way. We do have of course two legal entities operating the football club and the stadium , but they are both controlled by one over arching company. It is interesting to follow what they did , when they separated the stadium asset out of the football club, that had more to do with facilitating the stadium investment and accountability 

Absolutely.  Think also to protect someone coming in and buying the football club, and leaving the club homeless.

more Wednesday info from Kieran Maguire:

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire, speaking to BBC Radio Sheffield

By itself, what Sheffield Wednesday have done is not actually a problem - it is compliant with EFL rules.

First of all, the timing of the sale appears curious. Sheffield Wednesday's accounts were until 31 July 2018 and there was no reference of ownership by the new company until around 12 months later with the land registry.

The timing issue does concern the EFL. They might be concerned that the transaction was accelerated into the 2018 accounts, which would give them cause for concern.

The next unusual thing was that normally, if you sell a property, you get the proceeds from the buyer straight away but, according to Wednesday's accounts, it's going to take a period of eight years for the full payment to be made.

The one final issue is the valuation of the stadium itself. Given that Reading sold their stadium for £27m and West Ham sold theirs for £40m, it does seem unusual for Sheffield Wednesday's stadium to be sold for £60m. The geographical location would suggest that it's not in a property area which is significantly higher than London or the home counties.

Wednesday will have to simply provide evidence that the transaction was undertaken at arm's length, at market prices, with a report by a surveyor and also evidence that the transaction had gone through - in the form perhaps of stamp duty being paid at the initial date of the transaction.

Provided they can generate that evidence then I think they would be able to mount a strong defence.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, billywedlock said:

Surely that would bring a Swindon type punishment ? Falsifying accounts is very serious . Criminal charges too ? 

See, I thought along these lines too, but the EFL initially and CH both seemed happy enough with it, CH seemed not to care that they extended Accounting Period and pushed along the final submission of accounts until sometime between July 11th and July 16th 2019 for accounts due at the end of April 2019- accounts that were initially due on February 28 2019 incidentally before a 2 month extension, so.

On a general note, good thread by Mike Thornton.

 

[22A]

Selling the ground is risky.

Some years back Cambridge sold their ground to one of their Directors as they were short of money.

Three years later that Director resigned from the board, then tried kicking the club of his property as he wanted to build on it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Putting aside the why now element, could it be that if a pass is shown in monetary terms ie no more than £39m + allowables, then the EFL automatically pass the accounts at the time and then investigate in due course?

Granted, under the tenure of Shaun Harvey the EFL did or oversaw precious little investigation except in the most blatant and easy cases- but...

It's not a satisfactory system in that instance but possibly they have to- if it shows a basic pass of £39m + allowables or less- god knows what Harvey was doing in his final 2 seasons though- and the same for EFL board etc.

It should also be remembered that Sheffield Wednesday's- along with everyone else's- submissions for 201819 are still being looked at. Presumably same goes for the valuations in terms of the ground transactions?

Quote

The EFL continues to review the Club's 2018/19 P&S submissions.

Presumably that's in the sense of 2 actual accounts and submissions, rolling period to last season- and assessing against that. £60m would help with that a long way if the reporting period shifted for the ground transactions- ie £38m profit- but I struggle to see such a valuation as justified either.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, 22A said:

Selling the ground is risky.

Some years back Cambridge sold their ground to one of their Directors as they were short of money.

Three years later that Director resigned from the board, then tried kicking the club of his property as he wanted to build on it.

In Derby's case, I think they have "sold" Pride Park to another of their owner's companies, so unless he is selling the football club I don't think that problem should arise.

Having said that, it would be interesting to see the various conditions in the lease ( or lack thereof) that presumably was drawn up coincident with the sale, as would certainly have been the case had it been a genuine open market sale to a third party. It would be strange if there is no provision for rent reviews at specified intervals , and whether conditions have been included allowing the football club to cary out whatever work, improvements and additions to the stadium and for them to cover the cost of such work.

Having said that, it suspect that as  Derby decided on the stadium sale strategy some time before the ffp reckoning,  a businessman like Morris would have made sure he got all the right legal advice to make sure he covered off all possible angles by which Derby might fall foul of any EFL investigation into the transaction.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In Derby's case, I think they have "sold" Pride Park to another of their owner's companies, so unless he is selling the football club I don't think that problem should arise.

Having said that, it would be interesting to see the various conditions in the lease ( or lack thereof) that presumably was drawn up coincident with the sale, as would certainly have been the case had it been a genuine open market sale to a third party. It would be strange if there is no provision for rent reviews at specified intervals , and whether conditions have been included allowing the football club to cary out whatever work, improvements and additions to the stadium and for them to cover the cost of such work.

Having said that, it suspect that as  Derby decided on the stadium sale strategy some time before the ffp reckoning,  a businessman like Morris would have made sure he got all the right legal advice to make sure he covered off all possible angles by which Derby might fall foul of any EFL investigation into the transaction.

Think that the only thing you could get them- and the other clubs aside from Sheffield Wednesday- on is the valuation. I have real trouble believing the amount paid vs book value is spot on- certainly in the case of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.

[downendcity]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Putting aside the why now element, could it be that if a pass is shown in monetary terms ie no more than £39m + allowables, then the EFL automatically pass the accounts at the time and then investigate in due course?

Granted, under the tenure of Shaun Harvey the EFL did or oversaw precious little investigation except in the most blatant and easy cases- but...

It's not a satisfactory system in that instance but possibly they have to- if it shows a basic pass of £39m + allowables or less- god knows what Harvey was doing in his final 2 seasons though- and the same for EFL board etc.

It should also be remembered that Sheffield Wednesday's- along with everyone else's- submissions for 201819 are still being looked at. Presumably same goes for the valuations in terms of the ground transactions?

No disrespect intended here Mr P, but if a relative amateur like you can identify all that you have from the accounts, and did so some considerable time ago, and especially forecasting the clubs that you suspected would be in trouble with ffp, then what have the EFL been doing, as I would hope that they have financial people far more qualified and experienced than you  on the case?

[havanatopia]

Very interesting reading gents. Appreciating the knowledge here.

[sh1t_ref_again]

16 hours ago, Up The City! said:

Upon Villas eventual return to the Championship,  they should immediately be demoted to league one and stripped of parachute payments. 

Make an example of them. It's not right that clubs can get away with it by being promoted and gaining all the riches that comes with that.

Whilst I and most football fans would love this to happen, unfortunately the thought of upsetting the royals and not getting in the honours list mean EFL will do sweet FA 

[downendcity]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think that the only thing you could get them- and the other clubs aside from Sheffield Wednesday- on is the valuation. I have real trouble believing the amount paid vs book value is spot on- certainly in the case of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.

Agree and as I've mentioned on other posts, the disparity between the valuations of the clubs in question, and certainly when compared to figures given for the West Ham sale, make me think that the valuations were provided at the figures that gave each club the "profit" it needed to cover off ffp problems.

I still can't believe that the EFL did not see the potential issue immediately and once they realised the cock up regarding stadium sale and the new ffp rules, they should have got straight on to carrying out a forensic examination to ascertain the validity of those valuations, but we are now half way through the following season without anything seeming to have been done. Action against Wednesday seems only to be based on the timing of the stadium transaction appearing in the accounts, which you picked up on a while ago.

[Major Isewater]

18 hours ago, daored said:

@Owl Visiting thoughts?

Doesn’t give a hoot .

[Mr Popodopolous]

59 minutes ago, downendcity said:

No disrespect intended here Mr P, but if a relative amateur like you can identify all that you have from the accounts, and did so some considerable time ago, and especially forecasting the clubs that you suspected would be in trouble with ffp, then what have the EFL been doing, as I would hope that they have financial people far more qualified and experienced than you  on the case?

None taken!

Well yes, agreed- it is very, very odd all of this- I have a few theories but wouldn't necessarily post them on an open forum! 

Put in a more polite and less controversial way- is it possible that someone who was recently in a senior position in the EFL was relaxed about the prospect? Perhaps said individual had a belief that 'What will fans know, it shows a pass and these issues are complex- it's good enough!' Basically taking fans in particular for idiots. Or summed up in a sentence: "It technically balances the books, it's a big transaction- fans won't know anyway- on we go!" Probably with some sort of deal that clubs get their house in order off the back of it tied in.

Another theory might be that the Projected accounts and the real accounts showed discrepancies- or the EFL took an independent valuation and audit on face value, no questions asked- indicative of a"That's good enough!" culture.

Regardless of the individual clubs involved who should be investigated and if required punished in full, the EFL have to take a lot of blame for the mess too- and in particular a certain recent ex CEO!

[Mr Popodopolous]

57 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Agree and as I've mentioned on other posts, the disparity between the valuations of the clubs in question, and certainly when compared to figures given for the West Ham sale, make me think that the valuations were provided at the figures that gave each club the "profit" it needed to cover off ffp problems.

I still can't believe that the EFL did not see the potential issue immediately and once they realised the cock up regarding stadium sale and the new ffp rules, they should have got straight on to carrying out a forensic examination to ascertain the validity of those valuations, but we are now half way through the following season without anything seeming to have been done. Action against Wednesday seems only to be based on the timing of the stadium transaction appearing in the accounts, which you picked up on a while ago.

Fully agreed. 

As soon as the projected accounts showed such a transaction, EFL should have got valuing- I'm assuming that this is how it found its way into the public domain at the time, in terms of Gibson's anger. Believe that all of those clubs are still being assessed in terms of their most recent financial results- up to 2018/19.

It's worth looking at the accounts of Leicester City and Stoke- their accounts actually show it at fair value I believe, and both as Midlands clubs, with stadia in the 30-35k bracket...it's interesting!

[downendcity]

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

None taken!

Well yes, agreed- it is very, very odd all of this- I have a few theories but wouldn't necessarily post them on an open forum! 

Put in a more polite and less controversial way- is it possible that someone who was recently in a senior position in the EFL was relaxed about the prospect? Perhaps said individual had a belief that 'What will fans know, it shows a pass and these issues are complex- it's good enough!' Basically taking fans in particular for idiots. Or summed up in a sentence: "It technically balances the books, it's a big transaction- fans won't know anyway- on we go!" Probably with some sort of deal that clubs get their house in order off the back of it tied in.

Another theory might be that the Projected accounts and the real accounts showed discrepancies- or the EFL took an independent valuation and audit on face value, no questions asked- indicative of a"That's good enough!" culture.

Regardless of the individual clubs involved who should be investigated and if required punished in full, the EFL have to take a lot of blame for the mess too- and in particular a certain recent ex CEO!

Don't know about taking fans for idiots - what about all the other clubs that are complying?

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fully agreed. 

As soon as the projected accounts showed such a transaction, EFL should have got valuing- I'm assuming that this is how it found its way into the public domain at the time, in terms of Gibson's anger. Believe that all of those clubs are still being assessed in terms of their most recent financial results- up to 2018/19.

It's worth looking at the accounts of Leicester City and Stoke- their accounts actually show it at fair value I believe, and both as Midlands clubs, with stadia in the 30-35k bracket...it's interesting!

As I think others have already commented, what have the EFL been doing, given that the understanding was that the new ffp rules, in particular the requirement for clubs to provide projected accounts in the third year, would enable assessment to be carried out and, where a breach was found, penalties to be applied during the same season?

That seems to have gone well!

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Putting aside the why now element, could it be that if a pass is shown in monetary terms ie no more than £39m + allowables, then the EFL automatically pass the accounts at the time and then investigate in due course?

Granted, under the tenure of Shaun Harvey the EFL did or oversaw precious little investigation except in the most blatant and easy cases- but...

It's not a satisfactory system in that instance but possibly they have to- if it shows a basic pass of £39m + allowables or less- god knows what Harvey was doing in his final 2 seasons though- and the same for EFL board etc.

It should also be remembered that Sheffield Wednesday's- along with everyone else's- submissions for 201819 are still being looked at. Presumably same goes for the valuations in terms of the ground transactions?

Presumably that's in the sense of 2 actual accounts and submissions, rolling period to last season- and assessing against that. £60m would help with that a long way if the reporting period shifted for the ground transactions- ie £38m profit- but I struggle to see such a valuation as justified either.

Wonder if any clubs “March Projected Accounts” differ significantly from their actuals when they are finally published.

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Agree and as I've mentioned on other posts, the disparity between the valuations of the clubs in question, and certainly when compared to figures given for the West Ham sale, make me think that the valuations were provided at the figures that gave each club the "profit" it needed to cover off ffp problems.

I still can't believe that the EFL did not see the potential issue immediately and once they realised the cock up regarding stadium sale and the new ffp rules, they should have got straight on to carrying out a forensic examination to ascertain the validity of those valuations, but we are now half way through the following season without anything seeming to have been done. Action against Wednesday seems only to be based on the timing of the stadium transaction appearing in the accounts, which you picked up on a while ago.

Oooooh, you old cynic.....I thought exactly the same.  Suspect if the profit gives them a bit of headroom, it might be to cover subsequent years too!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Don't know about taking fans for idiots - what about all the other clubs that are complying?

As I think others have already commented, what have the EFL been doing, given that the understanding was that the new ffp rules, in particular the requirement for clubs to provide projected accounts in the third year, would enable assessment to be carried out and, where a breach was found, penalties to be applied during the same season?

That seems to have gone well!

Fully agreed- just speculating. However yes, the other clubs and their compliance demands the strongest possible punishment.

Yep. Wouldn't surprise me if this is part of Gibson's actions- all about the EFL not enforcing their regulations.

My guess?

1. Not testing the transactions for fair value at the time!
2. Not going big on the Projected Accounts for Year 3- in order to rightly say, apply penalties if necessary during the same season.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fully agreed- just speculating. However yes, the other clubs and their compliance demands the strongest possible punishment.

Yep. Wouldn't surprise me if this is part of Gibson's actions- all about the EFL not enforcing their regulations.

My guess?

1. Not testing the transactions for fair value at the time!
2. Not going big on the Projected Accounts for Year 3- in order to rightly say, apply penalties if necessary during the same season.

Forgot to add the bit about Gibson in my last post.

Although at the time his case against Derby seemed a bit naive (and out of character for him as an astute businessman), looking back you wonder whether it was quite clever.

1. Raise concerns
2. first see if the clubs want to police themselves
3. if not, bring a case against the EFL to force them into action

 

[havanatopia]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Forgot to add the bit about Gibson in my last post.

Although at the time his case against Derby seemed a bit naive (and out of character for him as an astute businessman), looking back you wonder whether it was quite clever.

1. Raise concerns
2. first see if the clubs want to police themselves
3. if not, bring a case against the EFL to force them into action

 

Has it had the desired effect?

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, havanatopia said:

Has it had the desired effect?

We will soon find out!

[22A]

18 hours ago, Up The City! said:

Upon Villas eventual return to the Championship,  they should immediately be demoted to league one and stripped of parachute payments. 

Make an example of them. It's not right that clubs can get away with it by being promoted and gaining all the riches that comes with that.

That's what so  many of us thought would happen to QPR a few years back. It aint happened yet.

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, 22A said:

That's what so  many of us thought would happen to QPR a few years back. It aint happened yet.

Problem was that QPR were punished under the old regs.

Which meant that all they could get was a punitive fine or a transfer embargo- couldn't punish under rules applicable in 2013/14 by points deductions when that rule wasn't in place at that time. Could only fine and embargo- in extremis I suppose suspend or expel them, but then again another aspect was the consideration that too punitive a punishment could push them into bankruptcy, or so they said.

46 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Forgot to add the bit about Gibson in my last post.

Although at the time his case against Derby seemed a bit naive (and out of character for him as an astute businessman), looking back you wonder whether it was quite clever.

1. Raise concerns
2. first see if the clubs want to police themselves
3. if not, bring a case against the EFL to force them into action

 

Agree with this.

What amazes me is that- so far as we know- the owners of the many clubs who are and have been compliant have not joined in on this one- or maybe they have offered support to him behind the scenes but nothing yet public?

Would also add a 4th and a 4b factor to the current review of all of this- Bury and a risk off the back of it of actual external regulation- EFL etc would hate that so...

Damian Collins in the Bury case, one of the questions he asked was how well FFP regs are being enforced! He could have been only referring to the divisions Bury were in, but I'd have to find the quote.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Oooooh, you old cynic.....I thought exactly the same.  Suspect if the profit gives them a bit of headroom, it might be to cover subsequent years too!!

I worked for 25 years for a major High Street mortgage lender and more recently as a mortgage adviser, and while the majority of valuers will be truly independent and provide valuations based on knowledge, experience and market comparables, I came across a lot of cases where there was little doubt that the valuation provided was influenced by the requirements of the case ( and the parties involved) e.g. sufficient to enable a 75% self certification remortgage, or  enabling a purchase to proceed where the estate agent was offering a " 5% cashback" to enable what was essentially a 100% mortgage. I also dealt with a few matrimonial cases, where there was a wide variation between the  valuation provided for the husband and that provided for the wife, on the same property.

In the case of football stadia, there is no active open market so unlike the highly active housing market there are few sale comparable available and this gives valuers a lot of scope to pitch their valuation at a figure that might suite their client, but is difficult to disprove. 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I worked for 25 years for a major High Street mortgage lender and more recently as a mortgage adviser, and while the majority of valuers will be truly independent and provide valuations based on knowledge, experience and market comparables, I came across a lot of cases where there was little doubt that the valuation provided was influenced by the requirements of the case ( and the parties involved) e.g. sufficient to enable a 75% self certification remortgage, or  enabling a purchase to proceed where the estate agent was offering a " 5% cashback" to enable what was essentially a 100% mortgage. I also dealt with a few matrimonial cases, where there was a wide variation between the  valuation provided for the husband and that provided for the wife, on the same property.

In the case of football stadia, there is no active open market so unlike the highly active housing market there are few sale comparable available and this gives valuers a lot of scope to pitch their valuation at a figure that might suite their client, but is difficult to disprove. 

 

 

Yep, can definitely imagine the scope for it to happen- a timely transaction can help with the books- an interesting insight into that world.

My understanding too- that's why Depreciated Replacement Cost is often used. Given how recently Hillsborough was valued under this- 2014, £22.25m- it's beyond me as to how you reach £60m. Derby's failure to disclose value in 2013 makes me think not a great deal of difference- but DRC £22.25m yet £60m sale price a few years on?? As you say, pretty subjective and can be hard to challenge but...

For relatively recent comparitives:

Leeds- £20m when owner repurchased Elland Road.

Leicester- Valued in accounts- and this isn't Net Book Value as such but set against most recent valuation- £41,463,000- on an existing use basis. May 31 2017.

Stoke- Valued in accounts- and again this is as distinct from Net Book Value- but set against most recent valuation- £42,500,000- depreciated replacement cost which seems to represent a market value for accounting purposes. £41,600,000 if we exclude plant and machinery. March 2018.

Regardless it's all a long way off Hillsborough and Pride Park! These too are clubs whose valuation may have been enhanced by notable on pitch success- Stoke 10 years in PL, FA Cup final, season in Europe. Leicester- promotion to PL, that title season, playing in CL...

Derby OTOH had that same DRC method in December 2007, at a record breaking bad PL season, and have not returned since- £55,000,000 in December 2007. Nothing stacks up for a rise to £81.1m!!

Sheffield Wednesday's peak- and I've looked at accounts since 1990- valuation for Hillsborough was £26.3m when we use this method but I'd have to look back at this- and that doesn't take into account Depreciation back in 2001, decline in Revaluation Reserve or the fact that they had 2 stints in League One- plus it's a really quite old ground!

If anything theirs is more laughable than Derby's IMO.

[downendcity]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yep, can definitely imagine the scope for it to happen- a timely transaction can help with the books- an interesting insight into that world.

My understanding too- that's why Depreciated Replacement Cost is often used. Given how recently Hillsborough was valued under this- 2014, £22.25m- it's beyond me as to how you reach £60m. Derby's failure to disclose value in 2013 makes me think not a great deal of difference- but DRC £22.25m yet £60m sale price a few years on?? As you say, pretty subjective and can be hard to challenge but...

For relatively recent comparitives:

Leeds- £20m when owner repurchased Elland Road.

Leicester- Valued in accounts- and this isn't Net Book Value as such but set against most recent valuation- £41,463,000- on an existing use basis. May 31 2017.

Stoke- Valued in accounts- and again this is as distinct from Net Book Value- but set against most recent valuation- £42,500,000- depreciated replacement cost which seems to represent a market value for accounting purposes. £41,600,000 if we exclude plant and machinery. March 2018.

Regardless it's all a long way off Hillsborough and Pride Park! These too are clubs whose valuation may have been enhanced by notable on pitch success- Stoke 10 years in PL, FA Cup final, season in Europe. Leicester- promotion to PL, that title season, playing in CL...

Derby OTOH had that same DRC method in December 2007, at a record breaking bad PL season, and have not returned since- £55,000,000 in December 2007. Nothing stacks up for a rise to £81.1m!!

Sheffield Wednesday's peak- and I've looked at accounts since 1990- valuation for Hillsborough was £26.3m when we use this method but I'd have to look back at this- and that doesn't take into account Depreciation back in 2001, decline in Revaluation Reserve or the fact that they had 2 stints in League One- plus it's a really quite old ground!

If anything theirs is more laughable than Derby's IMO.

Think you need to apply for a job as an ffp financial enforcement officer, as it seems to me you have a better idea of what's going on in various club's accounts than do there EFL!

It's getting a bit like the Emperor's (EFL's) new clothes. Everyone else can see that something is not right but not the EFL themselves.

 

 

 

[PHILINFRANCE]

4 hours ago, downendcity said:

In Derby's case, I think they have "sold" Pride Park to another of their owner's companies, so unless he is selling the football club I don't think that problem should arise.

Having said that, it would be interesting to see the various conditions in the lease ( or lack thereof) that presumably was drawn up coincident with the sale, as would certainly have been the case had it been a genuine open market sale to a third party. It would be strange if there is no provision for rent reviews at specified intervals , and whether conditions have been included allowing the football club to cary out whatever work, improvements and additions to the stadium and for them to cover the cost of such work.

Having said that, it suspect that as  Derby decided on the stadium sale strategy some time before the ffp reckoning,  a businessman like Morris would have made sure he got all the right legal advice to make sure he covered off all possible angles by which Derby might fall foul of any EFL investigation into the transaction.

[downendcity]

18 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Then again, the old saying says ' oh what a tangled web we weave when first practice to deceive".

Wouldn't it be sad if he didn't cover off all the angles when setting about this subterfuge?

[PHILINFRANCE]

21 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Then again, the old saying says ' oh what a tangled web we weave when first practice to deceive".

Wouldn't it be sad if he didn't cover off all the angles when setting about this subterfuge?

One can but hope .