AnotherDerbyFan

@Mr Popodopolous My rough calculation process... Using 2018 P&S losses as a base point: £7,207,000 Subtract the stadium profit, profit on players, managers and amortisation from 2018: £7,207,000 - £39,940,387 - £3,719,424 - £1,850,000 + £6,540,038 = -£31,762,773 Add on the confirmed amortisation and stadium rent in 2019: -£31,762,773 - 4,600,000 - 1,139,726 = -£37,502,499 Add on estimated profit on players (The club received fees for Vydra, Weimann, Jerome): -£37,502,499 + £4,000,000 = -£33,502,499 Minus a rough estimate on change to wages: -£33,502,499 + £6,000,000 = -£27,502,499 £4m off the stated £31.5m in March 2019. Lampard joined Chelsea in July, so I didn't think the compensation would fall under 18/19, but 19/20 instead. Rumours at the time were about £4m.

It's stated in the Decision document. £6.5 in 17/18, £4.6 in 18/19, £25.1 in 19/20. Page 30, Section 59 Which doesn't take in to account work completed later on. £28m covers initial build, then filling in of the corners. On a DRC basis the final amout using those figures was £74.4m (missing £3m due to feeds and finance costs) I can only assume you don't visit away grounds. When was the last time you visited Derby? 'Similar' ground such as Stoke, Southampton, Middlesbrough and even Swansea are considerably below the standard of PPS, despite being built to a similar style and by the same people - mainly due to the improvements made in the last few years. Considerations for stadium valuation are: Corners Structure - cantilevered roof (this is what I was referring to, not the propose roof upgrade), with unrestricted views Facilities including hospitality, boxes, 'back of house' offices, club shop, restaurant, etc... Potential to expand Pitch composition and under-soil heating Concourse heating Superior seating (West Stand only) LED advertising boards Sound system Enhanced floodlights Media rooms and camera positions Did you consider land area might differ? I could be mistaken but i'm fairly sure PPS is a larger land area than Ashton Gate The detail didn't seem to be that much different than other clubs. It's an simple oversight to not describe it in full detail. It only took the EFL the best part of 5 years from when we implemented it (with permission) for it to be brought up. 3 years since the accounts were released. We aren't in a UEFA competition. Not sure why you keep bringing their rules up to imply we should be following them instead. You aren't advocating using their 30mEUR limits instead of our £39m. As things stand, the EFL rules allow it. One came as a result of the other. A clause in the sponsorship contract which allowed us to negotiate a better deal if we sign a 'star' player. Keogh appealed the sacking. Until the case was closed the club must keep hold of his registration. If an owner has cash flow problems he shouldn't be permitted to seek a loan. You're just asking for financial ruin in current circumstances. Nothing about loaning to multiple clubs, hence nothing was made of the same company loaning to Southampton and Sunderland. The issue is down to having a significant share of multiple clubs, which only becomes a concern if Derby and Sunderland default on the loans.

I can't see us pursuing any legal case based on the claims already made. There may be a case of us pursuing damages due to missing out on investment, being put under a wrongful embargo, missing out on recruitment, and potentially reduced sponsorship. Given the club statement about all clubs being financially punished due to just a few clubs pushing for a penalty, I can't see us dragging things out further and causing more financial reductions to clubs.

Just noticed the 19/20 amortisation line... £25m up from £5m the year before. My newly revised 19/20 P&S estimate is about £35m! OUCH! I don't think we're burning through anywhere near as much cash now. More likely accounts catching up with reality. The Disciplinary Commission disagree with you. For example, The EFL's 'expert' arrived at the £50m valuation by scaling up costs of stadiums for Morecombe, Chesterfield, Clochester, MK Dons, Doncaster, Shrewsbury, and Burton. He failed to note a variety of differences: built corners, possibility to expand, roof, quality of facilities. Somehow, the 'expert' concluded PPS was "bog-standard", and further devalued the stadium by using average attendance instead of capacity. DRC is usually calculated by multiplying the cost per seat by capacity to attain a new build cost. This figure is then reduced by a depreciation factor to reach the DRC value with land value added on. The panel concluded that anything less than £3000 per seat would be considered basic. As PPS is certainly above basic, £3k is the very minimum that should be used. Guess what... that's the exact figure JLL used to reach the £81.1m value. If you disagree with PPS not being basic, then you need to visit more grounds. The rebuild of your own stadium cost a reported £40-45m, with a capacity of 27,000 - equivalent to cost per seat of £1.67k. However, it was a replacement/refurbishment of the original stadium meaning it was the equivalent to £2.84k for a new stadium. Facilities of your stadium are inferior to ours, and you haven't filled in all corners. This supports the claim that £3k for ours is correct. All accounted for, so nothing to get your knickers in a twist over. Oversight from the club not to clearly define it. It's all out in the open now, and there are clearly no issues with it. Rules say it was acceptable. We weren't alone in doing it. Are you saying recruiting a player of Rooney's calibre means we should increase our sponsorship income? Bizarre that you think increased exposure shouldn't mean more sponsorship. Comes across more like jealousy of not having the pull we do. Most likely a financial issue, but we don't know the full facts. At the at the end of the day, Lawrence and Bennett still have value and could/can still perform the job they're paid to do, whereas Keogh couldn't. With Keogh joining MK Dons I think that's the end of the matter. If the case was still ongoing, we'd still hold his registration and he wouldn't have a club. I can't believe you're trying to argue against a club pursuing loans to cover losses given the coronavirus circumstances. Perhaps if Pearce was on the board much earlier the EFL would be in better shape now. He's clearly well respected by most clubs, hence why he's in the position he is. The fact he's clever enough to see where the rules allow a club to maximise it's potentially shouldn't be considered a bad trait. Other club's follow his lead - they copied our stadium sale, and it's only a matter of time before clubs copy our amortisation policy. There's little benefit in copying what everyone else does, as without parachute payments, it's unlikely you'll earn promotion. Every club should be continuously looking at ways of doing something better than they already are. Asset values are updated every 6 months. Some of the considerations are age, injury status, and favourability with the manager. I'd be surprised if there's is no amortisation for any player, but for younger players most likely it will be a very small amount. In the case of Lawrence, he still has 2 years left on his contract so still has a high book value of more than £4m (but less than what he's cost us so far). So to make the £5m profit a sale of £9m would be required.

The EFL can't appeal based on them not choosing good enough 'experts'. Again, the can't appeal based on that. As was proven, based on their 'expert', their stadium valuation of £50m was far too low. I was surprised the legal and bias claims were dismissed so easily. The fact we didn't even have to rely on them, with the facts doing the talking just shows how wrongful the charges were. I also expected comments on the lack of outside investment and player recruitment was significantly impacted as a result. Confirmed P&S profit/loss from what I can see are: 2017 = -£13.407 2018 = £7.207 2019 = -£31.517 2020 therefore must not exceed £14.69m. My revised estimates suggest we are about £5m over that. However, we would have sold at least one player by now if that was the case. Seems clubs approved a new P&S rule last week. We're moving from a 3 year cycle to 4 years. Losses for 19/20 and 20/21 are averaged (presumably to minimise the coronavirus impact) and use with the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons. It means Our combined losses for 19/20 and 20/21 therefore must not exceed £29.38m. I'm not sure if this replaces the 2020 or 2021 P&S period. Here's a summary table of the losses based on the Decision document:

So which aspect of these charges should we have been found guilty of? You dislike Mel? Seems to stem back to Mel pushing for a better TV deal, to benefit all clubs within the EFL. That a bad thing?

Charge 1 - Stadium The independent panel reaches the conclusion of fair value. £81.1m falls inside their concluded fair value range of £74.4m to £89.5m. Charge 2 - Amortisation Concluded that the policy wasn’t made clear in the accounts. Review of the policy actual revealed it is acceptable and meets the relevant accounting standards. The EFL don’t have a leg to stand on any appeal. Especially when you look at one of their key experts, Mr Messenger using stadiums such as Burton, Shrewsbury, Colchester, Chesterfield and Doncaster to draw accurate comparisons. He got mixed up between capacity, number of seats and square meters!

Profits method was used for obtaining a value for the sale, but DRC was used for P&S, later to be revised up to be equivalent to the profits method. The decision from the hearing, after consulting with the credible EFL valuer, was an acceptable DRC range of £77.4m to £89.5m (mid value of £83.5m). Kind of suggests the £81.1m figure was also acceptable ? £1.1m figure is based on 100 days of use a year, proportional to £4.16m. I’m surprised that’s been passed, but must mean reduced non-matchday income for the club as a result.

Without knowing the 18/19 amortisation it’s hard to make a judgement on the following years. I’m willing to bet the P&S total from 18/19 and 19/20 will be close to the £50m figure we previously estimated. I am a bit more concerned about how close we’ll be for the 3 years to 2021 though Grow up

Not sure how you've reached that conclusion. Since that period we've seen a drastic reduction in wages. Out: Palmer (1/2 season loan), Winnall (1/2 season loan), Russell (1/2 season), Vydra, Weimann, Shackell, Hanson, Jerome, Baird, Ledley, Bent, Thomas, Nugent, Butterfield, Blackman, Pearce, Johnson, Bryson, Thorne, Carson, McAllister, Keogh, Olsson, Anya, Huddlestone, Martin In: Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Malone, Evans, Bielik, Shinnie, Rooney, te Wierik, Marshall, Clarke (loan), academy lads Even using conservative estimates for wages that's at least a £15m saving. Income (excluding impact of coronavirus) will have also increased in that time with a notable increase in sponsorship (thanks to Rooney/32Red), greater TV income (new TV deal with sky, a couple extra games on TV, and a big increase in RamsTV subscriptions), and general increases elsewhere. The next two sets of accounts to be released won't be pretty - I wouldn't bet against c£25m losses in those years (I estimated abour £24.8m and £27.2m) due to amortisation finally catching up with us from the 2015 and 2016 years. But, we're past that now and on very safe ground financially. From a P&S perspective this will be the toughest year with us just scraping the right side of the line. Thankfully, Mel's long term investment is starting to bear fruit - more minutes given to former academy players than any other club last season, and close to 75% of players used so far in pre-season having been involved in the academy process at some point (mostly youth level, a few U18 signings, and two U23 signings).

@Mr Popodopolous you seemed a lot more reasonable in your views up until yesterday. It may also upset you now Villa will almost certainly avoid punishment when they drop down. Your anger should be directed at those at the EFL who are responsible for this mess.

Something song the lines of the date of the hearing was set before lockdown. This meant it would have originally been after the 19/20 season ended. The intention was always for the (potential) penalty to be applied in the 20/21 season, and it would be unfair for it to be brought forward because of a delay to the season out of everyone’s control.

Yes, the 3 years to 2018. Normally, a club should be punished the season following that 3 year period, with the business plan part of that. If found guilty, that should have been in the 18/19 season. The earliest our potential penalty can be imposed is almost certainly the 20/21 season. It just so happens that our actual business plan has tied in nicely with what the EFL's business plan probably would have been anyway - the higher wage earners have left, and we've promoted youth. With a couple more expected to leave, we're currently looking at going into next season with only 15 over 20's in the squad, with only 3 or 4 expected to come in. One of those 15 hasn't even played a professional game yet. I don't think we're far off the £13m annual target anyway. Without checking, I think it was introduced in the 15/16 season. It's been long enough for the 'advantage' gained from reduced amortisation and profit on disposal to have balanced out. A historical correction would result in us gaining an advantage in the immediate present - I think this is going to be a bit of a sticking point with the verdict. I'll be very surprised if we aren't forced to change our amortisation policy in line with others, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't gain any advantage. Club. For the 3 years to 2018 there isn't much between the two (once you account for our c£6m annual academy spend), although it would result in us being a lot closer to the limit in the following periods. It may be my own bias, but I could see SWFC getting punished whereas we do not. Them including the stadium sale in the 17/18 accounts seems wrong. Whereas us having a stadium valued roughly in line with inflation and accounting for stadium improvements looks fine. The amortisation policy being approved every year since 15/16 also looks difficult to penalise. I think the EFL executive(s) part in this will see at most a slap on the wrist for both clubs though.

Derby would have been looking at a sub £10m overspend for the period ending June 2018 (without the stadium sale). This could have been covered by player sales, such as selling Vydra earlier in the summer window. This would have likely meant a very touch and go 2019 period, but we wouldn't have signed the players we did if it looked like we'd fail. We also wouldn't have gone out to spend as much as we did on Bielik this season, probably wouldn't have signed Rooney, and could have sold more of our youth players.

I believe it was somewhat related to a cash flow issue, with a large chunk of Mel's 'worth' being tied up in assets. It could also explain the late payment of wages at the end of December. I don't think Ryan's story is quite correct either... https://twitter.com/GabayHenry/status/1281607594776432640?s=20

The charge itself doesn’t concern me, although that may be down to not fully understanding the purpose of it. I’m sure some more details will eventually come out. It’s certainly not a last throw of the dice and a gamble on promotion. I’d say the last real gamble was the Rowett season. We failed, and the message since then has very clearly been to slash the wage bill and give the kids a shot. It’s part of the reason why Rowett jumped ship when he did. Mel’s stated aim is for the starting lineup to be 50% academy on a consistent basis. You can’t have that aim and also have an immediate target of promotion at all costs. I doubt many clubs are using academy graduates as much as we are. Yesterday, 4 started, 2 came on and another stayed on the bench (plus 1 U23 signing). 5 started the Preston game with 1 remaining on the bench (plus 2 U23 signings). Financially, we’re finally past the mess caused from the transfers in 2015 and 2016. We’re in a much more sustainable position with estimates suggesting the wage bill is now equal to our income, with room to improve that further without weakening the first team squad. Transfers funded by outgoings - Bielik’s fee more or less equal to what we received for Lampard (and his team), Thomas to Barnsley and Delap to Man City.

Genuine question.. what does a ‘charge’ on the stadium actually mean?

The stadium was sold so appears on the P/L. However, the money doesn't have to change hands straight away.

How am I rallying with Villa? I only pointed out that UEFA rules have no relevance to Championship clubs, with the exception of fluking at cup win. I don't believe I've commented on whether Villa should or shouldn't be investigated. However, I'l give you my view now. The EFL had the opportunity to investigate and punish Villa before they officially became a Premier League Club. Now they're in the Premier League, it's down to them to investigate and punish if necessary. If Villa go down this season, then the EFL can investigate them again for the relevant 3-year rolling period (18/19, 19/20 and projected 20/21). If they find some wrong-doing in relation to their stadium sale in 18/19, then I'd support a punishment for them. If Villa survive relegation this season but go down in the future, then I would oppose the EFL investigating Villa for selling their stadium. Regarding the likes of Derby, I disagree on the EFL's decision to renege on the EFL Executive's decision to approve the stadium sale, amortisation policy, and all FFP/P&S accounts, unless the club were not as transparent as they claim or there was some other 'improper' practice. Your comment regarding deducting 50 years lease cost off the value is another no go. Why should a club selling it's ground at it's book value be penalized for selling it? It would prevent an owner doing it purely for P&S purposes, but punish those who have a valid reason for it. Let's say an owner wanted extra investment into his club. Selling the stadium 'to himself' would make it more affordable for the investor to buy into the club whilst offering a safety net regarding the stadium to the owner and the fans.

@Mr Popodopolous Why do you keep mentioning UEFA rules when they only apply to teams participating in UEFA competitions? Villa don't play in a UEFA competition so they don't need to concern themselves with their rules.

It appears to be someone at the DM misreporting the truth. Our CEO (former CFO), who is on the EFL Board, was chairing discussions about P&S last week. One of the talking points was the £20m cap. Rather than leading the push, we participated in the talks no more than your own representative on the EFL Board (Mark Ashton). It may seem hypocritical of us to be pushing for tighter control of wages given we've been charged with breaching P&S, however, since 17/18 we've actively been working on reducing wages and other costs. So much so, that we've named 11 academy graduates in our matchday squads this season, with only Forest giving academy graduates more match time. We've seen the departures of a lot of high earners: Jerome, Shackell, Weimann, Vydra, Thorne, Johnson, Nugent, Blackman, Butterfield, Pearce, Bryson Replaced with cheaper alternatives: Malone, Evans, Holmes, Jozefzoon, Marriott, Waghorn, Shinnie, Bielik, (and Rooney).

Academy spend and infrastructure improvements are not included towards P&S. Disposal of those improvements is included. Our academy spend exceeded £6m a couple of years ago and may be approaching £7m now (£4.5m+ on youth development, plus extra on staff and facilities). By the time you've taken the exclusions out of the consolidated accounts, you're left with something very close to what the headline figure is in the club accounts.

We sold Hendrick to Burnley in August 2016. Hence why the £10m profit appears in the Sevco accounts (period ending 31 August 2016), and not in the club accounts (period ending 30 June 2016). Use the club accounts for P&S purposes. The P/L figures in those accounts are less than £1m out over a 3 year period, yet vary much more in the Sevco accounts.

We sold Ince on the 4th July 2017, and Hughes on the 24th. The sale of one was included in the 16/17 accounts, the other wasn’t. There are suspicions Weimann’s transfer on the 3rd July 2018 will fall under the account period ending 17/18?

Depending on specific circumstances, a sale on 1st July can still be included in the accounts in the 'previous year'