Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby charged for a breach of spending rules


Taz

Recommended Posts

Just listened to what I assume was the Simon Jordan interview on TalkSport that was referred to earlier in the thread.

He is I suspect right about FFP being the future of football, it's a matter of opinion but I believe it is likely that it would need a big club to get really hammered it to be a big game-changer.

He made a variety of factual errors though plus a couple of omissions- bit unlike him on these matters! He rightly stated that selling a ground isn't like selling a player.

He said something about Mel Morris justifying it via roof and concerts- well I remember that Morris interview and he (Morris) said £180m would have been the outcome! Derby are I believe stating that their valuation was correct, regardless of future work- and tbh under certain methods of valuation, maybe it is in the right ballpark- problem is, different methods of valuation can throw up different results it appears!

He also stated that the EFL valuer had revalued it to £60m...nope, it was £49-50m.

He also neglected to mention, though this is an omission rather than an error that a) The EFL have a mechanism for fair value rules and b) That different methods of valuation can throw up different results- already covered on here, but I thought he might have mentioned it!

If there is a longer version though, that certainly would be worth a listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/01/2020 at 10:25, Bar BS3 said:

Exactly this. It’s getting a bit tiresome that clubs are getting away with breaking the rules (cheating) to succeed and then getting a token punishment (at most) after they’ve enjoyed the fruits of that cheating. 
Even worse is that if the cheating gets you into the Premier League (Villa, Bournemouth) then it’s just forgotten about and allowed to pass. 
It should mean automatic demotion - or evening better, on promotion, all clubs should be looked into and any breach of fair play should deny them the step up and also have to begin the new season with a points deduction. 
Then watch clubs spending suddenly come in line with the rules..! 

It doesn’t get forgotten about, it gets shelves until said club is back under the elf’s control,

qpr being an example  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

It doesn’t get forgotten about, it gets shelves until said club is back under the elf’s control,

qpr being an example  

QPR is a pretty woeful example then, imo. 
The only team that we’re properly punished, that I can remember, albeit for different breaches, under different rules, were Swindon. Denied promotion and Demoted to the division below. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

QPR is a pretty woeful example then, imo. 
The only team that we’re properly punished, that I can remember, albeit for different breaches, under different rules, were Swindon. Denied promotion and Demoted to the division below. 

Not really they had a harsh punishment under the rules of ffp at the time,

hence why they’ve changed the rules making it harsher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/01/2020 at 14:13, Vincent Vega said:

It's not the selling of the ground, more the valuation put on the grounds by the clubs themselves. 

Yes I realise that. What I was asking is; what's to stop all the other Championship clubs (including City) now selling their grounds to themselves, as long as their valuation is considered fair? It would be a massive FFP boost for everyone and would restore the level playing field against Derby, Sheff Wed and Reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, fgrsimon said:

Yes I realise that. What I was asking is; what's to stop all the other Championship clubs (including City) now selling their grounds to themselves, as long as their valuation is considered fair? It would be a massive FFP boost for everyone and would restore the level playing field against Derby, Sheff Wed and Reading.

My view is that it's best to punish them, and close the loophole. 

Or. 

As you say once each. Reading's only went for £26.5m so they were probably at fairing rate. Birmingham at £23m or thereabouts, £24m- again can't say that is over inflated and thy seem to have made some cutbacks AND be charging rent on realistic commercial terms. 

The ones I really want to see in the dock, up before the beak are Aston Villa! Decent chunk of their fans, Purslow and that they did this DESPITE parachute payments.

Didn't really sell any key players either, some decent foreign ones who wouldn't fancy this League aside perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsure it can be forbidden as such, you simply make it pointless by excluding it from the FFP calculations.

Nit just grounds either, but training grounds, academies- any Tangible Fixed Assets in fact.

There COULD be cases in which it is legitimate but these would be specific and clear.

1) If you sell an old training ground or even ground as you're moving to a genuine new build, isn't that a legitimate profit? Clue is in the term 'disposal'- disposal as opposed to sale and leaseback of a fixed asset. 

2) Has to be to a genuine arms length, third party. Elland Road to their owner went for £20m or thereabouts I believe, not long ago. Land prices in Leeds are higher than Sheffield I suspect as Leeds quite a commercial city, yet Hillsborough 3 times that?? I know it's not quite so simple and Elland Road surely cheap, but that's a bit of a klaxon surely

3) If, if a sale and leaseback was to be legit, how about selling it to a finance company, a bank or similar. That's a controversial yet truly arms length (subject to checks and tests) transaction and you wouldn't expect any favours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, fgrsimon said:

Yes I realise that. What I was asking is; what's to stop all the other Championship clubs (including City) now selling their grounds to themselves, as long as their valuation is considered fair? It would be a massive FFP boost for everyone and would restore the level playing field against Derby, Sheff Wed and Reading.

It's not so much about levelling the playing field with Derby, Wednesday and Reading, it's the relegated clubs with massive parachute payments that skew the championship massively.  The pressure to compete financially with these clubs is, I think, what has driven the likes of Derby et al yo do what they did.

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My view is that it's best to punish them, and close the loophole. 

Or. 

As you say once each. Reading's only went for £26.5m so they were probably at fairing rate. Birmingham at £23m or thereabouts, £24m- again can't say that is over inflated and thy seem to have made some cutbacks AND be charging rent on realistic commercial terms. 

The ones I really want to see in the dock, up before the beak are Aston Villa! Decent chunk of their fans, Purslow and that they did this DESPITE parachute payments.

Didn't really sell any key players either, some decent foreign ones who wouldn't fancy this League aside perhaps.

 

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure it can be forbidden as such, you simply make it pointless by excluding it from the FFP calculations.

Nit just grounds either, but training grounds, academies- any Tangible Fixed Assets in fact.

There COULD be cases in which it is legitimate but these would be specific and clear.

1) If you sell an old training ground or even ground as you're moving to a genuine new build, isn't that a legitimate profit? Clue is in the term 'disposal'- disposal as opposed to sale and leaseback of a fixed asset. 

2) Has to be to a genuine arms length, third party. Elland Road to their owner went for £20m or thereabouts I believe, not long ago. Land prices in Leeds are higher than Sheffield I suspect as Leeds quite a commercial city, yet Hillsborough 3 times that?? I know it's not quite so simple and Elland Road surely cheap, but that's a bit of a klaxon surely

3) If, if a sale and leaseback was to be legit, how about selling it to a finance company, a bank or similar. That's a controversial yet truly arms length (subject to checks and tests) transaction and you wouldn't expect any favours.

I don;t see any problem with genuine open market commercial sales, as these will almost certainly be to unrelated third parties. For example, had we obtained permission for Ashton Vale and sold the Gate to Sainsburys, the sale price would be driven by the market. Not only that but the sale proceeds would have been used to pay for the new stadium.

If they are still going to allow sale of fixed assets to related third party companies, then a sensible way to go would be that clubs need to obtain approval first from the EFL and the EFL then instructs it's own independant valuation ( I'd actually suggest a minimum of 2 valuations in case the club disputes the validity of one valuation!). The EFL's valuation can then be used to determine the "profit" the club can apply to it's accounts. All the problems at the moment are because the disputes have been created after the event. If the club is not happy with the valuation, they can dispute it with no problem, but until the issue is resolved they haven't got any profit to put into the accounts, which would present a problem if the reason for doing this was an ffp issue!

I  do think the bigger issue to come out of this is that the new ffp rules failed to do what we were told they would, i.e. enable the the ffp assessment and any penalties to be applied during the same season. Had they done so it is quite possible that Villa would not now be playing in the premier league and we might have been playing in last season's play offs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My view is that it's best to punish them, and close the loophole. 

Or. 

As you say once each. Reading's only went for £26.5m so they were probably at fairing rate. Birmingham at £23m or thereabouts, £24m- again can't say that is over inflated and thy seem to have made some cutbacks AND be charging rent on realistic commercial terms. 

The ones I really want to see in the dock, up before the beak are Aston Villa! Decent chunk of their fans, Purslow and that they did this DESPITE parachute payments.

Didn't really sell any key players either, some decent foreign ones who wouldn't fancy this League aside perhaps.

Once again, you want us in the dock despite the fact, that at the moment we haven't been charged with doing anything wrong.

We sold many key players some of whom didn't want to be at the club, others whom we had to sell to balance the books.

Players like Adama Traore, Jordan Ayew, Scott Sinclair, Jordan Veretout, Idrissa Gana, Jordan Amavi, Ciaran Clark and Nathan Baker.

You can not begrudge us the opportunity to replace them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

Once again, you want us in the dock despite the fact, that at the moment we haven't been charged with doing anything wrong.

We sold many key players some of whom didn't want to be at the club, others whom we had to sell to balance the books.

Players like Adama Traore, Jordan Ayew, Scott Sinclair, Jordan Veretout, Idrissa Gana, Jordan Amavi, Ciaran Clark and Nathan Baker.

You can not begrudge us the opportunity to replace them.

We'll see what the 2018/19 accounts say I guess. Remember the ground sale valuation can be looked at afresh, as we've seen with Derby- though Villa Park seems more realistic.

I understand the sentiment so can't begrudge it as such, but pretty well all clubs, certainly at this level, sell key players and don't necessarily replace them- to stick within the limits. Have Birmingham adequately replaced Jota or Adams yet eg?

The idea is that if you need to sell key players to hit 39 million plus allowables then that's what it takes- like most clubs do.

Or you replace cheaper, you develop- yes those are some decent players tbh, who have indeed gone on to PL or other top tiers in Europe in a number of cases.

If it means the side getting weaker for a bit, then so be it- it's the reality for a lot of clubs.

Different sport entirely but...

Look at Saracens! Docked 35 points, docked another 35- equivalent of 7 x bonus point wins and then the same again for not hitting January targets- if EFL could enforce January deadline then this would solve the problems we've seen, as Saracens had until February or late January to get in line for this season, in addition to their punishment for the last 3 years.

That's the equivalent of a 42 point deduction in football btw! Fine was £5.6m, on a turnover of about £17.92m in 2017/18. Around 31.25% of turnover...somewhere between 1/5 and 30% anyway assuming income has grown.

Nonetheless, I WILL reserve judgement until the accounts are out, as a starting point- but bear in mind that for example if it shows say £50m of debt written off in the P&L, then it shows a lower loss, but it doesn't count as income under FFP, or profit for that matter. So it's a starting point but not necessarily decisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The ones I really want to see in the dock, up before the beak are Aston Villa! Decent chunk of their fans, Purslow and that they did this DESPITE parachute payments.

Didn't really sell any key players either, some decent foreign ones who wouldn't fancy this League aside perhaps.

Relegation back to the Championship will do for starters, Mr P.

They'd be spitting feathers having to mix with the likes of us again, the entitled pr1cks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

Once again, you want us in the dock despite the fact, that at the moment we haven't been charged with doing anything wrong.

We sold many key players some of whom didn't want to be at the club, others whom we had to sell to balance the books.

Players like Adama Traore, Jordan Ayew, Scott Sinclair, Jordan Veretout, Idrissa Gana, Jordan Amavi, Ciaran Clark and Nathan Baker.

You can not begrudge us the opportunity to replace them.

....but it appears you didn't balance the books - why else would your owners  have sold Villa Park to a related third party?

From Derby's situation it is clear that without the "sale" of Pride Park they would have breached ffp last season, and Wednesday's situation appears similar, even to the extent that Wednesday even resorted to backdating the sale. Commenting about the sale of Pride Park, Derby's owner said that the problem selling the better players is that it would have made them less competitive, and therein lies the real issue. The only logical reason most fans can see for a club selling it's stadium in such a way, is that it is the only option left to avoid a ffp breach.

On relegation, Villa had 3 years advance notice of the ffp assessment under the new rules and during that time had the benefit of 3 years' worth of parachute payments. Not only did that give you a significant financial advantage over the rest of the championship clubs, but also more than enough time to adjust your finances in order to comply with ffp. With hindsight it seems that rather than pruning the squad sufficiently to achieve ffp compliance, parachute payments were used to fund a push to gain quick promotion ( which is understandable) so even though player might have been sold, Villa still maintained a squad that over the 3 years was unaffordable under ffp rules. 

I think I'm right in saying  that Villa even borrowed against the third years' parachute payment during the second season back in the championship, as did West Brom, in order to maintain that competitive edge.

That Villa hasn't been charged with anything at the moment, is only down to the fact that the sale of a fixed asset wasn't breaking the rules, due to the loophole the EFL inadvertently created. However, as with Derby, the question of fair value is the issue they are now pursuing and which is within the rules. Of course, the fact that Villa secured promotion has made the EFL's task more complicated if they want to pursue a similar action and the cause of frustration to many fans looking in from the outside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

....but it appears you didn't balance the books - why else would your owners  have sold Villa Park to a related third party?

From Derby's situation it is clear that without the "sale" of Pride Park they would have breached ffp last season, and Wednesday's situation appears similar, even to the extent that Wednesday even resorted to backdating the sale. Commenting about the sale of Pride Park, Derby's owner said that the problem selling the better players is that it would have made them less competitive, and therein lies the real issue. The only logical reason most fans can see for a club selling it's stadium in such a way, is that it is the only option left to avoid a ffp breach.

On relegation, Villa had 3 years advance notice of the ffp assessment under the new rules and during that time had the benefit of 3 years' worth of parachute payments. Not only did that give you a significant financial advantage over the rest of the championship clubs, but also more than enough time to adjust your finances in order to comply with ffp. With hindsight it seems that rather than pruning the squad sufficiently to achieve ffp compliance, parachute payments were used to fund a push to gain quick promotion ( which is understandable) so even though player might have been sold, Villa still maintained a squad that over the 3 years was unaffordable under ffp rules. 

I think I'm right in saying  that Villa even borrowed against the third years' parachute payment during the second season back in the championship, as did West Brom, in order to maintain that competitive edge.

That Villa hasn't been charged with anything at the moment, is only down to the fact that the sale of a fixed asset wasn't breaking the rules, due to the loophole the EFL inadvertently created. However, as with Derby, the question of fair value is the issue they are now pursuing and which is within the rules. Of course, the fact that Villa secured promotion has made the EFL's task more complicated if they want to pursue a similar action and the cause of frustration to many fans looking in from the outside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quite so, @downendcity .

Bit busy now so can';t comment on this post and your other but agree fully- estimates of overspend online over the 3 years were in the region of £25-30m! Kieran Maguire, Swiss Ramble and @yorkshireavfc on Twitter who was a good FFP poster, all had it in that range. My workings too. Any additional exceptional costs like say Lerner getting paid £30m on promotion obviously would be excluded, as would promotion bonuses but taking into account allowable costs and assuming they're the same last season, falling parachute payments, even with some falling wages, it's a problem! A quite possibly FFP failing problem!

PL are meant to be enforcing and this could yet happen...in July investigation announced, in September it emerged that Villa Park would be checked for fair value and the fact that no definitive all clear makes me wonder...these rules were aligned from 2016/17 onwards, the first full 3 year period of it in the Championship was to last season- the trade off should be that the PL act for the EFL and vice versa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

....but it appears you didn't balance the books - why else would your owners  have sold Villa Park to a related third party?

From Derby's situation it is clear that without the "sale" of Pride Park they would have breached ffp last season, and Wednesday's situation appears similar, even to the extent that Wednesday even resorted to backdating the sale. Commenting about the sale of Pride Park, Derby's owner said that the problem selling the better players is that it would have made them less competitive, and therein lies the real issue. The only logical reason most fans can see for a club selling it's stadium in such a way, is that it is the only option left to avoid a ffp breach.

On relegation, Villa had 3 years advance notice of the ffp assessment under the new rules and during that time had the benefit of 3 years' worth of parachute payments. Not only did that give you a significant financial advantage over the rest of the championship clubs, but also more than enough time to adjust your finances in order to comply with ffp. With hindsight it seems that rather than pruning the squad sufficiently to achieve ffp compliance, parachute payments were used to fund a push to gain quick promotion ( which is understandable) so even though player might have been sold, Villa still maintained a squad that over the 3 years was unaffordable under ffp rules. 

I think I'm right in saying  that Villa even borrowed against the third years' parachute payment during the second season back in the championship, as did West Brom, in order to maintain that competitive edge.

That Villa hasn't been charged with anything at the moment, is only down to the fact that the sale of a fixed asset wasn't breaking the rules, due to the loophole the EFL inadvertently created. However, as with Derby, the question of fair value is the issue they are now pursuing and which is within the rules. Of course, the fact that Villa secured promotion has made the EFL's task more complicated if they want to pursue a similar action and the cause of frustration to many fans looking in from the outside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Norwich, Middlesborough, Hull and Cardiff also had the benefit of those parachute payments, the former having been relegated in the same season as Villa.

Villa fans questioned Dr Xia about the parachute payments on Twitter and he replied that he had not spent a penny of the payments on 2016/17 transfers. At the same time there was a lot of frustration from the fans after a toothless friendly performance about the lack of a striker. The Manager did a U-turn and signed Ross McCormack. We would eventually spend over £50m in that window (Ironically at the time I warned of FFP to fellow fans who laughed at me), but good players left too. Some on 50 and 60k a week contracts.

Local press did report that we borrowed against parachute payments but this wasn't maintaining a competitive edge. It was about paying tax bills, staying afloat and without the new owners cash input James Chester and Jack Grealish were being lined up to be sold. That would have happened. In fact if Tottenham Hotspur had offered fair market value for Grealish and not tried to take advantage of a distressed seller, he would have gone. I understand your frustration looking in from the inside but there was a determination to try to be competitive to achieve promotion. I have heard you or others say that Villa fans are entitled and yes many of us are but consider that over a hundred people lost their jobs, the club shop was closed and part of the stadium was sectioned off too.

It was a lack of ambition and the sale of key players which caused relegation, and there was an expectation of a fightback, although I do feel we went about it in the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

Norwich, Middlesborough, Hull and Cardiff also had the benefit of those parachute payments, the former having been relegated in the same season as Villa.

Villa fans questioned Dr Xia about the parachute payments on Twitter and he replied that he had not spent a penny of the payments on 2016/17 transfers. At the same time there was a lot of frustration from the fans after a toothless friendly performance about the lack of a striker. The Manager did a U-turn and signed Ross McCormack. We would eventually spend over £50m in that window (Ironically at the time I warned of FFP to fellow fans who laughed at me), but good players left too. Some on 50 and 60k a week contracts.

Local press did report that we borrowed against parachute payments but this wasn't maintaining a competitive edge. It was about paying tax bills, staying afloat and without the new owners cash input James Chester and Jack Grealish were being lined up to be sold. That would have happened. In fact if Tottenham Hotspur had offered fair market value for Grealish and not tried to take advantage of a distressed seller, he would have gone. I understand your frustration looking in from the inside but there was a determination to try to be competitive to achieve promotion. I have heard you or others say that Villa fans are entitled and yes many of us are but consider that over a hundred people lost their jobs, the club shop was closed and part of the stadium was sectioned off too.

It was a lack of ambition and the sale of key players which caused relegation, and there was an expectation of a fightback, although I do feel we went about it in the wrong way.

I can understand why some think that Villa fans feel entitled, but that is not the reason for much of this debate. It is more about the hard financial facts of life clubs like us have to live with.

The tough part of the financial rules is when it affects a club's ability to be competitive. Last summer we sold  half our pretty good defence for a combined £33m because we need/have to in order to balance the books for ffp. We replaced them with £11m or so worth of defenders ( who were on loan here last season anyway) and one of our own young players and although injuries have come in to play, we now have the worst defence of any top half championship club.

Has that affected our competitiveness - bloody right it has?

Was there an alternative - yes, keep them, breach ffp and take a penalty, which because we are not a big club would be a swingeing points deduction and 6 match suspensions for Bailey Wright and Famara Diedhiou ( in joke for City fans!)?

While the determination to be competitive and achieve promotion is understandable, and almost certainly applies to most championship clubs, the tough part is trying to do so but staying within the financial limits ffp imposes. 

You mention that Norwich, Hull Boro and Cardiff all benefitted from parachute payments, but as far as I am aware none of them has resorted to selling their stadium, so would presume that they have taken appropriate action (player sales, bringing in more affordable players etc) to bring their finances in line with championship ffp. The fact that Norwich apart, the other three haven't been tearing up trees in the championship and neither are Stoke and Huddersfield, suggests that falling in line with championship financial constraints has an impact and can make a club less competitive.

That all these clubs have the cushion of parachute payments for 3 years makes it alls the more difficult for other clubs to be as competitive. So while we, and many other championship clubs work hard to stay within the financial limits even if it makes us less competitive , with all respect, I don't think there will be a lot of sympathy for Villa on here, or probably from fans of other clubs, if it was a struggle to get costs down over the last 3 years because it would have adversely affected your promotion aims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this in the Times tonight, this is Lawton's tweet on it, on his story.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1219528832643932160

Seem to recall you raising the alarm on it last summer @Coppello the whole residual value for players thing. Or at least calling it into question

Seems the difference maybe was £30m to June 2018!! :o :o

Which coincidence of all coincidences, is the difference between the two Pride Park valuations, roughly? 

Unless these are on top of the ones already mentioned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw this in the Times tonight, this is Lawton's tweet on it, on his story.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1219528832643932160

Seem to recall you raising the alarm on it last summer @Coppello the whole residual value for players thing. Or at least calling it into question

Seems the difference maybe was £30m to June 2018!! :o :o

Which coincidence of all coincidences, is the difference between the two Pride Park valuations, roughly? 

Unless these are on top of the ones already mentioned?

In Mel’s head his valuation is all fine, suspect Shaun said it was fine too.

We debated with Derbyfan earlier this season how much it could affect their books...specifically in the aftermath of Lawrence, Keogh and the other one whose name escapes me.  Artificially keep their value high, means less amortisation.  No wonder Mel changed his accounting method.

Seems to be trying every fudge under the table, perhaps the prospective buyers didn’t like what they saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In Mel’s head his valuation is all fine, suspect Shaun said it was fine too.

We debated with Derbyfan earlier this season how much it could affect their books...specifically in the aftermath of Lawrence, Keogh and the other one whose name escapes me.  Artificially keep their value high, means less amortisation.  No wonder Mel changed his accounting method.

Seems to be trying every fudge under the table, perhaps the prospective buyers didn’t like what they saw.

Yep, Shaun wouldn't have objected I'm sure. His reign looks less adequate by the day, yet it is in its own right a legitimate accounting policy. Unique in the EFL apparently!

Yes, we did indeed. I did wonder at one point if the ground sale wasn't for June 2018 but to cover for a year or maybe 2 in the future. 

Perhaps when a lot of players contracts ended, to cover one or two big hits in summer 2019 and 2020.

Worth noting that when Derby sacked Sam Rush, they were suing him for nearly £7m... 

Suspect that was another way of trying to get round FFP. Wonder what their projected overspend was- £7m perhaps?

Ah yes, on that note the investment is in doubt due to the FFP charge, was either in Off the Pitch or The Athletic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@downendcity @Davefevs @Coppello

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7917941/Premier-League-probe-Aston-Villas-56million-stadium-sale.html

You might be interested too, @AnAstonVillafan

While not yet technically guilty or charged of anything, it's definitely a live issue...remember Matt Hughes is one of the 3 most credible FFP journos, along with Matt Lawton and John Percy!

David Conn is also excellent on Football finance but his work seems to cover different areas.

A section of their fanbase is that entitled- granted online can and will amplify and I'm not including our visitor who is a fan, but a section that they actually locked their FFP thread, closed it just before Christmas, clearly what they think of it in terms of relevance or applicability to them!!

https://www.villatalk.com/topic/16585-villa-and-ffp-201789/page/108/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@downendcity @Davefevs @Coppello

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7917941/Premier-League-probe-Aston-Villas-56million-stadium-sale.html

You might be interested too, @AnAstonVillafan

While not yet technically guilty or charged of anything, it's definitely a live issue...remember Matt Hughes is one of the 3 most credible FFP journos, along with Matt Lawton and John Percy!

David Conn is also excellent on Football finance but his work seems to cover different areas.

A section of their fanbase is that entitled- granted online can and will amplify and I'm not including our visitor who is a fan, but a section that they actually locked their FFP thread, closed it just before Christmas, clearly what they think of it in terms of relevance or applicability to them!!

https://www.villatalk.com/topic/16585-villa-and-ffp-201789/page/108/

Most Aston Villa supporters simply do not understand FFP. Many think it's a system to keep the big clubs rich and stop their dominance from being challenged.

Until we were relegated the majority didn't know what it was. (My wife is a Nottingham Forest fan so I had a little heads up). I have spent a lot of time explaining it to members of my Facebook group.

I hate what we've done with the stadium. It could backfire on us very badly in ways a lot of people don't realise.

As for entitled fans, I'm 41 years old. Anyone my age or older than me will remember "the good times". Cup Final wins and European nights.

That generation finds relegation, sustainability, pragmatism, restraint, etc very hard to accept. I can understand it, but the club was at the top table for 27 years consecutively, run well and kept solvent until Lerner arrived. They need to get used to a different reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will reply properly to the Aston Villa post later but it seems a fair and balanced perspective.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/finance-strategy/derby-charged-under-financial-fair-play-rules

@Coppello @Davefevs @chinapig @downendcity

What makes this interesting is that it seems to be getting noted beyond mere football?

There was an article by Rav Cheema linked last year by Bristol Rob...Property Weekly about the Pride Park transaction.

Wonder if these clubs deals are making waves among accounting, auditing, valuing industries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will reply properly to the Aston Villa post later but it seems a fair and balanced perspective.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/finance-strategy/derby-charged-under-financial-fair-play-rules

@Coppello @Davefevs @chinapig @downendcity

What makes this interesting is that it seems to be getting noted beyond mere football?

There was an article by Rav Cheema linked last year by Bristol Rob...Property Weekly about the Pride Park transaction.

Wonder if these clubs deals are making waves among accounting, auditing, valuing industries?

So let’s take Tom Lawrence, signed for £5m in 2017 on a 5 year deal.

As we currently stand, 2.5 (1/2) years into his contract, his value would be £2.5m.  Let’s take that to the end of the season, and now valued at £2m.

Each season has cost Derby £1m in amortisation.  However Mel might undertake an end of season valuation and say he’s still work £5m.  In that scenario Lawrence hasn’t cost Derby anything in the book.  Multiply that across several players, or on shorter contracts, and you can see how advantageous that is....when comparing it to the accounting policies of the other 70 EFL clubs.

Now imagine sacking Lawrence for his drink-driving:

- EFL method, Derby write off £2.5m

- Mel method, Derby write off £5m ?

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...