Mr Popodopolous

Well done to both! I don't like Aston Villa's antics accounting wise but fair play to both for this!! Mentions Fulham and Tranmere too in another article.

For the sake of comparison- essentially and quite rightly so it seems that the EFL can change tack if or when new evidence comes to light: Last September, not long after news got out about the EFL commissioning independent valuations. Didn't seem to help them did it! The bolded bits are not dissimilar...actually Derby went quite a bit further and deeper! It aged well. ?

Off the top of my head. Think Reading must be in danger...unless there is some major item in their accounts that we aren't aware of yet. Already sold the ground and their profit in 2016/17 will drop off...they looked to sell it at market rates I am sure because the profit was nothing like the big 3- Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- but when released from a soft embargo they swiftly (within a month anyway) purchased Puscas and Joao!! Birmingham maybe, albeit a small breach so a small penalty- bit of an unknown- or they might be fine this time to June 2020. We already have the existing Derby, Sheffield Wednesday cases- who knows if a rolling breach would see them fail last and this season too. Think Blackburn in a tight spot but okay as of now, ie to June 2020 or whenever their Reporting Period finishes- Stoke could be tough going into next (if we have a next!) season. Noises coming out of Stoke make me think they could try some accounting tricks. Bit less at risk, Nottingham Forest- maybe but they've sold quite well this season. QPR have some headroom but the end of parachute payments this season won't help- should be fine in both cases for this season though. Also worth noting that equity limits change things...if equity stuck in it's £13m per season, equity up to £8m, if not it's £5m- but that could literally be anything between £1-8m of equity- ie £1 as opposed to £1m, so you stick a pound in it's £5m + £1 and so on. There's one big unknown of course- whether Aston Villa will face scrutiny as and when they come back! I fear they are fine but... Their club statement says they have complied with EFL regulations but there are a few unknowables: Like with Derby and Sheffield Wednesday, they- especially Derby- were clearly considered fine when Shaun Harvey ran the show. Rick Parry seems much different! Derby even put out a statement last September stating that they had complied... Still with those 2 clubs, will they- and the bulk of the compliant division- accept Aston Villa not getting any proper EFL scrutiny- both of those got charged well after the event for a start once further investigations uncovered things. Can someone- anyone- explain to me how Loans Receivable which was how the Villa Park Sale and leaseback was done, can count as profit under the regulations? Dunno if they offset loans to the equivalent of the sale price and in return got Villa Park? Seems very sketchy from a regulatory POV.

On the other hand, if it's expunged Sky etc will want to claw cash back. No idea how you can claw back something already spent...future payments?

In fairness, there's conflicting claims and evidence on this. Dunno if it's all that cut and dry in this case. So far I should add- so far because there still seem to be a lot of unknowns, given it's new.

Were there any doubt or any confusion or similar, there isn't now. Seen on Twitter.

Matt Hughes is pretty reliable so that sounds right.

Inevitable games will be off or at minimum, behind closed doors IMO.

Oh yeah, clubs may well do it- not discounted that possibility, or offer partial refunds/deferred discounts whatever- just don't think there's anything in law that states it's obligatory that I can see. Feels like Holt is taking the right approach though, as he so often does. Surely that one should be off given it's a game so close to the Arteta case- he was at Fratton Park, he was with the Arsenal players there- hope they've given as much of Fratton Park a deep clean as possible!

In terms of my point yesterday about Force Majeure. Nothing about specific wording of it that I've found so far but Club Charter states... No legal obligation as such, I'm sure.

I'm not wildly worried about the impact on health for me per'se but in the public interest, I think we should all be encouraged to work from home for a month or two- provided of course we all have jobs where it is possible. I'd volunteer tomorrow I think.

5.1 days the latest estimate I saw- certainly not a long enough period yet.

Think unlikely, certainly for ST sales. Definitely an interesting debate legally and commercially however. That said, football clubs aren't like any other business- maybe something would be offered even if it isn't a strict obligation?

Force Majeure a factor here? Came across it in my day job so I wonder...out of control, unforseeable circs etc.

THIS is how to deal with it.

Not wrong. Was flicking between PSG and Liverpool games last night and the PSG game though the quality was obviously high in both, was like a training game...terrible. Weird atmosphere, didn't like it at all.

Covered elsewhere possibly but the Times article seems to go into some detail?

I'd have to double check of course Lot of accounts to go through, but was it sold as such or was it an asset transfer? Which one we report as our FFP figures to the EFL I'm also unsure on- BCFC Holdings in some ways would make sense but... The latter point, surely as the ultimate company ie the consolidated accounts, such a transaction can cancel out ie no net gain- maybe that's old rules though? Asset transfer tends to be at book value or no profit- don't think we profited at all from it but again accounts would reveal all... Very quick look tells me that it happened sometime in 2005/06 season- Bristol City Football Club Limited accounts made up to 31st May 2006. Transferred to Ashton Gate Limited- on Bristol City Football Club Limited accounts for that season, check note 8 on Page 13. Unlike ANY of these transactions, we made zero profit- it was transferred at the price it was on the books. As it should be, unless of course accounting regs stipulated something different then vs now- by which I mean could do it then but not now, would have to be at fair value etc. Course there's Pula Sport and Pula Limited but I'm just focusing on the easily accessible by CH- was an asset transfer, not a sale as such.

One more thought on the overall FFP system. Maybe it already works like this or should, but the EFL have not been enforcing it properly, Once the precedent set ie points off, for a club, then it is relatively easy in theory to dock points for in-season 3rd year failures. Simply point at the tariff and sliding scale- aggravating and mitigating factors are less clear cut but if a club is over by x, do you even need an Independent Disciplinary Commission? Just dock them the points in line with their FFP adjusted overspend between 1st March and the end of the season. Also a rule that all such transactions ie ground sales etc have to be in place by the time of the submission dates wouldn't go amiss either. I just wonder why they generally happened quite late in the Reporting Period, in all 3 cases- I say 3, there were 5 but neither Birmingham or it seems/I assume Reading have bothered or needed to register the sales. Overspend in Projected Accounts is or should be treated as being in breach verbatim. If Projected Accounts are demonstrably proven to be false after the event, then severe penalties should follow for any club submitting knowingly false projections, in addition to the FFP one- IMO of course. Worth reading the blogger Al Majir from 2018, he seems or seemed to know things about what was going on behind the scenes with FFP. Had snippets anyway. We do know though in general that Shaun Harvey wasn't that interested in- or maybe capable of- serious governance at the EFL. You only have to look at the number of clubs charged with not paying wages now...well it happened often last season too and what did the EFL headed up by him do about it?? That alone is a major difference. That's the strange thing though, I've seen him described periodically as a talented and capable administrator who knows the business significantly or words to that effect- understanding his inaction or poorly handled actions/bungling on many issues is difficult based on that- then again Leeds in admin twice, Bradford once, he was Secretary at Scarborough too- wonder if anything went wrong there under him!! Talented and capable at leading sides into administration! ? I suppose with his track record he should at least know how way around the process, any port in a storm etc.

Putting aside ownership changes, it appears that: Obviously is now NSWE UK, new owners etc- maybe it heralded the end of Xia's involvement in any capacity there? Those two names were under Xia. As above, NSWE- new owners etc. As above, NSWE new owners etc. What I don't get is why all the name changes- the last two in March 2019 fell into it a bit when new owners owned but Xia was still involved.

Would be worth digging into. Aston Villa's structure is interesting- here are the basics using CH below... NSWE UK- owned directly by the owners since July 2018, ie the takeover- prior to that it was Xia and it was called Recon Group. Aston Villa Limited- significant contorl by NSWE UK since April 2016, obviously before then NSWE UK was Recon Group. NSWE Stadium Limited- owned by the owners, but according to CH until 16th May 2019 it was owned by AVL. From that date, it was owned directly by the owners. NSWE Sports Limited- significant control, NSWE UK (formerly Recon Group). Aston Villa Football Club Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited. Aston Villa FC Limited- Controlled by Aston Villa Limited. One thing that I cannot fathom is why a variety of the company names kept switching and changing under Xia and to an extent the new owners- seems odd. Not saying any wrongdoing but he did love switching names at times! Bit curious, not least as it is the company number that is key here I think. Each company will show a history of names and dates that name was valid.

Very much looking forward to @Coppello 's take here and on the overall situation! It's a curious one, but I think Aston Villa Limited owned Villa Park. I still wonder about that sale and leaseback, seems the hardest to pinpoint of the 5 clubs who have done it- whether it was right or wrong.

Roma to Sevilla off makes sense. However, last night Atalanta from Bergamo- which I'm quite sure is North of Rome- went to Valencia. EDIT- 372 miles North in fact!! Seems to be no real uniform UEFA policy here. That one last night was behind closed doors of course, but Leipzig v Tottenham of course wasn't. Granted it's less acute here and in Germany than in Italy but I'd have though it's quite a bit worse in Bergamo than Rome.

Still pressing on as it stands. More than likely will be though.

May not mean anything as such but I note that Olympiakos players and staff have tested negative for it- possibly Nottingham Forest players the same, but only time will tell. That's a reason for cautious optimism but timeframes etc could be different.