Mr Popodopolous

Agreed. Might be a case of achieved x but needed to achieve y, close but no cigar. I am liking this new faster pace from the League/CFRU however. Accounts and or projections went in, press report by midday that there was a problem, 5.30pm EFL statement! Took the League weeks under Harvey! Weeks. Either that or in 2018 he was looking for compromises, bits of both probably. Hopefully in the next year we'll see sanctions handed down based on a combination of Year 3 Projections and -2 year actuals.

Statement by Reading. https://www.readingfc.co.uk//news/2023/march/02/club-statement-efl-review

Small update on Reading, Mike Keegan of Daily Mail on Talksport. If Reading were in breach, then Peterborough who were 4 points off safety could have a case. Will try to listen later on catchup but an interesting Tweet too. Moore, Ejaria, Joao, Puscas, Meite??

Technically Cardiff and Stoke are in breach of Regulation 16.3 so the League should embargo them until such time as their accounts are at CH. I suppose that in practice, it can take a few days to come through and there is the bit about 2 Business days before the club appears on the Embargo service but...if it's still like that next week an embargo should follow.

10 point swing, overtaking 7 sides in the last 13 games for us (12 for Luton and many above).

For context etc. Following our Boxing Day defeat and there were further games in the round on Tuesday and maybe even Wednesday. 7 points off having played a game more. As set against now where we are 10 points off but we now have a game in hand on 6th and on many above us. The margin for error as far as we are concerned is so very thin, which brings a pressure in itself.

The other thing and this isn't just specific to Reading but they took it to certain levels. Sellinf when it counted towards FFP is fine...until it isn't. You either have to go up within a year or 2 or cut back hugely and use that breathing space to truly restructure. What happened with Reading was that they used that headroom to double oe quits although when you're in so deep... 2017-18, Stadium sold via club accounts- to new parent. 2018-19, stadium sold, training ground sold, land around Madjeski sold. Plus Aluko £3m loan fee! (Owners Chinese club). That yielded a £40m loss the following season, as they had run out of Fixed Assets to sell- talking Renhe Sports Management Limited plus the club. No promotion and the FFP breach was inevitable.

That isn't the half of it. Stoke City May 2021- sold and leased back Bet365 Stadium to owners and the training ground, coincidentally Bet365, profit on disposal wss maybe £30m combined. However this wasn't all. They sought to attribute some £30m in fees that would be amortised to Covid 19 in 2019-20, ie to write it down and exclude it from FFP entirely due to the impact of Covid 19 on the market. Then £11m in transfer fees the following season ie transfer profit foregone in 2020-21- yes you've guessed it, blame Covid. There wwe also something interesting on the Land Registry iirc, some kind of superficial similarity to Sheffield Wednesday and the Hillsborough transaction although could have been linked to post Covid backlog.

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/march/efl-statement-blackburn-rovers/ Case lost, as expected.

It is positive seeing the increased emphasis in governance but what of Fulham, and potentially Nottingham Forest and Stoke- their Projected Covid losses of £12m or so for last season seem well out in the case of Nottingham Forest, Fulham lost lots and lots of money and Stoke well their Covid losses at £38m, £18m and £2.5m we assume- £30.5m- still tiny vs Everton of course.

Aston Villa fans seem to think that a £10m payment on behalf of Xia in laat years accounts shouldn't count towards FFP. My first thought is entitled, insouciant...individuals- but is this correct? Although this raises an interesting question about whether the club/owners payjng Lerner his promotion bonus of £30m as Xia couldn't should have been excluded from FFP? If not, £20-25m overspend in the year of promotion.

Top 10, top half more likely. Clearly we should aim as high as we can but realistically it just seems too far.

Ziegler now suggests it could be up to 12. Were it a suspended 6 for the Business Plan breach and 6 more for breaching the Upper Tariff to an amount equivalent to a 6 point deduction that does make perfect sense. Were that the case I see them struggling to comply to 2022-23 as well although end of June etc to sell players. Thank god we managed to steer clear.

Ah EFL statement has just dropped. https://www.efl.com/news/2023/march/efl-statement-reading-fc/ Looks like it isn't as clearcut as the initial media reports but time will tell. One other thing, QPR and their large losses wise. Some of their fans have been suggesting selling Loftus Road and moving to a new ground. I see how the 2nd helps, but I thought that Fixed Asset sale profits were no longer included in P&S returns.

The bit I don't understand about the Reading thing is that if a deduction is suspended as part of an Ageeed Decision, where does the IDC come into it?

Not City or Championship related but that's a bit mad! Will need full accounts for a proper assessment but unless there is a typo, Aston Villa made a profit of £0.4m last sesson inclusive of the £100m Grealish sale?? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c4nz4npnrd8o In a season with full attendance, no T.V. rebates etc..

Just don't see what else it could be, given EFL monitoring, sign-off on new additions etc.

In other Football finance news, read on the Stoke forum that they are set to be spending big next season- source was apparently John Coates himself.

It does seem dubious. It's no punishment at all if they settle on promotion, the embargo lifted- it positively rewards bad behaviour or at least, poor financial management.

Now tell us the real story?

Happy though I am with the Birmingham and Reading issues potentially being dealt with, I also would like the EFL to show some energy on the potential that one or both of Fulham or Nottingham Forest may have breached limits to last season, and Stoke with their mega Covid add-backs. Then also the Sheffield United non payment of transfer fee instalments- can it really be right that they are set to gamble on promotion to pay off debt? Embargo still showing as in place fwiw but how does promotion affect this.

Very quick Google search says total PL attendances, let's take 1994-95...average 24,271. Remember it had 22 teams also- a divisional average. This season it is 38,053. Question is also what spare capacity- Etihad away capacity and attendance vs Maine Road- of course they've added fans post 2008 but feels a bit more nuanced to me, both in the context of a new ground and beyween average attendances more widely then and now. See also, the spike when they left Maine Road. http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/league/manc.htm

Didn't jusr snap back from 0 to 100 in the 1990s or early 2000s either- took a while to build up again. Across the board I mean.

Oh other interesting claim, reportedly Birmingham have a 4 year rent Holiday on their sale and leaseback. They are due to pay £1.25m per year in rent to BCSL but BCSL still owe Birmingham £5m therefore rent waived. Another area for the EFL to look at...worth noting that BCSL (Birmingham City Stadium Ltd) accounts showing as 9 months overdue now! To June 2021...they show the rent receivable. EFL need to go after them quite big or at least include that £1.25m in FFP calculations. Need to also not cooperate on a takeover until such matters are clarified.

Pure speculation on my part but maybe as I say £x in transfer profit expected. From memory there was interest in Joao in the summer. He is still there...no profit on disposal of players, therefore a breach of one of the terms of Agreed Decision- suspended sanction attached, becomes live if any terms breached. Paragraph 7 feels pertinent here.