Davefevs

You’re not being stupid....but however Derby structure their various businesses they will cover off / include match day income. No real difference to City, where Ashton Gate Ltd own the ground.

Yes, you had the usual half and full season loans, but also the emergency loan system (up to 93 days). Matt Smith was an emergency loan.

I believe we are in agreement.

Agree RH. Which is why I wonder what purpose the projected accounts serve. They were brought in (I believe) to apply penalties in the current season. But my hypothetical scenarios prove how difficult they are to implement in that period. And if Villa get promoted, I don’t see the Prem applying the sanction on the EFL’s behalf. Surely if Villa only scraped in for the 3 years up to 17/18, when allowed £61m losses, their projected accounts for the period to 18/19 when only allowed £39m must have smashed it. I believe Birmingham’s 3 years upto 18/19 would be the same. That is why my hope is that Villa, Derby don’t go up and they have an embargo and points deduction for start of next season. The question would then be why were they allowed to deny say us or Boro a playoff place (should that happen)!!!

All we can really hope for now is that neither Villa or Derby get promoted via the play-offs. None of the top 4 are in danger of breaching FFP, nor are we, so I hope the final promotion place comes from within the 5 (top 4 and us). We will then get to see how the extent of Villa and Derby’s projected accounts manifest into actual accounts over the summer (even if we don’t see them published ourselves til much later). Imagine for a second the hypothetical situation that Villa would bust the limits, but included the projected selling of Grealish for £25m before the end of their accounting year (again lets keep this hypothetical) to show intention to the EFL to not take the piss out of FFP. You then get several scenarios and considerations of Villa not going up: they do in fact sell Grealish for £25m and they fall into line within the 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season. Sounds fine, but EFL need to decide whether in the spirit of FFP. [What is to stop any team spending £200m to buy promotion, but sell those players if they don’t go up?] However, the EFL should also be on guard that the next 3 year rolling period includes huge losses from the first two seasons, that requires more cost cutting than selling one player. They would need to go on regular monitoring and embargo of some sort. they sell Grealish, but buying clubs know Villa are desperate and only stump up £15m. Villa now in breach for 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season. Straight embargo and points deduction to start 19/20 season based on scale set in Brum points deduction. Same as 1. Re next 3 year rolling period. they don’t sell Grealish. I dread to think, maximum punishment possible??? In the above scenarios, Grealish has been used as their security. What if they won promotion through the play-offs? they still have to sell Grealish for £25m. Toughski Shitski! They now fall into a Prem guidelines....still seems outside the spirit of FFP imho Promotion denied promotion denied I just can’t see 2 & 3 above happening. None of the first 4 of the 6 scenarios really satisfy the spirit of FFP. They’ve taken a gamble of over-spending, knowing that punishment can’t really take place within the season they’ve taken the gamble in. Anyone any bright ideas.

@Olé actually I wasn’t suggesting Gibson would look to form a breakaway, was thinking more Villa, Leeds, etc would...you know the “entitled teams”, who still think they are Prem teams.

Cue the break up of the EFL, the formation of a breakaway league, who misguidedly think they are Prem 2...only to realise the Prem are quite happy sharing between 20 clubs and don’t want to further spread their wealth!!!!

I don’t believe it is as simple as that. AGLtd has a big loan to service and a depreciation charge too. It won’t be a token rent payment. Ticketing is under Bristol Sport (not AGLtd) so again charged back to City at arms-length.

And I forgot, Mel / Derby has his own approach to amortisation.

I agree. I suspect too that we submit accounts to the EFL based on BCH level accounts. I was unsure initially, but the more I’ve read, the more I suspect it to be true. However for pure FFP, I do wonder whether certain things have to be excluded, e.g. non-football related stuff. It is complicated though. I do know that BCFC Ltd, receive nothing from Take That, Rod, Spice Girls, Muse gigs. The other thing is that overall BCH made a loss in 17/18, so as per DownendCity’s post, Lansdown is not trying to hide stuff...he is doing it all above board. He fully understands regulation. We will see next week whether Mel Morris is quite so transparent. As above I suspect Steve Gibson suspects not.

@RIP (rams in peace) that is not strictly true Coppello. I’ve done a fair bit of looking into the accounts. Ultimately all under Steve Lansdown / Pula in some shape or form though. Bristol City Football Club Ltd and Ashton Gate Limited are two separate companies, brought together under Bristol City Holdings. BCH is purely a holding company, undertaking no trading itself. AGL own the Ground, and City (and Bears) pay AGL rent to use it. AGL have an operating profit, but ultimately made a loss last year because of depreciation of the asset and payment of interest on the loan for the ground to SL / Pula. It’s complicated. What SL / Pula / AGL have done is properly value the ground based on the “arms length’” agreement between companies with mutual ownership, e.g. must be done at market value and charge an appropriate rate of interest on the loan. Therein lies the difference between Bristol City / SL and Derby / Mel Morris....who has (allegedly) over-valued Pride Park to create a false profit figure to then offset significant losses on the football side, both companies he is interested in.... ....and Steve Gibson bloody knows it....and next Wednesday he will attempt to convince the other Championship owners of this. I very much suspect he has gained support from SL. I sense this is all about to come to a head....but no idea which side will end up winning.

If true, this is the start of the end, one way or another....either proper professional control implemented by EFL, or a Wild West “do what you want”. I honestly think Gibson is well respected, and will have allies other than Lansdown. I’ve no idea about the true value of Derby’s ground, but it appears they have taken the piss, the EFL have passed it, and Gibson is about to remind them of their rules. Wednesday extending their annual reporting period - no smoke without fire. You can imzgine support from Brentford and Preston too.

I always wondered how they’d implement the projected accounts against the scenario of selling a player in the summer to balance the books. Flawed. Birmingham proved you can undertake a transfer at any time without necessarily getting the registration recorded (Pedersen). Just got to hope Villa or Derby don’t go up.

Agree, no sell off required...their model of several top players (Hernandez etc), but willingness to supplement with young homegrown is spot on for a non-parachute club. £40m income helps though!

Yep, swings and roundabouts of that approach. Their actual accounts (when scanned in) will be interesting.

Expect SL to have MA all over this. Wonder what 18/19’s projected accounts state? 16/17’s were only £7.9m, minus the usual £5m Allowance, so on,y £2.9m loss. Vydra might just have saved them! But they are stuffed next season.

This might be interesting.

Not quite Championship FFP, but Burnley’s successful model

@Mr Popodopolous has beaten me to it this time!!! Each club must report on either a May, June or July year-end. The third years accounts are on a projected basis, submitted early (by 31/3) than financial year end to allow sanctionin the season. Having sorted out Brum for the 3 year period to 17/18, they (the EFL) now have their biggest test....how to apply sanction if a breach has occurred during the current season. They made a pigs ear of the process with Brum because they took too long. Now we know the sanctions for the value of breach, it really ought to simple to view to 2 years accounts plus the projection and enforce sanction soon after the deadline of 31/3. If I were SL I’d be telling LJ to keep fighting til the end of the season even if it looks a lost cause. Three of our rivals may get points deductions late on...whether fair or not so late in the season. I really don’t think any club gave grounds to complain over blatant overspending.

But for Villa that is for the 3 seasons 15/16-17/18, not the current 3 season rolling period 16/17-18/19, where 18/19 will be based on projected accounts.

Think Wolves we’re fine with allowances for promotion bonuses and the usual Academy, etc stuff.

Don’t they have to power to stop promotion / play-offs, I.e. not just give points deduction, which might not be sufficient?

Interesting. Gibson very respected. This is gonna get interesting.

Your 1st para is spot on. If they don’t do it, they have failed the FFP-Abiding clubs....and I do think this is part of the reason MA is now on the board.

Not on any firm ground here, but FA / PL is immaterial here. That only covers whether a player is legitimately allowed to play or not. What will matter is any documents relating to the sale. Those might be one in the same thing as the registration. But if both clubs have signed a “contract” to transfer him, then he’s Cardiff’s player, whether registered or not. Brum signed Perderson without him being registered....was still Brum’s player!!! Tragic whatever the truth. And assuming he was Cardiff’s “asset”, then anyone with any morals associated with the club should resign and hold their heads up high. Will they though!