Jump to content
IGNORED

FFP or A Billionaire Chairman Who Doesn’t Want to Spend


Portis-red

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Davefevs said:

In an inflationary market, most clubs started to show a positive in “net spend”….for years we never did.

The problem is if you just look at transfer fees then it’s a blinkered view.

I make no apologies for post this again….just look at the costs, the costs that grow quicker than the income.  Then throw in Covid.

5EBF4F19-0ADA-4494-9A74-DF2EA15B2F4E.thumb.jpeg.d4bbc80b722495bd7f5f4ae3a6afc08f.jpeg

The transfer profit (penultimate column) looks fantastic….unfortunately the important one is the one to the right of it.

20/21s accounts are probably gonna show a £30m loss!!!

Thanks @Davefevs for this. This has really helped my understanding  of the last few years. 

Those costs really do sky rocket and unfortunately we werent exactly in a good position before those transfer fees all started coming in. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/08/2021 at 08:24, tin said:

There was an article in The Times this week suggesting UEFA is going to publish plans within the next month to scrap FFP and replace it with a salary cap and luxury tax.

It’ll be annoying if they do replace it when we are crying out for investment, but SL’s fully complying with current FFP rules. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. SL bet on the wrong horse in LJ and we’re paying for it now. 

Surely that will only apply to UEFA competitions, our FFP is defined by the Football League?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, maxjak said:

Sorry to be thick Dave....but why are there 2 sets of figures..........One for BCFC, what is the other one?  PS I don't understand that if a club has wheeled and dealed, and made a profit from their transfer dealings, why are they not allowed to use the surplus profit to re-invest in players?   PPS I am certain that I just don't get it ha!

We have invested profit from player sales. A good example would be the money from selling Flint was used to buy his replacement Webster. 

We’ve also had profit from selling players like Bryan, Reid, Kelly and more recently Brownhill. The problem has been that, all too often during LJ’s time, we’ve re-invested in poor players, leaving us with the bloated but generally  mediocre squad that Pearson inherited, allied to Ashton’s management ensuring that we got diddly squat by allowing so many players’ contracts to run down this summer, most notably our £5m striker. 

Finally, because ffp limits how much of his personal wealth SL can put directly into the playing side of the club, profit from player sales goes towards keeping the losses within ffp limits. I think I’m right in saying ( @Mr Popodopolous and/or @Davefevs can hopefully confirm) that because ffp runs on a three year rolling cycle, we are now losing the years when we racked up big transfer fee profits, pushing our overall losses much too close to the ffp limit and this is probably the reason our finances are particularly squeezed just now - plus the impact of the pandemic over the last 18 months, of course - so that spending on players is very restricted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

Surely that will only apply to UEFA competitions, our FFP is defined by the Football League?

Initially, yes. But I expect it will filter down to the Championship in the near future, or the FL will create their own version of the reform.

Think of it like this: the FA is a member of UEFA and holds a permanent seat on the IFAB, which makes the laws of the game. If UEFA rolls this out, it almost certainly won’t be without the FA’s approval or prior knowledge so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they followed suit or did something similar. We already know the FA advocates a salary cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a novel twist of what the EFL could do, seeing as deducting points doesn't appear to be something they want to do.

They could AWARD points for clubs that are withing the FFP rules.

The better run your club is, and this could be across more than just numbers (first-time academy minutes for example) the more points you could get.

That way, no punishment for those basket cases, but a more level playing field for those who adhere to the guidance*.

*By guidance, I mean rules the EFL don't enforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Here is a novel twist of what the EFL could do, seeing as deducting points doesn't appear to be something they want to do.

They could AWARD points for clubs that are withing the FFP rules.

The better run your club is, and this could be across more than just numbers (first-time academy minutes for example) the more points you could get.

That way, no punishment for those basket cases, but a more level playing field for those who adhere to the guidance*.

*By guidance, I mean rules the EFL don't enforce.

While I’m more than happy with the concept of a club’s league position being worsened by penalty under ffp ( whether that be points deduction or transfer embargo) for breaking the rules, I’m not sure it would sit comfortably to see a club benefitting for anything other than on field performance.

The simple bottom line is that whatever rules and mechanism is in place to regulate clubs’ financial activities, the EFL just have to be better at writing the rules, more stringent in applying those rules, more demanding of clubs in adhering to all aspects of those rules ( e.g. timely submission of accounts) and unwavering in application of penalties when applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reading merely seem to be getting punished with transfer restrictions as an example.

On the EFL Embargo page Reading are listed as "Breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules" and Derby as "Profit and Sustainability Rules - non-submission of audited accounts".

So Reading submitted their audited accounts to June 2020 in April 2021 and the June 2021 period ended less than 8 weeks ago.  So the actual final position for the period 2017/18, 2018/19, (2019/20 + 2020/21) may not even be known yet and that is relevant to any punishment.

Plus, unless the club agree, the matter has to go to a Disciplinary Commission and Potentially a League Appeal Panel in due course.  I don't know what the current position is and whether or not the EFL are awaiting information, negotiating with Reading, or moving to charging and a DC, or sat around doing nothing.  However Reading are currently being punished to the maximum extent that the EFL can do under the rules.

What more can be done in 8 weeks?

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, downendcity said:

We have invested profit from player sales. A good example would be the money from selling Flint was used to buy his replacement Webster. 

We’ve also had profit from selling players like Bryan, Reid, Kelly and more recently Brownhill. The problem has been that, all too often during LJ’s time, we’ve re-invested in poor players, leaving us with the bloated but generally  mediocre squad that Pearson inherited, allied to Ashton’s management ensuring that we got diddly squat by allowing so many players’ contracts to run down this summer, most notably our £5m striker. 

Finally, because ffp limits how much of his personal wealth SL can put directly into the playing side of the club, profit from player sales goes towards keeping the losses within ffp limits. I think I’m right in saying ( @Mr Popodopolous and/or @Davefevs can hopefully confirm) that because ffp runs on a three year rolling cycle, we are now losing the years when we racked up big transfer fee profits, pushing our overall losses much too close to the ffp limit and this is probably the reason our finances are particularly squeezed just now - plus the impact of the pandemic over the last 18 months, of course - so that spending on players is very restricted.

 

Thankyou, that helps.........but I have found a site which purports to explain FFP to the layman........so when i have a spare 2 hours (ha!) i will endeavour to digest all the nuances. Thanks again ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hxj said:

On the EFL Embargo page Reading are listed as "Breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules" and Derby as "Profit and Sustainability Rules - non-submission of audited accounts".

So Reading submitted their audited accounts to June 2020 in April 2021 and the June 2021 period ended less than 8 weeks ago.  So the actual final position for the period 2017/18, 2018/19, (2019/20 + 2020/21) may not even be known yet and that is relevant to any punishment.

Plus, unless the club agree, the matter has to go to a Disciplinary Commission and Potentially a League Appeal Panel in due course.  I don't know what the current position is and whether or not the EFL are awaiting information, negotiating with Reading, or moving to charging and a DC, or sat around doing nothing.  However Reading are currently being punished to the maximum extent that the EFL can do under the rules.

What more can be done in 8 weeks?

  

If they have exceeded £39m in the given period, it's a Disciplinary Commission surely? Their own Regs state as such.

In the Birmingham case, they got referred pretty sharpish in 2018.

Their 3 years to 2018, the final one of which was 30th June 2018. EFL received amended Accounts ie updated ones sometime in July 2018, IIRC they were relying on sell on clauses from Butland and Gray to see them just over the line, clauses that never materialised.

By 2nd August 2018 there was an EFL Statement and think the Written Reasons said Birmingham were finally charged on 14th August 2018.

Awaiting info? If it's the believed numbers to 2021 then I don't see why they should be allowed to sign anyone at all in that period.

Negotiations? About what. The Rules/Regs are quite clear.

Quite clear the Club won't agree I reckon given their recent Statement complaining about matters, so the EFL should probably set the ball rolling in terms of a Disciplinary Commission ASAP.

All I'm saying is that between Receipt of info to June 2018 from Birmingham and charging them, the EFL moved rather quickly.

I've mentioned it before too, the obligations around T+1 and T+2. That combined with past data and Projections for T, It can certainly be harmonised nicely for real time monitoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Here is a novel twist of what the EFL could do, seeing as deducting points doesn't appear to be something they want to do.

They could AWARD points for clubs that are withing the FFP rules.

The better run your club is, and this could be across more than just numbers (first-time academy minutes for example) the more points you could get.

That way, no punishment for those basket cases, but a more level playing field for those who adhere to the guidance*.

*By guidance, I mean rules the EFL don't enforce.

Problem is they don't know who's broken the rules until the following season so the additional points wouldn't relate to the current season with the added complication of clubs promoted/relegated from other leagues with different FFP rules from the Championship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

Problem is they don't know who's broken the rules until the following season so the additional points wouldn't relate to the current season with the added complication of clubs promoted/relegated from other leagues with different FFP rules from the Championship

These Regs since 2016/17 are supposed to provide for a whole range of scenarios, including those that you list.

Timescale

By March 1st of the existing season, clubs are to submit to the EFL their Actual Accounts for the prior season and their Projected Accounts for the existing season. This is added to the Accounts for 2 seasons previous which is the 3 year FFP result.

That's supposed to allow for sanctioning during the existing season if needed, send it to a Sanctioning Hearing and if necessary an Appeal, if the overspend already proven.

That could streamline it nicely.

It gets better as if losses for a given period exceed £15m but fall below £39m, then the club in q has until 31st March of the existing season to submit their Projected FFP outcomes for the following 2 seasons. That can really provide a strong level of past, present and future monitoring.

Movement between Divisions

Tougher issue I'll grant you. PL and Championship have since 2016/17 had identical Regulations in this area pretty much, save for the loss limit (£35m with equity in a season in PL vs £13m at Championship subject to the equity bit) so movement between these two divisions and enforcement should be fairly straightforward but whether they are enforced in the same way well..who knows!!

A worked example pre Covid is, assuming equity to upper limit in play. 1 Season PL, 2 Championship=£61m. (£35m + £13m + 13m=£61m).

League One is a greater issue. Their Rules do differ entirely and the Devil is very much in the detail as to what constitutes obligations relating to final season as a Championship club. As in, is it to that final season (ie Relegation in 2021) or from that final season (ie beginning in 2021 and then still bound by it until Summer 2023 ie when it's disappeared from the Assessment period).

You might be interested in this post @downendcity as I remember you querying the drawing up and enforcement of the Regs. Save for the absurd Fixed Asset loophole, the Stadium section of which now seems to be closed there aren't all that many.

The speed and consistency of enforcement however, and the usage of the present and future obligations bit this leaves a hell of a lot to be desired!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If they have exceeded £39m in the given period, it's a Disciplinary Commission surely? Their own Regs state as such.

Not necessarily there is the option of an agreed sanction.

 

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Quite clear the Club won't agree I reckon given their recent Statement complaining about matters

Well to quote from a fortnight ago "However, it is important to understand that we are making progress. We can confirm that we remain in positive, constructive dialogue with the EFL"

 

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't see why they should be allowed to sign anyone at all in that period.

Because the Regulations say then can, as does historic EFL practice.

 

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Negotiations? About what.

Covid adjustments for an example; which side of a points deduction they fall is another; what if any mitigating factors or aggravating ones apply?

There is also the new board to consider.

I'm not sure that a delay of less than a month when compared with Birmingham is anything to get concerned about.  If we get through September with no published progress then I would get concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with decent chunks of this @Hxj, but not altogether sure I agree with it all. Unsure how to quote like you've done...

Quote

Not necessarily there is the option of an agreed sanction.

There is. I am unsure however that Reading would be amenable to any suitable agreed Points Deduction- their actions in not selling players- Olise was reportedly a buyout clause, their actions in seemingly offering players at one stage in this summer's process at least reportedly, longer contracts than was permitted- I just don't see them accepting it lightly or should I say their owner doing so, therefore I'm unsure how much gain there is in pushing for an Agreed Sanction that isn't a decent sized deduction or at least a deduction the size of the breach.

Quote

Well to quote from a fortnight ago "However, it is important to understand that we are making progress. We can confirm that we remain in positive, constructive dialogue with the EFL"

They did say that. They also however were unhappy about both the Embargo itself and reasons for the Embargo being made public and then some cryptic quotes about financial info:

Quote

The club remain extremely disappointed that existing English Football League regulations allow confidential financial information as well as the embargo status of clubs and the relevant transfer restrictions to become widely available in the public domain. When this confidential information becomes public, it naturally leads to inaccurate rumour and can subsequently weaken the club’s position within an already uncertain and unstable market – whether that be selling, signing or loaning players to or from the club or indeed offering contract extensions or renewals to first team players or those emerging from academies.

They I assume did not vote for it but there we go! Wonder what it means by confidential financial information however??

Quote

Because the Regulations say then can, as does historic EFL practice.

That's not entirely how I remember the Birmingham case- the Birmingham case saw signings within the parameters permitted only when it was established that a breach had occurred- there were reports through July and maybe bits of June that they were seeking to get the Embargo lifted but that the EFL were standing firm. The Statement on 2nd August 2018 was aligned with the announcement that they would be referred to an IDC and that they would be allowed to sign players under certain conditions, plus Register Pedersen and lastly was also announcing that they were under an imposed Business Plan.

Looking to add Pedersen while under a Soft Embargo might have forced the EFL's hand.

https://www.efl.com/news/2018/august/birmingham-city-profitability-and-sustainability/

2 or 3 days before this, ie approaching the end of July 2018 they said that they were still in talks with the EFL and therefore unable to add to the squad- reading between the lines it does seem that a full Hard Embargo was slammed on Birmingham while talks were ongoing in Summer 2018.

https://www.bcfc.com/news/articles/2018/birmingham-city-club-statement/

The point I was making was also that if Reading were not submitting the info, ie just refusing for the 2021 part of the combined accounts, then surely they couldn't make additions if the EFL did not have the full picture.

Quote

Covid adjustments for an example; which side of a points deduction they fall is another; what if any mitigating factors or aggravating ones apply?

There is also the new board to consider.

I'm not sure that a delay of less than a month when compared with Birmingham is anything to get concerned about.  If we get through September with no published progress then I would get concerned.

Mitigating and Aggravating factors can be heard in the IDC, as with other clubs- possibly even a LAP or Sanctioning Hearing?

Which side of a points deduction? If Under £39m, then they are as it stands compliant, if over then there are precedents in line with past cases- £0-1.999999m=3 pts, sliding scale etc.

For the record, I believe that they have breached to June 2021 in terms of an overspend.

Covid Adjustments are in accordance with guidance from the Board- Ticket Revenue, Commercial Revenue etc etc. Perhaps some Player Impairment and extra expenditure properly audited and trailed such as I dunno Hand Sanitiser, Covid securing the venue- could be that they've sold the Training Ground that's just been developed of course, they've sold most other fixed assets. Namely the Ground and then the Ground again, the old Training Ground, land around the Madjeski and a season long loan for Aluko to the owners Chinese club- that last one a bargain of £3m!

I don't follow, have the policies and policy objectives shifted? Suppose that could make a difference though with time-scale, the new board.

Fair, but they certainly moved quite swiftly on Birmingham from 30th June to Imposed Business Plan etc to formally charging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure how to quote like you've done...

If you highlight the text, right click with a mouse and click on "Quote Selection" that works for me - but I have an old fangled PC with keyboard and mouse!

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wonder what it means by confidential financial information however??

The published decisions contain lots of normally confidential details.  However most press releases in such circumstances are written by the owner for those ears and minds in the following order, the owner, the owner and the owner.

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

only when it was established that a breach had occurred

The EFL embargo website implies that such a breach has occurred.

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mitigating and Aggravating factors can be heard in the IDC, as with other clubs- possibly even a LAP or Sanctioning Hearing?

Agreed, but they are also relevant to an agreed sanction.

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Which side of a points deduction?

I actually meant where on the scale of mitigation they fall.  The figures are hard ones so a rounding difference could move you between bands.

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't follow, have the policies and policy objectives shifted? Suppose that could make a difference though with time-scale, the new board.

The EFL issued a press release on 14 July stating that three new Championship representatives had been appointed.  Plus at a guess dealing with the ongoing situations at Rochdale and Derby has been time consuming.

 

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

For the record, I believe that they have breached to June 2021 in terms of an overspend.

There's little doubt that that is what happened.

I don't think that we are very far apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is going to be a long hard season.i think steve lans is quite happy be a average champ side.but the way its panning out it could get worse.now we are after a striker from ac Stanley not the ambition of a chairman who wants premiership football.perhaps hes more interested in the rugby.??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/08/2021 at 07:28, Son of Fred said:

Which all comes down to one person,and one person only taking their eye off the ball...big time.

He's the one what done it.

It's ironic isn't it really. We're constrained by FFP because of how much money our millionaire owner has wasted.

If he really wanted to inject money though, what's stopping him "doing a man city/leicester" etc. Sell the name of the ground to a company in his own name and create a lucrative sponsorship contract? I know FFP will come into it, but as long as the sponsorship is a competitive price then it shouldn't raise too many questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MarcusX said:

It's ironic isn't it really. We're constrained by FFP because of how much money our millionaire owner has wasted.

If he really wanted to inject money though, what's stopping him "doing a man city/leicester" etc. Sell the name of the ground to a company in his own name and create a lucrative sponsorship contract? I know FFP will come into it, but as long as the sponsorship is a competitive price then it shouldn't raise too many questions?

Define a competitive price? At this level naming rights probably a couple of million a year for Stadium naming rights? Maybe less.

The Leicester thing was opaque, the Man City thing was really early as FFP was getting going and UEFA needed to act quicker.

4 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Haven't Chelsea sold for as much as they've bought this window?

Chelsea have become very good at maximising player profits on disposal. Guehi Tomori, Tammy? £60m for those 3 alone, could've been more. Pure profit as Academy. Man City are getting better at it too, what was Harrison? £15-20m?

Might also add PSG more interesting but one article suggested the likes of Gueye, Herrera, Icardi to name 3 could be sold, this would suddenly start to help offset. Certainly alternatively if Mbappe was to go for £150m then that would see them ok, final year of deal= say £150m - final year of Amortisation but the cost eliminated on disposal is a £150m improvement. Plus the wages they'd no longer need to pay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Haven't Chelsea sold for as much as they've bought this window?

Last summer they spent a huge amount as well though. 

So having a little look seems like following Man City winning their case against UEFA previously a lot of the big clubs just aren't following FFP as they are now pretty confident they would win if it goes to court. Hence Real Madrid making a bid of over 100 million for Mbappe despite them being 600 million in debt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MATT BCFC said:

Last summer they spent a huge amount as well though. 

So having a little look seems like following Man City winning their case against UEFA previously a lot of the big clubs just aren't following FFP as they are now pretty confident they would win if it goes to court. Hence Real Madrid making a bid of over 100 million for Mbappe despite them being 600 million in debt. 

Summer before that though didn't they have the embargo and sold Hazard? Am I making that up, assume that was a hefty positive balance. Not saying Chelsea are exemplary or anything but they've done really well on commanding fees for players sold this season with a couple more still to go potentially

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Define a competitive price? At this level naming rights probably a couple of million a year for Stadium naming rights? Maybe less.

The Leicester thing was opaque, the Man City thing was really early as FFP was getting going and UEFA needed to act quicker.

Chelsea have become very good at maximising player profits on disposal. Guehi Tomori, Tammy? £60m for those 3 alone, could've been more. Pure profit as Academy. Man City are getting better at it too, what was Harrison? £15-20m?

Might also add PSG more interesting but one article suggested the likes of Gueye, Herrera, Icardi to name 3 could be sold, this would suddenly start to help offset. Certainly alternatively if Mbappe was to go for £150m then that would see them ok, final year of deal= say £150m - final year of Amortisation but the cost eliminated on disposal is a £150m improvement. Plus the wages they'd no longer need to pay!

Good point, not a clue to be honest. Wasn't the Leicester deal they setup like 20-30 million? I read that their owner put in over £100m investment in the Championship creating a £34m loss the first season (mostly on player wages) and then that clever deal reduced it to £21m the next season. 

I hate the Leicester "fairy tale" story. They clearly did very well to win the league and the success they've had since, but without cheating FFP they'd still be languishing down here with us probably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Good point, not a clue to be honest. Wasn't the Leicester deal they setup like 20-30 million? I read that their owner put in over £100m investment in the Championship creating a £34m loss the first season (mostly on player wages) and then that clever deal reduced it to £21m the next season. 

I hate the Leicester "fairy tale" story. They clearly did very well to win the league and the success they've had since, but without cheating FFP they'd still be languishing down here with us probably

Happy to go back and look at Leicester, that was pretty contentious from memory- opaque too, 

This was a weird case, David Conn covered it quite nicely- but their wage bill and other costs did fall in the season of promotion (bonuses aside) so it's hard to say how much difference it made over a season given how dominant Leicester were with the 102 pts. ⬇️

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/leicester-city-finances-football-league-financial-fair-play-investigation

From 2016, seemed to actually drag until early 2018 until a final EFL-Leicester settlement. 

The rules themselves were materially different then however, the worst you could get was a fine if promoted and a Transfer Embargo based on the prior seasons if not, and was handed out in time for the Jan window of the existing season.

This case though seemed markedly different to a mere overspend, wonder what Sanctions the EFL would have pushed for had they returned within the Investigation period...a fine and or embargo wouldn't really cut it given the strange nature of the deals in 2013/14.

Pretty dodgy in hindsight, having had a bit of a further quick look...doubt they would have heard the end of it from the EFL had they returned rather quickly! ⬇️

Back at the time of the final settlement- and then the settlement itself. ⬇️

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-financial-fair-play-1245291

I doubt the PL were much help to the Football League in this instance...the difference though, the max sanctions arguable was the difference between a fine of £12.8m and £3.1m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MATT BCFC said:

Last summer they spent a huge amount as well though. 

So having a little look seems like following Man City winning their case against UEFA previously a lot of the big clubs just aren't following FFP as they are now pretty confident they would win if it goes to court. Hence Real Madrid making a bid of over 100 million for Mbappe despite them being 600 million in debt. 

2019/20 and 2020/21 were combined into a single period as well as Covid losses excluded for all. Chelsea made a notable profit in the 2019/20 half of this bit as well as a strong profit in 2017/18- 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 and 2020/21. None of our big sides have up to the most recent data, any FFP issues as such.

Real Madrid have a hefty debt pile but aren't loss making- there is also a fairly decent amount of allowable exclusions, not least Basketball wages as a multi-club system like varied in Europe. Their debt pile seems to be coming down btw, or maybe it's been refinanced- so yes they could do Mbappe IMO, again remember the Covid alllowances/exclusions and the rollup of 2019/20 and 2020/21- they've not actually made a cash signing since January 2020 also.

PSG are the interesting ones for me right now, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This case though seemed markedly different to a mere overspend, wonder what Sanctions the EFL would have pushed for had they returned within the Investigation period...a fine and or embargo wouldn't really cut it given the strange nature of the deals in 2013/14.

That was not the half of it according to local rumours, still swirling, but then again, loads of clubs were involved in dodgy stuff over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

That was not the half of it according to local rumours, still swirling, but then again, loads of clubs were involved in dodgy stuff over the years.

Wow that sounds very interesting. Definitely does, Dave Richards Jnr was and still is at the company I believe. Yes, sounds most interesting and the view of the Football League not just FFP wise but their general financial position would've been interesting to see.

12 minutes ago, 054123 said:

Not Bristol City. That sum doesn’t add up.

He has a fairly wide portfolio both within and without Bristol Sport, plus unsurprisingly he will spend on himself and his family. He has put quite a lot in over the years however and like a great many clubs and their owners, we are reliant on SL ultimately just to function.

Pure benevolence? No. Plus the theoretical gains that can be realised on sale/conversion to Property etc if it went that way (doubt it will under SL).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wow that sounds very interesting.

There is plenty of published stuff on the move from Filbert Street to the new stadium, plus an awful lot of rumours on various other aspects, how things were put together and financed. Mind you Leicester Tigers have an equally interesting history!

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...