Davefevs

Mr P - you on fire  

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Haha, I think many on here could be also classed as that- those who post on this thread for one and many more besides!

The other interesting angle- other than favouritism to "big" clubs of course, is that maybe the EFL only wish to punish the most blatant of breaches e.g. Birmingham and QPR heavily, to keep the "product" more attractive. Less money to spend on wages, means less bigger names, less players- it can still be done of course but the EFL are likely walking a tightrope. Serie B is quite a bit harsher on financial breaches though it is unclear if it's FFP or outright irregularities! Dunno if Germany still has the license requirement. As for EFL I mean if rules bent a bit, and especially if it is a "big" club look the other way and whistle. I also wonder if they messed up projected accounts legally by not punishing Birmingham in 2017/18...9 points slapped on a year earlier would surely have sent them down.

Birmingham's misfortune was through being too honest in a sense, and yet their fortune was the EFL seemed unwilling or unable to do projected accounts as submitted by Birmingham themselves in March 2018!! Precedent set- for the in-season punishments at least?

By way of comparison to a 2nd tier which while not as big as this League, go on Wiki, 2017/18 and 2018/19 Serie B...note how many points deductions etc! Think 2 clubs even got demoted TWO divisions from Serie B to D for financial irregularities.

I think this could be the pertinent point.

EFL aware of Brum’s difficulties in May 2018.  What did embargo and hand-holding them actually do to their accounts?  Nothing!  They ultimately post a loss in the ball-park they projected (you imagine).  So the embargo and hand-holding is about trying to correct them going forwards....it can’t possibly resolve their annual accounts unless they sold Adams early last summer.  That obviously didn’t happen....he’s still at Brum now.  In effect, they let Burton and Barnsley be relegated whilst they sorted out the mess.

That is what they’re now doing with Villa.  Soft embargo whilst they sort out out their sale and lease-back, whilst privately hoping they get promoted...the Prem won’t deduct points, they’ll apply a fine at worst, which is covered by the £100m+.  Had they lost to Derby, I’m pretty sure the ground deal would’ve been sped-up to fall into this year’s accounts and negate any further sanction.

All in all, the projected accounts should be a trigger for taking action in the season, when all they are really being used for is a trigger for the EFL to start helping a club (depending on their size) to get around sanction.

The argument I get Re FFP on twitter from Villa fans is Christian Purslow wrote the FFP rules, so they’ll be alright.  From what Copello states that probably enough for the EFL guys to not bother looking at Villa’s projected submission.

What I do find worrying is talk that they are under soft embargo....that must mean they are in trouble, in which case why haven’t the EFL docked them points / stopped them going up?

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I agree with a lot of what you say. Especially about the business of football.

I also think this issue won't go away though- a simple majority vote of the clubs, absolute democracy in action there.

I just don't see the remaining 21, 22 clubs accepting the status quo, how on earth can they. More to the point, why should they?

Maybe FFP will be scrapped in the Championship because letting 2-3 clubs get away with taking the piss is plainly untenable.

People like to and rightly so slate FIFA and UEFA, but are our own football Governing bodies really much better?

Part of the reason FFP was brought in was Platini (great footballer - awful administrator) wanting to break England’s dominance of the Champions League, allowing a French team a chance.  Spain then dominated, but it is going full-circle with English clubs again.  Platini couldn’t stop Sky, and PSG fail again.

The lower league versions in this country, I'm not convinced have been rigorously applied either, and it’s all becoming a bit of a farce.

If Gibson’s lawsuit fails to have any impact on the rules and Villa’s ground sale swells their coffers, then I think it’s time to admit defeat, and either accept there are those taking advantage of the rules and there are those who aren’t.  Not sure where SL will sit...unchanged I suspect, playing by the rules....but expect FFP to die a death.

According to Kieran Maguire, he thinks Villa have already sold their ground and leased it back.

10 minutes ago, reddoh said:

I am a simpleton,

but stupidly I think that they should change the rules slightly

when a club goes tits up 

1) the little people, suppliers (who currently don't get paid) get paid.

2) the staff (non footballers) get paid.

3) the footballers get paid

4) lastly and by no means most the owner gets what is ever left 

that should solve the problem???????

 

5) where Ken Anderson is the Owner, he should get eff all, and his son too.

I wonder what Gibson’s motives / objections are:

• Fair play?
• Financial compensation for Boro and financial ruin for Derby (assume they might then sue valuer)
• Derby denied promotion should they achieve it
• Adjustment of Derby’s FFP submission, resulting in embargo, points deduction, etc
• Loophole closed

25 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Steve Gibson has more balls than the EFL for being prepared to put his head above the parapet. 

I fear that Derby's will be able to defend their position on the basis tha they have not "broken" EFL rules in the strictest legal sense. 

However, as it is a civil action brought by one club against another it will be interesting to see if they for Derby under the "fair dealing with other clubs" (not sure of exact wording) part of the rules. 

If it achieves nothing else it will cause the EFL maximum embarrassment and might cause many to question why a club Is taking action for something the EFL should be addressing. 

The stream of twitter comments from fans only further reinforces the feeling that too many fans still don't get it. They see it as sour grapes and fail to appreciate the serious issues involved. 

It will force the issue - and I reckon a next action against the EFL for not following their rules.

The worm is turning.

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/24/aston-villa-restored-pride-hope-sense-identity/

What a lot of shit this article is- nauseating, biased crap...bet it doesn't mention their wild overspending despite Parachute Payments!

Now admittedly it is behind Premium so can only see some but...

I saw this on Twitter, refused to open it....almost puked at the thought.

I think this is a very clever move from Gibson.  Start a legal action before Villa and Wednesday (and anyone else) try the same.  Wonder how this will play out with the EFL.

Suspect SL is right behind him.

9 hours ago, downendcity said:

It's because of this that I cannot see how a forecast sale can be included in the accounts for ffp.

There seems to be an issue when a club has a financial year end falling in the summer, i.e. after the transfer window opens, as they can include a forecast sale, as Vila could well have done with Grealish.

However, at a stroke, this gives those clubs an advantage over every other club whose year end is end of March or end of the tax year, as those clubs don't have he summer window into which they can forecast a player sale in the same way.

 

All EFL and Prem clubs have to have an accounting year of End of May, June or July.

10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 

Talk about  a moving target!

If you are allowed to include the forecast sale of a player(s) then in theory every club could put in the forecast sale of their most valuable player to offset losses that would otherwise take them over the ffp limit. Given the EFL's diligence if said player was not subsequently sold then nothing would happen.

If they used Derby's valuer, then we could forecast the sale of Pato for £50m, be well within ffp limits and could afford to buy Harry Kane!

Anyone else getting the impression that the ffp rules are not worth the paper on which they are written?

That was pretty much my point a few weeks ago. 

If Villa gave included a forecast sale of Grealish, then they should be bound by it imho. If they don’t sale (because they’ve gone up) then in effect there losses are bigger and they should be denied promotion. 

That has been my point on this for a good while.  I really hoped the projected accounts would make a difference to previous wrongdoings.  Of course perhaps Villa included the forecast sale of Grealish?  I don’t know.  @Coppello - would that be allowed?

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm surprised it doesn't have implications for tax purposes, HMRC, the Revenue etc as well- but then I'm not a tax specialist! How can an asset just shoot up in value like that, it's nuts.

In fact, the Derby accounts from 2016/17, says the following- my take is that a £40m may have been generous but let's assume it is fairish value. Anyway though...below.

Bottom of P.22.

We're therefore expected to believe that it was undervalued by 50% in 2013, that it had somehow doubled and doubled again by 2017/18. Now it may- I don't know the ins and outs- but it may have had refurbishment done, corporate facilities on and off matchdays etc upgraded- I can accept that a valuation of £40m might- and I mean might- be possible if stretching it a bit. £80m though?? That's before even factoring in depreciation in the 4-5 years since this took place!

You have just answered the question the EFL guys should’ve been asking!  It’s been hideously over-valued to make Derby stay within FFP.

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very interesting stuff, this insight you are providing.

One question I would have, as the rules stand, in your opinion is it possible to strike from the record  the profit on transactions to related parties, or is that stable door and horses bolting? E.g. Derby FFP submissions would show £40m instead of £80m on 'sale' of Pride Park.

Surely if the submission was wrong, there must be an option to adjust.

48 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In either case, where does it leave clubs that have sold key players in order to stay within ffp and in so doing have compromised their chances of promotion, or risked them being dragged into a relegation battle?

Would be interesting to know what legal advice they might receive, as far as taking action against the EFL is concerned.

 

I think that is the angle Gibson and Lansdown are playing at.  I see the good intentions of the projected accounts, but the implementation when both 1) club annual accounting periods finish after the end of the season and 2) the transfer window Re-opens before 1, is flawed.  Villa will just sell Player X and / or Player Y for £Xm if they don’t go up.

Perhaps in Gibson / Pulis / Boro’s case they showed their hand too early in cutting costs?

Re Ground Sale, the EFL have already concluded Derby’s was fine....so have set the precedent....haven’t they?  Bit late to say they are gonna investigate Wednesday, and Villa if they do the same.

On 15/05/2019 at 10:54, downendcity said:

Not at all clear where the premier league stands regarding retrospective action.

Im guessing that if a club were to be fined or subject to a transfer embargo then they might well support such actions retrospectively. The big issue though is the question of points deduction for major breaches, and I can't see how this could be applied retrospectively, even if the premier league was in agreement.

As I mentioned previously, with projected accounts being provided in the third year I cannot see how and why any retrospective action should ever be required, unless the EFL cock it up or choose to kick a club's ffp issue into the long grass until a later date.

All we have at the moment is supposition ( albeit based on some pretty good forensic work by a couple of our in the know posters) from which there is strong suspicion that clubs like Villa and Derby have dogged a bullett by fair means or foul. If I was Birmingham City juts now I;d be spitting feathers and demanding the EFL explain their apparently less than even handed approach to championship clubs.

 

I wonder whether Birmingham could be the salvation here, in terms of Villa’s flouting of FFP and finally getting done.  Big wishful thinking on my part.

We keep thinking about their 9 point deduction, but often forget that was for the 3 year period to 17/18.  They are still gonna be in the shit for for the 3 year period to 18/19, so likely to be under embargo....and get a points deduction at some point in the 19/20 season, when the EFL finally act.  They might show leniency if Adams is sold and brings some sanity back to their accounts.  But compare to Villa, there 3 year period to 18/19, also gonna be a mess.  Villa (if promoted) are gonna give the EFL the middle finger, but surely the EFL would need to request the Prem to apply similar treatment.

If not....then the more likely scenario is that FFP is scrapped!  

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

He has, was giving an example of a case where a side could be FFP compliant but wrecked financially or vice versa.

I'll rephrase that then- when Anderson ran Bolton, they were FFP fine but in trouble in real cash terms.

Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday amongst others- likely to be the opposite!

Villa had cashflow issues at the start of this season, but now have FFP issues!

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If Villa's losses are as suggested, you couldn't imagine how desperate I am for the EFL to act now,  stop just talking the talk, get their fingers out of their collective arses and apply a points deduction to take them out of the play off positions.

This is not about being vindictive to a particular club, or that such action might benefit us, but because without hitting clubs hard ffp will be a farce and the EFL will effectively be condoning clubs cheating to gain an advantage over every other club.

A club in Villa's position being properly punished might just be the catalyst for ffp to do the job for which it was intended as other clubs will realise that it is not worth the risk.

Totally agree about not being vindictive.  The EFL brought in projected accounts to deal with exactly the scenario Villa are in - breaking the rules and going for promotion.  You could also argue that Birmingham's points deduction should’ve been last season.  Barnsley would’ve stayed up.  Or if they’d started 18/19 with 9 points deduction and been in relegation trouble at Xmas, might Adams have wanted to go then?  The EFL have had a real missed opportunity here.

39 minutes ago, downendcity said:

This is at the heart of why ffp was introduced in the first place.

My understanding is that one of the primary reasons for introducing ffp is to avoid the type of situation that affected Pompey when they dropped out of the premier league, i.e. expenses                ( particularly wages) well in excess of much reduced income. leading to insolvency.

If Villa's figures are as suggested, then it seems that since relegation they have effectively ignored financial expediency, choosing instead to go for broke to gain a quick return, on the basis that premier league riches will then bring the books back in order. The fact that they borrowed against their third year of parachute payments is a clear indication of the lengths they have gone to gain the maximum advantage over the rest of the division.

It's little different from a couple being in mortgage arrears, at the limit of their overdraft and maxed out credit cards, borrowing £20,000 from money lender to buy lottery tickets, in the hope that buying enough tickets will give them a jackpot that will solve their financial problems!

Forget for a moment the fact that clubs like this are taking the 9i55 out of all the other clubs ( like us) that are trying to manage prudently and within the ffp rules, they are risking the club's future because, was you say, failure to gain promotion could leave them with a black hope financially.

 

 

 

 

You couldn’t imagine how desperate I am for Villa to ****-up in the play-offs.

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree- it's beyond a joke. Obscene sums it up to a tee!

The only workarounds I can think of are- ones that maybe classed as legit that is:

Grealish sale pre-arranged, regardless of promotion- maybe that could be shifted into accounts for this year for £25m or so. Say arranged in Feb, taking effect as soon as window opens. Still pretty dubious though- if they'd wanted that they could legitimately have sold him for £25m in Jan and offered to let him continue to kick on for half a season of continued development on a loan back. Dicy but legit. Certainly not unheard of.

OR

If somehow they get a large sum as the final tranche of HS2 Compensation- HS2 compensation seems like it's gone nowhere fast but you never know- if they got say £25m this season that'd get them just over the line. The £3m I assume was HS2 but it still seems a bit up in the air.

Beyond that? 21 point deduction and embargo seems in order I'd say, based on the formula. Or 12 points at the bare minimum, would have to look up the formula in full again.

£15m could be possible, if Aston Villa really want to go for it on youth development as part of a new strategy then it's possible to believe it was legit- still a bit of a stretch though IMO.

Then again, there is an argument that says HS2 compensation shouldn't count towards FFP. Because if training ground expenditure etc doesn't, why should income from the admittedly unfortunate Bodymoor Heath HS2 thing count as FFP income? Club income yes...but not FFP.

Plus wow look at this...

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role

Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things.

Wow indeed.

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Aren't they getting a chunk of money selling land for HS2?

Couple of million isn’t it????

£15m FFP Exclusions seems high too.

Thanks for posting.  What it does show is that they are £25m over the FFP threshold for the 3 year rolling period ending this season.  A breach of somewhere near this magnitude much be in the projected accounts submitted in March.

Its obscene...unless of course they’ve been allowed to factor some huge “income” stream in before the end of their financial year.

10 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Quick thought on Derby, yes they escaped ffp issues by selling their stadium to a company owned by their owner. given their stadium is now not owned by the club itself, they rent it, does that mean that they can't count match day revenue towards income meaning they will eventually succumb to ffp anyway?

surely their match day revenue goes to the company that owns the stadium? Am I being stupid?

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.

8 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

Indeed we did but I think that was under the previous loan regime when you could loan players for periods shorter than a season

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.