Jump to content
IGNORED

Sheffield Wednesday charged for FFP


daored

Recommended Posts

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

CAS- Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Highest court for sporting disputes- however yes,  in the absence of a UEFA decision they can't do much.

The fact that Man City tried to get the investigation kicked out though is interesting.

we all squirm when backed into a corner or lash out.

my guess is Man blue are getting ready to get their retaliation in first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, reddoh said:

we all squirm when backed into a corner or lash out.

my guess is Man blue are getting ready to get their retaliation in first. 

Yep,  bit like fight or flight really.

In anticipation of a ban or maybe to try and put UEFA off?

The other interesting aspect which I hadn't really heard of until a few days ago. It is that third parties, by which I mean other clubs can seemingly appeal or challenge the UEFA decision if they fundamentally disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yep,  bit like fight or flight really.

In anticipation of a ban or maybe to try and put UEFA off?

The interesting aspect which I haven't really heard until a few days ago is that third parties, by which I mean other clubs can appeal or challenge the UEFA decision if they fundamentally disagree.

is that one other club or a majority of the other clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, reddoh said:

is that one other club or a majority of the other clubs?

Unsure as the piece wasn't clear. May not even be true! I suspect more than a few clubs will be unhappy if Man City just get a fine let's say.

Has to be across the board though but that could make things very interesting! Additionally,  but this is just a personal view, if a club decides to tie up UEFA in costly and protracted legal arguments then that of course is their right.

My view though is that in accordance with that right,  they should forfeit their right to play in UEFA competition for the duration of that.

Say UEFA and Man City argue in the courts for 3 seasons.  No CL,  no UEFA licence- no CL cash and prestige basically for that timespan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure as the piece wasn't clear. May not even be true! I suspect more than a few clubs will be unhappy if Man City just get a fine let's say.

Has to be across the board though but that could make things very interesting! Additionally,  but this is just a personal view, if a club decides to tie up UEFA in costly and protracted legal arguments then that of course is their right.

My view though is that in accordance with that right,  they should forfeit their right to play in UEFA competition for the duration of that.

Say UEFA and Man City argue in the courts for 3 seasons.  No CL,  no UEFA licence- no CL cash and prestige basically for that timespan.

My views are more harsh than yours I am quitting this field of play ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading Owlstalk, seems a determination to fight it- don't know if Arbitration would cover some of these.

Well, to me- if so, then suspend membership of EFL for duration if recourse to external courts- the EFL Arbitration processes are quite clear within the regulations and indeed are a condition of membership from my limited reading of them- wonder how many of those fans have read them?

I'll probably read these in depth at some point in the week- but Sheffield Wednesday fans on Owlstalk should take note of parts of this!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

QPR eventually stuck within the arbitration route back in 2015- there was a (very remote, granted) possibility that they would be refused entry to the EFL on relegation from the PL- theoretically it could have been done I think, had they refused all dialogue about or prospect of paying the £58m fine.

It never would have reached that stage but it was at least possible. I do believe that in extremis, this should be on the table- this section of the regs.

Quote

SECTION 9 - ARBITRATION

95. Agreement to Arbitrate

95.1 Membership of The League shall constitute an agreement in writing between The League and Clubs and between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Arbitration Act:

I think that looks like a Condition of membership, in writing too. Don't like it, then suspension of membership over a given period, must be an option.

Or more accurately, if you don't like it then nobody is forcing you to be members of this League- the Conference and below, these don't have any FFP regs!

I'm not seriously arguing for suspension of membership- hell I'm not even pushing it as a Devil's advocate type view, I'm though simply pointing out that an option is there, in extremis. Therefore, they should think carefully about their appeal and similar moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reading Owlstalk, seems a determination to fight it- don't know if Arbitration would cover some of these.

Well, to me- if so, then suspend membership of EFL for duration if recourse to external courts- the EFL Arbitration processes are quite clear within the regulations and indeed are a condition of membership from my limited reading of them- wonder how many of those fans have read them?

I'll probably reads these in depth at some point in the week- but Sheffield Wednesday fans on Owlstalk should take note of parts of this!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

QPR eventually stuck within the arbitration route back in 2015- there was a (very remote, granted) possibility that they would be refused entry to the EFL on relegation from the PL- theoretically it could have been done I think, had they refused all dialogue about or prospect of paying the £58m fine.

It never would have reached that stage but it was at least possible. I do believe that in extremis, this should be on the table- this section of the regs.

Condition of membership, in writing. Don't like it, then suspension of membership over a given period, must be an option.

I think the EFL needs to address the issue of the valuation figures for all the stadium sales, before going after Wednesday. Other wise it would give Wednesday the ability to argue that while they are being punished for effectively doing what 3 other clubs did, they are the only ones being punished, notwithstanding that they are the only ones that falsified accounts.

If any clubs' valuations are then found to be way out, and the correct figures are then applied to accounts and which results in a breach, the EFL can then apply the appropriate penalties, including points deduction, and can then apply additional penalties for Wednesday's aggravated breach as a result of the accounts fiddle. This way Wednesday can't argue that they are being singled out.

I also agree about the rules and clubs wanting to try and fight being penalised. If it gets to that point, I wonder whether the EFL might canvas the opinions of owners of other clubs to see of there would be widespread support should the EFL threaten, or even go through with, a club's league membership being suspended. If clubs don't think they will be penalised, or that the EFL will take severe measures if clubs try and keep fighting i.e. ignoring the leagues rules, then I cannot see ffp ever working properly, that is until it is a small club without the history or money to take on the eFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I think the EFL needs to address the issue of the valuation figures for all the stadium sales, before going after Wednesday. Other wise it would give Wednesday the ability to argue that while they are being punished for effectively doing what 3 other clubs did, they are the only ones being punished, notwithstanding that they are the only ones that falsified accounts.

If any clubs' valuations are then found to be way out, and the correct figures are then applied to accounts and which results in a breach, the EFL can then apply the appropriate penalties, including points deduction, and can then apply additional penalties for Wednesday's aggravated breach as a result of the accounts fiddle. This way Wednesday can't argue that they are being singled out.

I also agree about the rules and clubs wanting to try and fight being penalised. If it gets to that point, I wonder whether the EFL might canvas the opinions of owners of other clubs to see of there would be widespread support should the EFL threaten, or even go through with, a club's league membership being suspended. If clubs don't think they will be penalised, or that the EFL will take severe measures if clubs try and keep fighting i.e. ignoring the leagues rules, then I cannot see ffp ever working properly, that is until it is a small club without the history or money to take on the eFL.

You're right there! That's still ongoing I think, as they're having to reassess FFP results for multiple clubs for multiple years based on the valuation figures as well as the standard assessments for last season for all- and we all know how quickly the EFL have moved historically. However yes I agree, justice done and seen to be done. Has to be fair to be all and seen to be the case!

Yep, spot on.

Well yes, it would have to be done properly- unlike the Bury thing. Would have to be canvassing owners of other clubs and their opinions to see about this and put to a proper vote of course but it has to be on the table in extremis I think.

If a club wants to go significantly outside one of the conditions of membership that all clubs agreed to in writing? Then nobody is holding a gun to the head of said club making them play in it.

That Shaun Harvey has a hell of a lot to answer for though...two notes on him.

I think he would not have been so bothered about such methods to escape FFP personally- just a gut feeling. I also have a funny feeling that he would have had it been within his power and he still been in charge, then if he could have swung it in any way, he would have let Bury have a crack at starting the season despite all their issues and manifest unsuitability to! He certainly applied a very relaxed interpretation of the rules a lot of the time.

Two exceptions? Birmingham and QPR. Both of them made him personally look stupid or incompetent, or indeed worse or that is how he'd probably have seen it anyway- but beyond that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You're right there! That's still ongoing I think, as they're having to reassess FFP results for multiple clubs for multiple years based on the valuation figures as well as the standard assessments for last season for all- and we all know how quickly the EFL have moved historically. However yes I agree, justice done and seen to be done. Has to be fair to be all and seen to be the case!

Yep, spot on.

Well yes, it would have to be done properly- unlike the Bury thing. Would have to be canvassing owners of other clubs and their opinions to see about this and put to a proper vote of course but it has to be on the table in extremis I think.

If a club wants to go significantly outside one of the conditions of membership that all clubs agreed to in writing? Then nobody is holding a gun to the head of said club making them play in it.

That Shaun Harvey has a hell of a lot to answer for though...two notes on him.

I think he would not have been so bothered about such methods to escape FFP personally- just a gut feeling. I also have a funny feeling that he would have had it been within his power and he still been in charge, then if he could have swung it in any way, he would have let Bury have a crack at starting the season despite all their issues and manifest unsuitability to! He certainly applied a very relaxed interpretation of the rules a lot of the time.

Two exceptions? Birmingham and QPR. Both of them made him personally look stupid or incompetent, or indeed worse or that is how he'd probably have seen it anyway- but beyond that...

It will be interesting to see how much Gibson's threatened legal action against the EFl will influence what the EFL do and how they react to any challenge from the likes of Wednesday.

I am still a bit surprised that more clubs have not been more vocal about the stadium sale issue and the EFL's apparent lack of action over this ffp slight of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reading Owlstalk, seems a determination to fight it- don't know if Arbitration would cover some of these.

Well, to me- if so, then suspend membership of EFL for duration if recourse to external courts- the EFL Arbitration processes are quite clear within the regulations and indeed are a condition of membership from my limited reading of them- wonder how many of those fans have read them?

I'll probably read these in depth at some point in the week- but Sheffield Wednesday fans on Owlstalk should take note of parts of this!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

QPR eventually stuck within the arbitration route back in 2015- there was a (very remote, granted) possibility that they would be refused entry to the EFL on relegation from the PL- theoretically it could have been done I think, had they refused all dialogue about or prospect of paying the £58m fine.

It never would have reached that stage but it was at least possible. I do believe that in extremis, this should be on the table- this section of the regs.

I think that looks like a Condition of membership, in writing too. Don't like it, then suspension of membership over a given period, must be an option.

Or more accurately, if you don't like it then nobody is forcing you to be members of this League- the Conference and below, these don't have any FFP regs!

I'm not seriously arguing for suspension of membership- hell I'm not even pushing it as a Devil's advocate type view, I'm though simply pointing out that an option is there, in extremis. Therefore, they should think carefully about their appeal and similar moving forward.

Where the EFL cock up, prevaricate and apparently do nothing, while big clubs think they are above punishment and adopt any tactics to wriggle out of liability, how can Rugby be so different?

Premiership champions Saracens have confirmed they will not be contesting their points deduction and fine for breaching the league's salary cap.

They are to be docked 35 points and fined £5.36m after an inquiry into business partnerships between owner Nigel Wray and some of their players.

Wray said the club "made mistakes" and accepted the penalties "with humility".

Mark McCall's side have subsequently dropped from third to bottom of the Premiership with -22 points.

"As a club, we will now pull together and meet the challenges that lie ahead," added Wray, who had previously vowed to "appeal against all the findings".

"We confirm our commitment to the salary cap, and the underlying principle of a level playing field, and will continue to work transparently with Premiership Rugby in this regard."

Premiership Rugby's chief executive Darren Childs welcomed Saracens' decision.

"This is the right outcome for English club rugby," he said. "Bringing this process to a conclusion means that we can focus on working in partnership with all clubs to continue to build a competitive and successful league." 

What was Saracens' initial reaction?

In a statement issued on the same day the sanctions were announced earlier this month, Sarries strongly refuted the charges brought by an independent disciplinary panel, with owner Wray saying it felt as though "the rug is being completely pulled out from under our feet".

The club apologised for "administrative errors relating to the non-disclosure of some transactions" to Premiership Rugby Limited, but added it will "continue to vigorously defend this position especially as Premiership Rugby Limited precedent already exists whereby co-investments have not been deemed part of salary in the regulations".

Although, strictly speaking, they were unable to 'appeal' against the punishment, they did have until midnight on Monday to request a review into the findings.

They could only request such a review on one of three grounds; error of law, whether the decision was irrational or if they could prove procedural unfairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a look at another couple of curious points.

?

Sheffield Wednesday when they revalued Hillsborough started the Depreciation clock again- it I think is an add back on when sold.

Derby when they revalued or checked against value in 2013, neither listed the new valuation and nor did they restart the Depreciation clock once again- instead they just carried it over from 2007 or possibly sooner back- would have to look at that one in more depth.

?

Mind you did football stadia depreciate for decent chunks of the 1990's? Hillsborough on early inspection appeared not to! Presumably linked to some kind of exemption for clubs who redeveloped old grounds in line with Taylor?

@Coppello you may know this last point- football stadia for chunks of the 1990's, were they exempt from depreciation? Because a quick look at Hillsborough- granted a quick look may mean I need to think again- it suggests the first depreciation noted was in 2001/02 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Had a look at another couple of curious points.

?

Sheffield Wednesday when they revalued Hillsborough started the Depreciation clock again- it I think is an add back on when sold.

Derby when they revalued or checked against value in 2013, neither listed the new valuation and nor did they restart the Depreciation clock once again- instead they just carried it over from 2007 or possibly sooner back- would have to look at that one in more depth.

?

Mind you did football stadia depreciate for decent chunks of the 1990's? Hillsborough on early inspection appeared not to! Presumably linked to some kind of exemption for clubs who redeveloped old grounds in line with Taylor?

@Coppello you may know this last point- football stadia for chunks of the 1990's, were they exempt from depreciation? Because a quick look at Hillsborough- granted a quick look may mean I need to think again- it suggests the first depreciation noted was in 2001/02 season.

Hi @Mr Popodopolous,

After a revaluation you should rebase your depreciation and calculate the charge each year from the new value. For example, if a stadium had a remaining useful life of 20 years and an NBV of £20m, it would incur a depreciation charge of £1m. 

If, the stadium was then revalued in year 5 with its NBV being £15m at that date (5 x £1m), you would rebase the depreciation calculation. If the stadium was revalued to £30m at the date, the remaining useful life would still be 15 years (20 - 5) but the annual charge would now be £2m (£30m/15). 

Regarding the second point, I honestly have no idea but depreciation is an accounting measure and there wouldn't be any exemptions for stadiums. Are you sure the ground wasn't fully depreciated at that point and the ground was subsequently revalued or stadium works were conducted to give it an NBV and related depreciation charge again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coppello said:

Hi @Mr Popodopolous,

After a revaluation you should rebase your depreciation and calculate the charge each year from the new value. For example, if a stadium had a remaining useful life of 20 years and an NBV of £20m, it would incur a depreciation charge of £1m. 

If, the stadium was then revalued in year 5 with its NBV being £15m at that date (5 x £1m), you would rebase the depreciation calculation. If the stadium was revalued to £30m at the date, the remaining useful life would still be 15 years (20 - 5) but the annual charge would now be £2m (£30m/15). 

Regarding the second point, I honestly have no idea but depreciation is an accounting measure and there wouldn't be any exemptions for stadiums. Are you sure the ground wasn't fully depreciated at that point and the ground was subsequently revalued or stadium works were conducted to give it an NBV and related depreciation charge again? 

Hi @Coppello 

Thanks, that clears a few things up.

Yeah that's what I thought broadly- so new value £55m, remaining useful life 50 years say- 2% per year.

Ah with you now, that certainly makes sense- adjusted to reflect the new revaluation over remaining useful life.

Yes, I thought it was a bit curious. Still working on it tbh, am going to later in the week post some sort of spreadsheet on here of what I assume to be Hillsborough- and trying to piece together how £60m is a fair price- or otherwise! Going back to 1990, a spreadsheet or a data set of some kind. Possibly a revaluation would have helped or stadium works- using additions to measure the latter- but I never see how it would be £60m!

I also notice that they seemed to hold the cost static for some years- showed it at what seemed to be both value and cost and like I say showed no depreciation for some years.

Amazing though, how a valuation at depreciated replacement cost of £26.2m in 2001 becomes £60m in 2018 or 2019, in that part of the world, in a ground without significant development for over 20 years and in a flood risk zone! :D

Well tbh that last bit maybe an exaggeration- but it was flooded in 2007 IIRC- low risk though probably. Out of interest though, do you think it's truly worth £60m? Seems curious given DRC from my research to date, has never exceeded in that timespan £26.2m, Revaluation Reserve has never exceeded £11.8m- and not in the same periods either! Well maybe £26.3m and £11.9m.

As you may have guessed, I have a few doubts...  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

@Coppello you may know this last point- football stadia for chunks of the 1990's, were they exempt from depreciation? Because a quick look at Hillsborough- granted a quick look may mean I need to think again- it suggests the first depreciation noted was in 2001/02 season.

FRS 15 dealing with depreciation was introduced around 2000 so could be connected to that.  It attempted to standardise (ish) the treatment of depreciation in accounts and I believe Freehold Property was one of the areas covered.  FRS 102 was introduced in 2015 and superceded FRS 15 - but I know nothing about FRS102 as I was retired in 2015 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

FRS 15 dealing with depreciation was introduced around 2000 so could be connected to that.  It attempted to standardise (ish) the treatment of depreciation in accounts and I believe Freehold Property was one of the areas covered.  FRS 102 was introduced in 2015 and superceded FRS 15 - but I know nothing about FRS102 as I was retired in 2015 ?

I wasn't old enough to do basic numeracy in the early 90s so at least we have both areas covered between us! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I wasn't old enough to do basic numeracy in the early 90s so at least we have both areas covered between us! 

When I did my professional exams we only had 9 SSAPs to worry about and you could guarantee one of the questions would be on SSAP 9, Stocks and WIP!  I couldn't cope doing my exams today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently working on a tracking of Hillsborough value or otherwise since 1990- probably need 2-3 sheets as there are a number of puzzling points- SWFC PLC and the club itself, the figures at certain times appear to diverge. I'll get there in the end- sometime this week!

Feel free when I post it to suggest adjustments, point out questions etc- I'm posting it in part for that reason anyway!

So far, there doesn't appear to be an awful lot of divergence between cost/valuation, Net Book Value and Depreciated Replacement Cost- so £60m is interesting given it has all seemed to be within certain ranges, certain brackets.

Dependent on the methodology of course- and I think DRC is a sound one for stadia- then £60m for Hillsborough is very much thusfar, the "odd one out" looking back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This certainly isn't perfect, not least as there are one or two curious aspects but so far- up to 1996. This aspect is basically for Sheffield Wednesday PLC.

The Revaluation Reserve is a bit of a puzzle too, it disappears from 1990 and 1991 accounts before returning in 1992 yet in 1992, is listed in the prior year as the same in 1991.

Other Reserves in 1990 accounts could have represented the Revaluation Reserve I guess, would make sense- but still doesn't add up fully- still a bit of a difference between the numbers.

The reason that Statement at Original Cost remained static was because that is where it remained in the accounts. Likewise the Revaluation Reserve and the cost/Valuation as determined by directors- guess when you don't depreciate then that surely helps value to rise?  ;)

My starting point here is and has been 1990.

There is a bit of a puzzle in 1996 as to where an extra £2,124,000 stems from.

Year Valuation listed- DRC £ Cost/Valuation as determined by Directors, listed as 1990 and unchanged in the explanation £ Starting Net Book Value £ Additions at cost £ Depreciation £ Adjustment to Revaluation- Surplus/Deficit £ New Net Book Value £ Revaluation Reserve £ Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve £ New or Unadjusted Revaluation Reserve £ Statement at Original Cost £ Adjustment to Statement at Original Cost £ Depreciation Based on Statement at Original Cost £ New Original Statement at Net Cost £ Question Marks        
1990 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 2,345,000 94,000 N/A 5,561,000 8,000,000 N/A N/A N/A 1,918,000 (1990) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,811,000 (1990) Revaluation Reserve        
1991 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000(1990)  8,000,000 186,000 N/A N/A 8,186,000 6,189,000 6,189,000 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) 86,000 (1991) 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991) Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve        
1992 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 8,186,000 739,000 N/A N/A 8,925,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1993 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 8,925,000 423,000 N/A N/A 9,348,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1994 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 9,348,000 526,000 N/A N/A 9,874,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1995 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 9,874,000 1,721,000 N/A N/A 11,595,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)          
1996 15,150,000 (1990) 8,000,000 (1990) 13,719,000 4,919,000 N/A N/A 18,638,000 6,189,000 N/A 6,189,000 2,104,000 (1991) N/A 107,000 (1990) 1,997,000 (1991)
Where does the extra £2,124,000 come from? Includes other Fixed Assets maybe
       
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be very interested in the input of especially @Coppello @Drew Peacock and @martnewts  on this bit at some point as they seem to have good accounting expertise- on a possible ballpark range valuation of Hillsborough- hopefully sometime by the end of the week I'll have it up to and including 2017, will include some estimates based on precedent, additions and similar for cost or historical cost as they stopped showing its equivalent in 2015 or 2016. There will certainly be some estimates in areas as some bits of info, don't add up or adjust neatly.

Suppose a general question I have, would be what method of value is often used for a football stadium eg- is it DRC, Value in Use or Market or indeed Fair Value? Can't think of another significant one that maybe applicable atm. @downendcity You know a bit about valuation from memory.

Market Value surely would require an active market. Fair Value possible- question is, how do you Fair Value a unique and specialised asset such as Hillsborough?

The valuation they seemed to have used whenever they got it revalued from 1990 onwards was DRC.

Another interesting thing I read was that Ricoh Arena got an uptick to £60m- but fell again to £51m in a year owing to lack of certainty on future naming rights- well neither Hillsborough or Pride Park have that issue as I don't think Hillsborough has had naming rights before and Pride Park stopped being the iPro Stadium several years ago.

Whereas both the Bet 365 Stadium and KP Stadium- both have certainty over naming rights...and were both valued at significantly less in most recent value in use in one case and DRC in another when set against what these went for!

Or indeed, input as to whether this is a waste of time on my part as valuations etc irrelevant in 2018- could save me some work! ?

EDIT: Certainly I'm going to read the below soon.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/69f7d814-c806-4ccc-b451-aba50d6e8de2/FRS-102-FRS-applicable-in-the-UK-and-Republic-of-Ireland-(March-2018).pdf

Bramall Lane, Training Ground and possibly some other buildings- to take place in the next year apparently- binding agreement. £50m all in.

Elland Road- Possibly some kind of agreement helped the deal alone, 2017- £20m (somewhere between £16-17m according to Land Registry).

Hillsborough in 2018 or 2019, on its own-- £60m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mr Popodopolous

You have probably seen it but in case you havent. The valuation report for the London Olympic Stadium is available online http://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/-/media/15034-stadium-island-site-annex-a.ashx?la=en whilst the basis of this seems to be largely based on the long term leases on the property it may be useful. If the sale of Hillsborough also included such leases it may be relevant in determining that valuation however if there is a lease to the football club and the rental charge is low that would be more likely reduce the value of the stadium rather than enhance it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers @martnewts will have a read of that over the coming days.

Yeah, my understanding too in terms of lease- a low rent would definitely not enhance the value. If we're using that arrangement then Derby would need to pay their rent on current levels for 73.63- and tbh that's a very rough estimate based on a basic 81.1m/1.1m sum, to pay rent equivalent to the value of Pride Park- I'm sure it's a lot more complex however!

So just had a quick look- and says on early inspection that Fair Value is £40m! That's using DRC I notice...that's pretty mental considering Hillsborough which did have floods in 2007- some dramatic photos online- went for 50% more! Pride Park double!

What puzzles me, is what on earth were Shaun Harvey- as the leader he was happy to front up and take credit for things, so he should also take scrutiny- but also the EFL as a body in general doing when these transactions first came to light- when they looked through accounts, projected and then financial info that clubs have to submit they would have at minimum surely seen a huge one off profit in the initial statement of results on Page One- well not in Reading's case, but certainly Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and most likely Aston Villa- all somewhere between £25-40m- I'd have hoped that they were all over it at the time.

Shaun Harvey should have really got into it from the off as soon as it came to light- behind closed doors in the investigation stages of course but really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courtesy of Kieran Maguire...you may well be interested in this news @Davefevs and others I have tagged already!

I mean, I would assume they have experienced accounting professionals already so this is quite interesting!

4 and 5 look promising especially!

  1. " A proven ability to review and challenge the work and assumptions of others, especially those at Executive and Board level"- about bloody time!!
  2. "Proven ability to review and challenge assumptions within detailed financial forecasts". Well quite!

The stadium deals would be an excellent place to start!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Coppello Have you considered this role at all?

I dare say you'd fit it to a tee.

Thanks! It sounds like an interesting role and I'd be hopeful that I could get myself an interview - shame it's in the North West as I have no ties to the area. It's a shame you can't go for it although I think your hatred of Mel Morris might ruin your independence! 

I'm glad to see they're taking it seriously though, it's a lot of work for someone to get through particularly if they're looking after 72 clubs. It works out as about a 2/3 days per club which isn't a lot of time to understand their forecast, challenge the assumptions and identify any issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Coppello said:

Thanks! It sounds like an interesting role and I'd be hopeful that I could get myself an interview - shame it's in the North West as I have no ties to the area. It's a shame you can't go for it although I think your hatred of Mel Morris might ruin your independence! 

I'm glad to see they're taking it seriously though, it's a lot of work for someone to get through particularly if they're looking after 72 clubs. It works out as about a 2/3 days per club which isn't a lot of time to understand their forecast, challenge the assumptions and identify any issues. 

I think you could- though there would also be plenty of candidates! Yes, I'd love that role- were I a qualified accountant- Mel Morris- mixed views on him tbh but he's not great- would impair independence a tad! If there was a growth in dept FFP consultant or a role part time for someone to analyse and help put together questions for clubs on transactions such as these, well I'd certainly be interested...

Yeah, feel it needs more than one- I would hope that the bulk of their work would be focused on clubs with a large question mark or similar over the accounts or projected accounts and subsequent compliance- but probably wouldn't work out like that!

Still if this is someone in a post additional to what they have it could work- feel it may need somewhat of an overhaul though, what they have now- this would be a strong starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that when looking at Derby's accounts over a few years, it stated in the notes at the start up to and including 2015-16 season:

Quote

1.    Principal accounting policies (continued) 

       Land and buildings

       The freehold buildings known as the iPro Stadium are held at valuation based on the depreciated replacement cost of the property. The property is subject to a full valuation on a sufficiently regular basis. Property is reviewed for                                  any indications of impairment on an annual basis.

That was £63,997,000- if this was accurate. Held at valuation based on DRC eh? As of June 30th 2016.

Of course things could have shifted in the coming years but even if the Depreciation eliminated it still isn't £81.1m!

This naturally changed over in 2016/17- could have been a transitional thing, but then again interestingly it said excluding freehold property. The rest was historical cost less accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment losses.

Nonetheless, there was no revaluation listed in 2016/17 or 2017/18- or 2015/16 for that matter- nor was there a fair value adjustment in Sevco 5112 post acquisition of Derby by Mel Morris- Sevco 5112 Limited the ultimate company.

Transfer between classes in 2016/17 from assets under construction to stadium. 

Almost forgot- to bring it back to an earlier point.

When there was uncertainty overt the future sponsorship of Ricoh Arena in 2018 or 2019, valuation fell by 15%- or 9m in just one year from £60m > £51m.

Derby lost its sponsor in 2016/17. November 2016 it reverted back to Pride Park from iPro- might this not have an impact on recoveravble value- fair or DRC or otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The real problem is why are so many big clubs in danger of falling short of the FFP rules ?

It is surely the disparity of wealth between the Prem and the other divisions.

Until there is a fairer distribution of this money clubs will mortgage their, uncertain , futures to get there. 
 

Much , much more needs to be done for the grassroots of football before in the future we end up with only six exceedingly rich clubs playing amongst themselves in front of Asian television audiences.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Podcast- am about to listen to it myself.

Kieran Maguire's latest one is either all or in no small part, about how clubs try to dodge FFP.

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/price-of-football/financial-doping/

"Financial doping"- A contentious title?

A fair title. 

There's doping. 

Mechanical doping (cycling). 

Now financial doping. 

All designed to do the same thing - cheat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

A fair title. 

There's doping. 

Mechanical doping (cycling). 

Now financial doping. 

All designed to do the same thing - cheat. 

Yeah, agreed tbh.

@Major Isewater I agree that the distribution model in English football is creating definite problems and should hopefully be looked at. The thing here though is that the EFL have to do right and be seen to do right by all 24 clubs. All of them.

Most comply basically. Big clubs in the dock is one way to look at it but then again, Birmingham 9 points- mid-ranking club and Leeds also who would fit big club, do comply- so too do Nottingham Forest, another big club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...