DerbyFan

I mentioned this in post 678, I actually quoted that particular section of the rules! (1.1.2 and (a)) The old rules (from the first tweet) are the ones in Part 1 on the EFL website, they relate to 2015/16. The new rules (from the second tweet) are the ones in Part 2 they relate to 2016/17 onwards. The old rules seem to only be there as a reference because the year 2015/16 was included in the 3 year rolling period leading to 2017/18.

I've got no idea which accounts are used for the FFP submissions. I've said before, the club have been saying for the last few years that we need to get our costs in line, we are reducing our costs for the future, the players bought in will be on less than the ones leaving, that will start to come to fruition now that a lot of contracts are ending in a few days time, then there will be a few more this time next year.

We didn't break the rules so I'm not sure why that keeps getting mentioned! That's not what he was saying at all, he's talking about it from our point of view obviously as he's our owner and he only sees how it directly affects us, but if you think he's not aware that all other non parachute clubs have the same issues then I think you've listened to it wanting to hear that and not listened to what was actually said.

It was a really good listen, as a Derby fan I feel very lucky to have him as our owner! He actually mentioned the stadium valuation, he said about having it valued and paying the valuation and 'if I'd have bought it for a penny less then I'd have had HMRC on my back asking me why I've undersold' or something along those lines, I can't remember the exact wording. As I had mentioned before, he talked about using the stadium for events, he mentioned that currently it is only used for around 30 days of the year and how many clubs want to use their stadium for events during the close season and that there's too many basically so you don't get much for it and how we can use it during the season. He talked about having a retractable roof put onto the stadium (as the local rumours had been saying, and also as confirmed in that Sky article) and also finding a way of covering the pitch that was not only quick, but allowed the pitch to grow and flourish rather than yellow and die, as we still want to play good football so don't want a dodgy pitch, he said if this worked the way we think it will then it will allow use of the stadium for 100 events a year and bring in around £12m revenue! You can actually listen to it via the TalkSport website, if you go via the 'Schedule' link at the top, then click the 'Listen Again' link for the Jim White show, it's on there in 30 minute sections, he came into the studio around 10.45am.

Ha, funnily enough that's exactly what I am, although add in the word season between Stand and ticket. I'm certain (because I don't have any inside information) that if you go through my posts and search anything that I've put you will find it somewhere, if not then it's probably something that was in one of the televised fan forums that we've had, or possibly a radio interview, which it's possible may not be transcribed in an article anywhere.

No, I'm just a fan, someone else asked the same question previously. I'm not sure what you mean by the tone of my posts, if you mean because I stand up for my club, then doesn't everyone? I'm not saying anything that's not public knowledge - because I don't have any inside information.

Was someone celebrating? I was just pointing out some facts as you were implying we were such a poorly run club. I wasn't saying it was perfect, but you have to make the best of every situation and I believe that's what we've done by finishing in the top nine whilst having all those changes. I know everyone craves stability, but you certainly can't blame the last two managerial changes (well one and that's one expected very shortly) on Mel Morris. Rowett when appointed admitted he had wanted this job for years (source), he's lived in Derby for over 20 years, his son has grown up supporting us. Who would have expected him to walk out on us to go to Stoke in the manner he did after a season and a bit? To be honest by the end of the season quite a few of our fans were getting frustrated with his pragmatism. Going into the second leg of the play offs against Fulham trying to hold onto a lead rather than attack didn't help. In hindsight, with that in mind and with the season that followed, getting almost £2m for him was actually great business. Our fans annoyance with him leaving and the whole 'snake' thing was due to his comments after rebuffing their advances once and signing a new contract here in the January (source) and then choosing to walk out, to the same club, when they were no longer even in the league above us, about four and a half months later! A cynic would wonder if he just didn't want the likely relegation on his CV? With Lampard - who on earth, regardless of his standing at Chelsea, would expect them, a club that finished third in the Premier League and won the Europa League, to come after a Championship clubs manager after just a year in management?! It feels so odd to even type those words it's that strange a situation. Our fans obviously want him to stay but we know that's not going to happen, it's Frank Lampard and Chelsea, he's not going to turn them down when they come calling, as much as we'd like him to. But it would be the same situation no matter the club he was at, regardless of their standing and league, if Chelsea came calling he'd be going. At least when they do the £4m they will have to pay helps the finances. We apparently added in a clause that means it costs more for them to take him because they're in the Champions League, so, if true, that can only be described as clever business sense.

If you actually look at the situations at the time there was one (McClaren) in place in May 2014 when he bought a minority (22%) stake in the club, then there was another (Clement) in place in September 2015 when he bought the rest of the club (source), since then we've had four permanent managers (Pearson, McClaren MKII, Rowett and Lampard), one interim (Wassall - after Clement) and one caretaker (Powell - after Pearson). Sam Rush, ex CEO, left in May 2017, when Rowett was in charge. So while you may say the next one will be the ninth under Mel Morris, it's not as simple as that, it rarely is. For all the manager changes we've actually not finished below ninth in that time, and we've finished in the play offs for four out of the last six seasons, there's worse clubs to be. Anyway, at least when Frank goes we'll have made around £6m in compensation from the last two, better than having to pay them off!

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today. Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here? I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

I agree, of course clubs will do it if it helps them and they're allowed to. I don't really know what the EFL can do to fix the flaw. Would forcing clubs to have reporting periods ending by April, so that they can't project a sale happening after the season work? But then I don't know if there's a way around that too, would having a sale set up ready to go when the window opened be a way around it? Or because that sale would only go through after the end of April (when the window opens) be enough? Could a club use their post balance sheet events as mitigation if they did fail? So many questions! ?

Playing devil's advocate a little, depending on which club's senior executive is quoted could have a huge bearing on the comment, as if it was, say, a Villa executive then he would say that, wouldn't he? As for "taking potshots .......... when on-field results go badly". I remember this sort of comment being trotted out by Leeds fans when our owner was pushing for Leeds to be punished over the spygate incident and I've seen comments from Villa fans along similar lines when their ffp position has been questioned i.e. it's sour grapes or jealousy. The issue is not that club's are aggrieved because their own results have gone against them, it is that if a club has breached ffp but escaped any punishment then they have gained an advantage over all the other clubs clubs that have complied with the same set of financial rules. I am sure all clubs and fans would be more than happy to "let the authorities do their job". It is the fact that the authorities, i.e. the EFL, do not appear to be doing their job when it comes to ffp that is causing other people to "interfere. The ulterior motive such people have is to ensure the EFL applies ffp rules properly and fairly across all clubs and ensures that any club that breaches is properly penalised - there appears to fairly widespread scepticism as to whether this is the case currently. It could be but it obviously doesn't say who it was, so how can we know? I'm not going to assume I know who it's come from as I have no idea. I haven't seen any other direct quotes referencing the April meeting saying anything to the contrary. Have you seen any? I can't know the reasoning behind their quotes, I did notice they used the phrases 'that everyone realised' and 'we all realised after discussion'. They seem to be talking like it was unanimous once they'd all discussed it? That would fit with the quotes I posted before from Mel Morris saying that no one voted for Gibson's proposal including his own clubs representative/s (whoever they were as he didn't even seem to attend according to the BBC): If the clubs themselves decided not to vote for Gibson's proposal, who are we to say anything different? They were the ones that saw the EFL's presentation, they were the ones that had the discussion, they were the ones that had the chance to vote for it. They didn't. Unless anyone comes out and says they did vote for it and the quotes from both Mel Morris and the person (whoever they are) quoted above are wrong, or tells us a different reason than the above as to why they didn't vote for it, then that's all we've got to go on, for now. Re. the 'taking potshots' and 'ulterior motives' comments, you realise those were the comments from the 'senior executive' quoted and not myself? If the other clubs felt so strongly about clubs 'gaining an advantage' or if there was such 'widespread scepticism' they could have voted for the proposal or couldn't they have tried with a different proposal themselves? There would have to have been 75% voting in favour for it to be passed wouldn't there? If there are only a few clubs causing an issue, surely that would have been an easy target to hit from all of the others? I've covered most of this in my reply above, so won't go over it all again - see above for my thoughts on the quotes. Although I will add, at the time Middlesbrough were still fighting for top 6 with the clubs that he was accusing, is it possible that the executives of the other clubs thought about exactly why Gibson might have been making his accusations ie. he might have believed they wouldn't finish in the top 6 (as did come to pass) and was trying to unsettle some of the clubs they were directly competing with and they did actually believe he had an ulterior motive? A few things I've found, that may or may not be relevant to the stadium valuation discussion, but I thought they were interesting none the less: Here (Click 'OUR SPECIALISMS' -> 'Sport stadia') Here (Page 3 - Although seems to be from 2006, so it's possible it may no longer be relevant - I've not read much past that bit yet either, it's quite a long read!) Re. The Villa situation, weren't Birmingham punished for their 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 season losses? If so, didn't the EFL say at the time that Birmingham were the only club to have failed FFP for this period? In that case the only period that Villa (or anyone else for that matter) could have failed for is their 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 losses, ie. ending this season, which although finished, most clubs actual accounting periods don't end until later, giving them time after the season in which they made the loss to rectify it, once their know their future seasons financial position. With the situation, as it stands, under the current rules (regardless of whether you believe it is right or not to be able to do so) had they stayed down they presumably could've sold players before the end of their accounting period after the end of the season which would've meant they stayed within the rules. I'm not saying it is likely they would have been able to cover a big loss had they stayed down, but they could surely argue they could have, and as they didn't stay down, now no one will ever know if this would've happened or not. As it stands, having been promoted, I'm not sure when they get their first Premier League payment/s? If this is outside of their accounting period, I assume what they could do is take a loan on their guaranteed income to cover themselves for whatever they are behind by? In the same way that I believe they (and others?) have done when they've taken loans out on their future years of parachute payments? Even if their losses are above those allowed and they chose to deliberately disregard FFP for this season, ie. not cover the loss anyway to make sure. Unless the Premier League are willing to align themselves with the EFL on the situation then there is sadly nothing that anyone can do about them having a points deduction into next season, this it the problem having different organisations controlling leagues with in the same league structure. If they do still fail FFP, I guess the only thing the EFL could do to hit them currently is fine them a hefty amount. They might be able to 'park' a points deduction so that the next time they fall under their jurisdiction that comes in play? But I imagine as no one knows whether that will be 1, 2, 10 or even more years from now that might be something they try to avoid, so as not to hit any possible future owners? If it does turn out that they failed FFP, and we passed, then we would have lost out at Wembley for a second time to a team that failed FFP, but once again there would be nothing that we could do about it, so we'd once again have to deal with it. I don't know how, apart from making clubs have their financial years ending prior to the end of April (ie. before the end of the season to stop post season fixes), the EFL can fix this situation in the future, so that any punishment for a breach is dealt with in the season in which it occurs. But even then don't they have months to file them with Companies House? Will they have them ready before that or not - I assume not? So how do the EFL make sure that they have them by the end of April (and go through them all) so that they can hand out punishment before the end of the season? Or is this the point of the P&S submission, you're basically submitting your accounts details to them early? But then how can you do this when you have to file that before your accounting period ends and things could change? It's not easy is it.

That article is from March and references a meeting at the end of February (at Pride Park incidentally), the article to which I was referring was after the meeting in April (at Forest), in which the EFL's own finance team did a presentation. It is also the Telegraph and also written by John Percy here: There's an interesting article here from 2 days ago about Blackburn's position, which references the stadium sale being within the rules: I do find the quote on this tweet quite interesting: From here it looks like we weren't one of the clubs that lobbied against Gibson's proposal: These are apparently Tony Pulis' comments from their Norwich programme notes (my bolding, quote from here) : He seems to go from being 'clear' that others haven't abided by the rules, to then saying 'apparent breach' of the rules, which sounds not so 'clear' after all? The reason that I was sceptical in a previous post about the Daily Mail's very recent claim (30 May here) : that we were under a soft transfer embargo is because of this quote from John Percy (normally very reliable with our news) in the Telegraph (15 April here) : As we have now announced Shinnie (7 May here - I think it's possible that it was only announced this much later because he had an injury in between and knowing how soon he would be back we didn't want to announce him whilst he was injured) then either it has already been lifted and the Daily Mail are wrong, or John Percy was wrong (which would be very unusual) that we couldn't announce Shinnie until it had been lifted. From the quote in my previous post *678 (from the EFL regulations) that suggests you wouldn't be able to register new contracts if in breach of the rules and we have at least signed Roos on one, that's another reason to believe it has been lifted. All of this together would seem to suggest that the league have passed our accounts. I have actually been pondering whether a soft transfer embargo is the default position of a (ie. every) club while the EFL finance team mentioned earlier do their own checks after P&S and/or account submissions. As I think we were one of the later ones to submit our accounts to Companies House, it may stand to reason that it then takes longer to clear. As this post is already very long I'll post my thoughts on the Villa situation later.

Yes, I can't see how it can be at all possible that Sheffield Wednesday won't fail FFP at some point, haven't they only sold 1 player (to you) of any significance (or at all?) in something like 3 years? And I seem to remember that their owner actually told them that if they didn't get promoted they would be in big trouble? Unless of course they can do or have done a stadium sale that covers for period they were going to fail for, that also covers the amount they were going to fail by. But I don't know 1. The valuation or 2. The book value of Hillsborough, to know whether this is achievable or not. Re. Reading, just wondering, is it possible that the stadium was actually valued (not the book value) at more than the sale price but their owners didn't want to put in that much money so if they had a specific amount of loss to cover (ie. the amount of profit created from the sale once the book value is taken off) that this why they sold the stadium for the value they did? Can you sell an asset for a lot less than you know it is worth? Griffin Park - very interesting, I find it strange in that case that theirs, even with a London premium, can be worth more than Reading, who are also southern and have a much nicer stadium. I notice from their accounts that Brentford used the same company we did for our 2013 valuation, Jones Lang LaSalle. Re. Ashton Gate, I've seen an article (Bristol Post) that describes the work as costing £100m in total (including for not yet completed or future developments I assume?). I've also seen a BBC article from 2013 that says £40m developments (presumably this would have been a bit more by the time it actually happened like most things with a few years in between?). Is the £42m odd that you mention, the total valuation of your completed (£40m?) development works and what was already existing? Or is that the value of work that you have had done to it, minus the existing? All I know, from the accounts, is that Pride Park was valued at £55m in December 2007 by King Sturge LLP (now incorporated into Jones Lang LaSalle), seemingly both highly respected companies for this kind of thing. It was revalued in 2013 by Jones Lang LaSalle (but no new value has been stated in the accounts as far as I can see) and both of these valuations were before the vast majority of the works I listed the other day, in fact I think it was only the internal big screen (and maybe the exterior ones) that were done just before 2013. Then it was valued in 2018 at £81m or whatever it was, for the sale, but it doesn't state by which company. I don't know what anyone else would offer for it, but if an unrelated respected company has given it a valuation of £55m some 11 years before the sale (and some 10 years after it was built for a total cost of somewhere between £21-28m) then I can only assume they do and that would've been the amount at the time, in 2007.

I'll go have a nosy, that's another forum I like to lurk on! ? So were they wrong about Gellaw Newco 201? Did someone misread and then miscommunicate it somewhere along the line? At least we now know that it was within the accounting period then. Re. Hillsborough, I assumed they wouldn't have sold theirs until this years accounts anyway, 2019? If they were intending to do the sale for the 2018 accounts then it would definitely have been done outside of the accounting period if the above quote about still being registered with the club at 17 May is true? Although I think they are still to file their 2018 ones? I can't see in the rules where profit from the sale of fixed assets is excluded from P&S for Championship clubs, so I'm not sure why they have stated this, unless the rules, in full, are not the same as on the EFL website? The quote I mentioned in a previous post from Mel Morris (article in the Derby Telegraph) specifically said that the sale of fixed assets was allowed in the rules, I can't think why else would you want to sell a fixed asset but to gain a profit? For comparison, Reading, I believe lease their stadium? £1.1m a season, I seem to recall?* Less capacity but at £50m seemingly cost around double to build in 1998 (only 1 year after Pride Park opened in 1997), down South - so more expensive rental value to counteract the capacity? *Actually, their accounts seem to say that their rent is only £750,000 to the parent company. It surely can't be as simple as only the land having the value, because regardless of the limited usage of a stadium (unless you get creative with it being a performance venue) it has cost something to build and/or make improvements to, can you imagine being the person that has to tell Spurs that their new £1bn stadium is now only worth the land value. ? As the Ricoh Arena debacle shows there doesn't have to be a team in the near vicinity to attract a buyer - they were London Wasps weren't they? Sainsbury's presumably would only have been interested in the land though (unless they wanted to branch out into the sport world? ?) which maybe would have limited the value if they were the only interested party at that time?

I'm not sure what all of that means, but does it not say the registered owner is Gellaw Newco 202, and not Gellaw Newco 201? ? I'm not sure why the liquidation of Gellaw Newco 201 is relevant - have I missed something? If the date shown is the date of the search, then surely that doesn't have any bearing on when the transaction took place? Do you mind me asking which site you found it on? If that is the date of a search then I can't help but wonder why someone went looking for this information in January? ? The sale was only made public knowledge (as far as I'm aware anyway, ie. I'd not seen anyone mention it previously, and I feel sure someone on our forum or Twitter would have picked up on it) when we released the accounts.

Ahh, but what are your book values? And why so convoluted, just each buy your own! ?

I can't speak for them, it just surprised me due to situations I've seen or heard about in the past. I believe that at that meeting it was said the owners heard the briefing by the EFL's own finance people and were so impressed by it, that they trusted them to get things right. I'll try and find a link, it may have been live on Sky Sports News that this was said, not sure, hopefully there will be an article to back this up somewhere too. That's fine I didn't expect them to say where it was that they worked, but sometimes when people have been together on a forum for a while, things become common knowledge between longstanding members that others don't know so I wasn't sure if others were maybe aware. It may not have been relevant, I wasn't sure, I saw on Zoopla (maybe Rightmove? one of them...) that Derby has had a 12% increase in property values since 2016, that seemed quite high I thought. I don't know about Leicester's valuation, that actually seems low to me, when you think about how expensive stadia are to build these days - look at Spurs ?, but I'm only a layperson. I don't know if they're a good comparison, but on the other Derby venues I mentioned before, the Arena (velodrome) next to the stadium apparently cost the Council £27-28m to build - opened 2015 (I feel pretty sure the land was already council owned, it was built on an existing car park, so I guess the cost may not include the acquisition of the land?) granted theres a huge amount of wood for the track and all the work that making the actual track involved, but the building itself is pretty simple, nice but basic, only 1500 fixed seats. The Assembly Rooms that had the fire in the plant room (which was on top of the car park, not the main building, so very little damage to the main part) will apparently cost the Council £24m to fully refurbish, the cost to replace it would apparently have been £44m for a 3000 seater music and performance venue with car park. It's even costing the Council another £42m to replace an old swimming pool complex. Like I say, I don't know whether those values are at all relevant, but given the relative sizes and complexity of the buildings involved they could be? As an aside, I have no idea - do construction costs vary much depending on location? Or are most of the differences in costs due to location down to the land value, or the actual location itself being desirable? Maybe, but Mel Morris doesn't seem to do that, he's very straight talking from what little I've seen and heard (televised fan forums, radio interviews) (the quotes mentioned before I think show this) he's very compelling to listen to, if you watch the clips of him you mentioned previously, I think you'll see. From those quotes he does seem unhappy that even after offering it and seemingly being ignored, it appears Gibson is still going for us, especially with the things that he points out Middlesbrough having done themselves previously, with their representative saying the same thing he is now ie. it was within the rules. Presumably Forest would be angry because 1. It's us ? and 2. I don't think they can do the same as I think their ground is Council owned. Leeds, who knows, although I did notice they were mentioned by the Times as being close to FFP or something in the article you quoted in your other thread, I believe they bought their ground back quite recently too? Maybe they don't have any book value to market value headroom because of this? Man City are under both PL and UEFA FFP rules - it is the UEFA ones they are supposed to have broken isn't it? We (clubs in the EFL) are under EFL FFP rules, they are not one and the same thing, so surely the situations cannot be compared? That's the thing, as this point none of us know what the EFL did (or didn't) do with regard to it, which is why I asked what if their valuation was the same earlier, we simply don't know, we (as in the fans of the clubs rather than the clubs themselves) may never know, actually even the clubs themselves may never know, apart from a reassurance from the EFL - I'm not sure exactly what is covered under the confidentiality agreement. They haven't gone against the clubs claim that they okayed it though, so I assume that is accepted by the EFL, and presumably the club have the proof of this. That's why I don't understand how the club can be investigated even at the request of other clubs, that would effectively be the EFL investigating themselves, wave something through as ok and then say oh no sorry it actually wasn't. This is not the same situation as Birmingham, they must have known they had flouted the rules, they spent a huge amount on very little income (isn't their wage bill alone something over 200% of their income? Ours isn't great but I don't think I've ever known it to be that bad!) but they made absolutely no attempt to do anything about it, and then bought another player when they were under an embargo. I seem to remember the EFL wanted a 12 point deduction, wasn't it 9 for the amount over and above what they were allowed to lose and then the extra 3 for the aggravated breach? I saw their fans arguing that because they ended up registering the player rather than forcing them to get rid, either temporarily, or permanently, that they shouldn't get punished for that bit. Is this the argument the club used? Is this why the deduction was the 9 points and not 12 in the end? I do see that last part at least as somewhat similar to our situation, if the EFL okayed the sale of the stadium ie. a tangible fixed asset - as we're told they did - and they haven't denied it (not sure whether they knew the valuation or not at this point, however, logically, surely they would have known it was going to be more than the book value, as otherwise why would we have wanted to do it? - the club will know exactly how much the EFL knew at the time though) then we can't be punished for the sale under the good faith rule: I notice that the rule specifically states that only The League shall have the right to bring any action. I assume then that should any legal action that Gibson may bring about mention 'good faith' (I don't know if you can actually sue someone for this?!) then the EFL may not be too happy about it, as it would undermine their own 'good faith' rule? I did notice that you had said that you thought we might be ok for FFP anyway, I also note that the club specifically said (in the accounts - under the 'Financial and business review') that the reasoning for the stadium sale was: As it specifically mentions forthcoming years, I wonder if that is the case. I'm glad that you don't mind my input, I wasn't sure whether I should be here or not, but I thought you might appreciate the different perspective, I'm pleased to see that is the case. I hope I'm not going around in circles (too much...) it's difficult to remember what you've covered before, especially when typing long posts! And it took me a while to notice the multi quote button. ?

Yes I agree it shouldn't make that much of a difference on it's own, I was just thinking of reasons by there might be a difference, even if not that large a one. I don't know why it was valued so high, all I know is that it was according to everything that we've been told. Only the valuers can know the reasons why they gave it the value they did. I think the reason I find it hard to believe that £80m is excessive is simply because you hear for example that it's costing over £1bn for Spurs' stadium and you think, well ok, I can easily see how it would cost less than a tenth of that to replace ours. Even if that's not actually the case, it's how my mind seems to compute it! Those figures seem crazy for Spurs, I get that it's good but blimey, it's very, very expensive isn't it! I do think you're vastly over complicating the way we deal with player amortisation I can't remember where it originally came from, but if you read on our forum, everyone is of the same belief (so it must have been said somewhere in the past, I just don't know when or who said it, maybe at a fans forum(?) I'm not sure on that one) that once we amortise a player down, we cannot (or maybe it was do not rather than cannot?) then revalue them upwards in future accounts. It's been said that we cannot (do not?) put a value higher on a player than they were in the last accounts, and we cannot (do not?) put a value on players that had no value in the first place, ie. Free transfers or youth players, hence when we sell one of them it is pure profit for the books (unless they are a youth player that was actually purchased at some point, rather than fully homegrown, then there might be sell on fees). It could be wrong, but that is how we all understand it to be, no one talks about putting a value back up again from year to year, only carrying a higher value towards the end of the contracts than straight line amortisation would. ie. a player bought for £4m on a 4 year contract would normally be £1m each year, we might make it £0.5m, £0.5m, £1m and then £2m over the 4 years, so we take a larger hit in the last year, unless we extend their contract, in which case say we gave them a 1 year contract extension at the end of year 3 then we amortise the remaining £2m over years 4 and 5 instead of taking the full £2m in year 4. It may not be quite as simple as that, but I'm not sure if it's quite as complicated as you make it. Unless we are all under the wrong impression of how we deal with it, which could be a possibility, I just wish I could remember why it is that we are of this belief. ? ?

I was just very surprised that you'd openly stated that, I've been lurking on forums for long enough to have seen people getting themselves in hot water for casting aspersions on people before. What if the EFL's valuation matches that of the club? I don't know which club the other poster works for - you may know as a fellow fan of theirs(?) so I can't know which stadium it is they have worked on a valuation for, there may be reasons why it differs from ours? I wouldn't like to make assumptions on that as I don't know anything about how to value a stadium, the only thing I do assume is that the only people who know how they come to a valuation are the people that have all the facts of why they have done so. I don't know what the 2013 valuation was, it doesn't appear to say, and the book value didn't appear to change either. From the notes I took it to be an exercise that had to be undertaken, as it said something about FRS 11, but maybe they didn't have to actually change the book value? Again, I don't know, I'm guessing, like everyone else is. Maybe you're right and that was Gibson's aim, I guess only he knows, all I know is what the club (or Mel Morris) have communicated to us fans. I have no reason not to believe what they're saying, especially on things that can be proved or disproved quite easily. Until anyone comes out with anything different to what's already been said then that's all I've got I'm afraid. You're right, we do only have Mel Morris' word for it, but given that there were supposed to be representatives from every club in the league there, and none of them have come out and said anything different, then I believe it to be true, I don't get why anyone would think any different when it's something that every club could disprove if they so wished? What claims would you like me to provide sources on? I'll try my best to find them if you let me know. Re. The EFL approving pre-purchase, I have already provided the link to the Sky article referencing this in a previous post, yes it has obviously come from the club, so you will probably choose not believe it, but where else is that information going to come from? If it is not true then I would imagine the EFL would have come out by now and said this. It doesn't say on the article, but the information seemed to come from Rob Dorsett, he is the local Sky reporter, if the club want to put information out there, this is one of the ways they do it, one of the others being via the Derby Telegraph. Sky Article You can tell from the second quote that it is obviously the club who have told Sky this, otherwise why would they have seen the emails, they've not just been told about them by a third party, they've seen them, the wording is obviously deliberate. Derby Telegraph Article Derby Telegraph Article Are those quotes satisfactory? Yes, you have to trust the words of Mel Morris, there are plenty of people who can come out and claim something different if they would like to, but as they don't appear to have... You're clearly very suspicious minded, I'm just a fan of my club, any 'PR' you think I'm 'pumping out' is just me being a fan, you can believe or disbelieve that if you like, it makes no difference to me as I know who I am. ? I've been visiting your forum for some time as a lurker to see what your fanbase has to say, as I do with every club, yours is more active than most, so I lurked more often, it's an interesting way to pass the time. I'd noticed your repeated mention of the 'double and double again' of the value in this thread, it seemed this was really irking you as you kept mentioning it and having looked through the clubs accounts recently out of interest, even though I don't understand most of it, I saw this bit was wrong from the notes underneath and when I'd seen that you had mentioned it again I wanted to point it out, if only to put your mind at rest that that wasn't actually the case. You and others then replied to me, so I carried on replying, if I was wrong to do that then I apologise, I thought your forum might appreciate an alternative view, especially from a fan of one of the clubs that it seems are frustrating you the most re. FFP. Obviously I can only go on the information put out into the public domain, as that's all I'm aware of, like yourselves, but I thought I may be aware of things you are not as I obviously follow things at my club more closely than you would, and I watch the fans forums the club do and then subsequently put out on Rams TV, where things have been mentioned, directly, by Mel Morris and various people from the club. It's a subject I find interesting, as most people (like myself) have a pretty strong opinion on it, even if they don't (also like myself) seemingly actually understand the full ins and outs of it - no one but the clubs involved can actually understand the clubs positions with regard to FFP, as there are so many variables, so many things can be excluded, the values of which I would assume vary wildly club by club. I'm not worked up at all, I'd actually thought you were, hence pointing that out in the first place, and then I was just engaged in the conversation, I can leave if you'd rather this thread be an echo chamber? I don't mind either way.

You want to report people to their Professional Bodies and you are questioning their integrity and objectivity? Why on earth would anyone jeopardise their career for that, even if they do support the club in question? Unbelievable. The accounts and the stadium valuation are clear for everyone to see, presumably anyone with an accounting background can go through them and find out what they need to, no one has tried to hide anything, they've told people how they amortise the players, and they've told everyone how much the stadium was valued at, if people don't believe that value then there is not much they can do about that one, but presumably they will have all the evidence they need to back it up. Steve Gibson was actually invited by Mel Morris to view the clubs accounts, with his finance people I believe, twice, and he apparently didn't even bother to reply, according to a Sky article (I think it was the one I referenced yesterday), if he was so concerned then why would he not take up that offer? And if there was anything to hide why would the club make that offer to him - anything amiss would be spotted instantly by his people? Also according to recent articles with quotes from Mel Morris, that were released just before the final, absolutely no one voted for Gibson's proposal at the EFL meeting, not one person, including, apparently, his own representative! Where to start... That fits almost perfectly Pride Park description? Ok. ?

It's interesting to get the input of someone with some knowledge of the subject that can back it up with examples, however I would imagine there will be vast differences in the various stadia and it's not a one size fits all valuation. As you mention, they were built 3 years apart and actually ours is based on Middlesbrough's, but I have no knowledge of the work that has been undertaken on theirs since it opened, but I do know, to some extent at least, the work that has happened on ours, so I wouldn't like to say that they should be anything like the same value now, and as you point out, property values in Middlesbrough are much less than in Derby, in fact I believe Derby is one of the places that prices have gone up rather a lot over the years, it helps that we are very central and it's pretty easy to get to anywhere from here I guess. I notice that our remaining tangible assets amount to around £14.5m, I can only guess that this is the book value of the training ground, I don't think the valuation of this on the books has changed recently either as the book value of them all including the ground from the previous year was £59.3m (and this had been going down at a similar rate for years from what I can see) so minus the £41m we're told was the book value of the stadium at the time of the sale and you're not too far off what's left, presuming the current figure is minus the years depreciation. I imagine the training ground will now in actuality be valued a lot higher as since Mel Morris bought the club a lot of work has happened on it, including the acquisition of and work to further land (which was maybe a 60-70% increase on the original size - guesstimate from looking at a map) to create more pitches to keep us up to Cat 1 standard, and there is planning permission in place for even more work to take place, which I believe also adds value. I know that Middlesbrough's training ground is also Cat 1, so I imagine a similar size and probably standard, this maybe gives an idea of the difference in value of the clubs assets. (As an aside, I assume the Hall and golf course aren't included in Middlesbrough's asset valuation - 'other properties' from that quote? I believe Gibson also owns these - surely the value would be even higher if they were.) As far as I can see the accounts don't mention who did the most recent stadium valuation for the sale, but the previous accounts do mention who did the last two, and having just Googled the most recent one, it seems that the two companies merged in 2011, so they were effectively done by one and the same. I don't know how it works in relation to the clubs accounts, I've no inside knowledge of them, but others have said that it's a perfectly acceptable method of accounting, just different to use it for a football club. As far as I'm aware having seen discussions on the subject on our own forum, once a player is valued down they cannot then be up valued again, so your Assombalonga example is not how it would actually be done on the books. There is a section in the accounts that says: Yes it is a loss on residual values, however it does seem from that they were at least fairly accurate. *I forgot to ask, from someone in the business would the market rate of a stadium, be the valuation with the depreciation removed, or the value before that is taken into account?

All of the finance people I've seen say that whilst unusual for a football club, it is a perfectly valid method of accounting. I'm not sure whether we're the only club that utilises it or not. Yes, it means that we have to take the hits at the end of contracts, but we're obviously going to be aware of that, and yes promotion would allow us to do that, however, that doesn't seem to be the only thing we are banking on as we have been taking steps to lower the future wage bill (I'm aware it went up in the last accounts, and may well have gone up again this year - but the players we are bringing in will be on lower wages than the ones that will be going out), but obviously this is a gradual process, helped by players going out of contract, although we then have to take the hit on their residual values, although the wages cut somewhat offset this. I believe that as a club we feel we can do this because we're pretty stable in terms of income, our crowds, while very slightly down, are still pretty stable for a club that has been in this league as long as we have, we're a loyal bunch. I also expect our turnover for this season to have increased probably fairly substantially again, partly due to having Frank as manager, and the associated coverage and increased sponsorship revenues that could bring, but also due to 1. Having cup runs in both competitions including ties at Man Utd, Chelsea, Southampton and Brighton, 2. Getting into the Play Offs again but then also getting to the final - it is said there's normally a gentleman's agreement that the losing finalist takes all of the share of receipts for the match, which is not an insignificant amount. Also, due to season ticket holders for next season being included in the first period of sale for final tickets, I believe this will have the knock on effect of helping the income for next season, I'm aware of people that bought one on the basis of being able to secure a ticket for the final. This can only help the financial situation. I'm aware that things change, which is why my suggestion is to have the money in a holding account, there HAS to be enough in there to cover both fee and wages for the player (for the duration of their contract) otherwise you cannot buy them, lets face it - the players are inevitably the highest costs a club has to cover, this could be offset against income in the same way as normal, so when it comes to the end of the season and the accounts or upon the sale of said player, you can free up an amount in the holding account for future purchases (providing all other club costs have been met for the season) but no club can ever end up in a situation where they cannot afford a player they have on their books. This would mean that a situation such as happened at Villa and Portsmouth could not occur again, as the money will already be in an account ready for use, and if that means an owner taking a hit on a purchase, then it's better than the club taking one. It may encourage crazy spending or it may do the opposite and owners may look carefully at what would be the maximum they would personally like to lose, but a reckless owner can't leave a club high and dry. As I said I'm not trying to make an argument that this should be the case now, and clubs somehow deserve leniency if they have rich or benevolent owners, only that I think it would work as a change to the FFP rules in the future. I'm also not suggesting removing controls completely, I'm not sure how you got that from my suggestion, there is still control over how much a club can spend, but it is decided by the owner of the club and how much they are prepared to spend and potentially lose, not by the league and other clubs. You could make the argument that this disadvantages the poorer owners, and yes it does, but the rules as they are now have the same effect, if an owner is not prepared to put money into the club then they can only spend a small amount anyway, but they are still allowed to lose money, and this can only lead to problems somewhere further down the line, it can and does lead to normal businesses losing a lot of money when they inevitably end up in administration, all because a club was allowed to go beyond it's (or it's owners) means and try to achieve the big time. I personally don't think a club should be allowed to lose money, the owner has to make sure they can cover it fully by putting money into the holding account, either from their own pocket, and this cannot be in the form of loans that need repaying, or from player sales. It may not work, it may be flawed, but what we have now is also flawed and I don't see any way to change it (other than making sure there can be no financial loss for a club) that wouldn't cause untold harm to the EFL's brand, which to be fair is happening anyway because of all the bad press about the state clubs find themselves in, which only seems to be getting worse with each passing season. As far as I'm aware the rules you have quoted above are the old rules prior to 2016/17, I do not know if those rules form the basis of the new rules, but they reference previous seasons. As below, all of those rules quotes are from part 1 of the rules, not part 2, part 2 is much further down the page. Looking at the appropriate sections of the rules: It mentions depreciation and/or impairment, but not profit. Fair Market Value - I believe the independent valuation the club obtained to satisfy this. And the club sold an asset, so that seems to fit. The club have made no secret about this being a Related Party Transaction. Fair enough, there is the scope for them to do this, if they believe they are required to. I guess we will find out in the next years accounts whether the value has been restated or not, if not, then I assume the valuation was accepted as being correct, and as the club have stated they had an independent valuation, then I presume they have all the evidence they need for this. I make a point of bolding the word independent as I'm not sure what else the club can be expected to do in this situation, they have stated it was an independent valuation, if people don't believe this then I'm not sure what else they can do, making them pay for multiple independent valuations to make sure they are within the same range seems counterintuitive to keeping costs down to me. In fact I still wonder if this is why they okayed it with the EFL beforehand, to make sure the valuation was acceptable to them. Obviously if the EFL get their own valuation done, this adds to their costs (or would they bill the club for this?) when they may already trust the one obtained by the club. I presume as we have been able to both sign Shinnie on a pre-contract and hand out new contracts to those already within the club (I know Roos' was done recently, the other 3 seem to have been done earlier) then we are ok as far as this goes? Of course loopholes can be closed quickly after the fact, but if they are not then clubs WILL take advantage of them, clubs have been doing this for ages, and I cannot see it stopping now. What you cannot do is close it afterwards and then retrospectively punish clubs who used it, as they: May not have used it if they knew they would be punished - regardless of whether you think it should be or not if something was NOT against the rules as they were stated at the time then it was simply not against the rules. May have done business differently - you cannot turn back time, if they knew something was against the rules and would not be allowed then they would not do it and would find another way around it that was, you may be punishing them for something that would not have happened if they knew they could not do it, and they no longer have the ability to change the outcome. ie. they may have failed FFP without it, but they may also have found a way NOT to fail FFP without it, you're no longer giving them that option and they have therefore failed FFP even though what they did was not actually against the rules when they did it. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's a minefield, and one that I doubt the EFL will want to enter, unless something is explicitly against the rules. Everyone needs to know precisely what rules they are working to, that includes loopholes they may decide take advantage of, you cannot change the goalposts after the fact.

Of course I was talking about in the future, I know that is not currently how it works, just how I think it should work. It's the only way I can see clubs not getting into situations such as Bolton, and the knockdown effect that produces to other clubs and to businesses in general who also lose money from the situation. If the club (or rather the owner) cannot or will not put the money in then you cannot buy, as simple as that. However if they can, and they put that money aside, which cannot be used for anything other than it's intended purpose, ie. for player costs - that would be either until the player leaves 1. At the end of their contract (so all the money set aside is gone) or 2. Is sold (the remaining money set aside for them can then be repurposed) then you can go ahead and buy them without issue. It's ok talking about a breakeven requirement, and that it would require firesales from most clubs to get into line, however, that doesn't leave many clubs to then actually buy the players that most clubs have to sell! Again, a club can only sell a player if there is a club to sell to, if most of them have to sell, theres not many able to buy and the transfer window would grind to a halt. There would have to be somewhat of an amnesty on current players and their current contracts (not re-contracts that happen further down the line after the change) to stop this from happening. And yes, I can't see it happening as you're correct, it would wreck the product and I cannot see how anyone connected with the EFL (or any other league that considers taking it up) would want that to happen, and that includes the clubs, as it would leave them in an extremely weak bargaining position for absolutely everything, including TV rights and sponsorship, which then in turn further harms the amounts clubs can spend and creates a vicious circle. And anyway there would still be clubs who find the loopholes, ie. selling a player to a 'friendly club' (one they have other links to who do not operate to the same rules as ours) they would just be different loopholes. There are loopholes in everything, you just have to find them, I guess it's actually seen as a skill in itself to be able to do that.

I mentioned earlier that I thought this could be to do with their residual values and FFP and that I expected the release of them to be into July, whilst it could still be that, at least partly, I've just seen a tweet from a local journalist saying that the protecting their value part was down to sending them out on loan or in Johnson's case him becoming quite important for us at the end of the season. If they impressed, they would at least have value for us to utilise, rather than being out of contract, and therefore having no value to us. I can see the logic given they were 'vastly reduced terms', it will be interesting to see when they get released. In Johnson's case I still expect him to stick around, unless someone makes us an offer we can't refuse.

I know what you mean, some clubs have been left in a right mess with theirs, Coventry as you mentioned, I wouldn't like to be in their situation, it can't be fun not knowing where you're playing next season, every season as it now seems. I do think the EFL can do more to help clubs who are genuinely in a mess, owner wise, that is definitely where the focus needs to be in my opinion. As long as an owner can prove they will continue to fund every piece of business they do, fee and wages, I can't see the problem personally, although that should maybe be within reason, as fees and wages are already sky high (is it just me or has this gotten WORSE since FFP came into play? I presume as everyone wants to maximise fees due to FFP, and as wages are generally connected to the size of the fee, they naturally go up too) even if that means putting the funds for this in a holding account prior to the season. Surely it is more damaging for football as a whole when clubs go out of business (or close to) because they are spending money their owners aren't prepared to fund. Then there was the situation with Bolton and FGR to do with Doidge, that should never have been allowed to happen, I presume that really messed up FGR's budget, it was a huge amount of money for a club at their level.