Mr Popodopolous

Wow, that's huge! Thanks @Davefevs Him being charged with misconduct but he (along with Meire and Redgate) could be banned if guilty, am I reading it right- eff me! I have a feeling that it wouldn't ie this ban option have been at all likely had Shaun Harvey still been running the EFL but I could be way out! Dunno what others think- mind you I think against all sense etc he would have let Steve Dale's Bury have had a crack at starting the season too! He really ran a very loose ship... Wow though, that's quite the escalation!

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/stoke-city-financial-fair-play-3596135 Saw this on Kieran Maguire's Twitter- about to have a look. This line looks interesting... It's the Stoke CEO Tony Scholes discussing the regulations and the clubs perspective. I hope the EFL and other clubs take note of this. Hope they're all over it in fact. Not the article of course, but to be on alert for any dirty tricks by Stoke. Incidentally, for what it's worth, Stoke fans don't seem altogether impressed- small sample size granted- with the stance by Scholes and the club. Different to Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday and to an extent Derby fans at this stage?

To return to this one, possibly being a bit dense but what's this mean? @29AR mentioned back-to-back and insta-collapse deal. As in, what tangible difference does it make if GELLAW NEWCO 204 LIMITED now has significant control over it- whereas at time of purchase it was GELLAW NEWCO 201 LIMITED- this of course being the control over the company who purchased Pride Park, ie GELLAW NEWCO 202 LIMITED. Sheffield Wednesday might have done similar incidentally. Put in less technical terms than you did but anyway.. SHEFFIELD 3 LIMITED purchased Hillsborough on 28th June 2098. Controlling Party was SHEFFIELD 4 LIMITED and this was notified on 21st June 2019. Control of SHEFFIELD 3 LIMITED by SHEFFIELD 4 LIMITED seemingly ceased on 28th June 2019, and there was on the same day a special resolution to wind up SHEFFIELD 4 LIMITED. Liquidators appointed on 28th June 2018 according to the below. Meanwhile, the new owner of SHEFFIELD 3 LIMITED was SHEFFIELD 5 LIMITED, said notification was 28th June 2019. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3321692 Interesting/useful summary elsewhere.

Win the toss, bowl...173/3. Probably less than hoped!

Haha yes- think that poster means "chasm" though! Good to see a sensible and realistic Rovers fan though!

Think it might be! Though the distance between Bristol and Oxford, still isn't as big as that between us and that other team in Bristol!

Dunno if it's been mentioned but don't you love to see it! ? "The reality is, Bristol City are light years ahead of us, in every single aspect. There might be a rivalry, but there's a Kazzam between us that we might never close. Stadium, Youth System, Training ground". PS, what's a "Kazzam"? Is that how we can tell it's one of their fans?

Interesting thread by Andy Holt. One aspect apparently is that he didn't bother to do due diligence on the debt- clearly he had/has murky motives of his own but he may well have ****** it too- Dale that is.

Shows signs of our problems on flatter pitches tbh- it's all well and good bowling in English conditions, be it the pitch or the overheads but our conditions in world cricket fairly unique IMO. A good thing, but a double-edged sword.

Interesting Tweet. Should Somerset consider legal action against other counties? Start to have a look down that slippery slope and it's tantamount to something... In the light of the 2016 Middlesex v Yorkshire thing, seems like there are some double standards about. Still, what slarti said! On a serious note, they were warned in past seasons but there seem to definitely have been some selective punishments! Season rolling on for 2 weeks longer than it should have been too, surely didn't help matters.

India beat Bangladesh in under 3 days. First England Test starts tomorrow doesn't it? Elsewhere, see Afghanistan play WI in a Test- wonder how that'll go- a week tomorrow, in India.

Reading the Derby forum briefly, this post is somewhat out of kilter. Bolded bits I'll reply to. Thought this was permissible under FFP- infrastructure no? As above. It gets deducted from expenditure as it's deemed to be good investment I think. The sale price would be very interesting, if all of this work enhances its value significantly! Payment terms and speed? I suppose the argument I saw elsewhere on the thread, that it's the Premier events venue in Derby could have a bit of merit as to their uplift- and unlike Hillsborough certainly it has the facilities for concerts etc like a lot of modern and new built grounds- unsure about Villa Park and its facilities for non matchday revenue generation. I still struggle with £81.1m and a profit of nearly £40m though!

It's not really anything that's new as such but possibly a bit of a new angle. Already made reference to Fair Value Adjustment, whether this takes place on Acquisition- been researching it periodically. Should we read anything into the fact that on acquisition for Sevco 5112 Limited, Mel Morris didn't see fit to adjust the Tangible Fixed Assets to fair value- ie Vendors' Book Value was listed as the same as equal to "Fair value to the group"- £0 in adjustments, up or down? Is this a bit of a red herring @Coppello @martnewts or something that can be done at convenience for a new owner- optional- or is it in fact an indicator that Book Value broadly in line with Fair value? As we can see, there are no adjustments anywhere- but specifically to Pride Park, notably to Tangible Fixed Assets. August 2015 was when this occurred.

Elland Road sold for £20m in 2017 to owner- but not to Leeds, he brought it back though. Bramall Lane and training ground total transaction to be £50m- combined for the pair of them. One report says it includes the academy also! ? ?

I took a look at a few clubs earlier and it really must be subjective, niche- down to the individual ground. Struggling to justify these valuations- ie the major ones, talking Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday when set against a variety of clubs who have had reasonably recent valuations. Walkers Stadium for example actually didn't seem to rise in particular even after reaching the PL, winning it and playing in CL- that Aston Villa impairment is looking increasingly curious given that clubs change division often. Either it was overvalued in the first place, the Impairment was flawed or it's incredibly subjective. It's debatable as to whether relegation or a significant change in on-field fortunes can be classed as a material change in circs- actually despite my FFP suspicions, I have sympathy with a view that it can but in accounting terms, it's possibly not so clear. FWIW, 2 possible comparisons- focusing on the Midlands clubs who have done this mainly. Stoke- remember 11 seasons in the PL! At Depreciated Replacement cost in March 2018- £41,600,000- if we include Plants and Machinery it'd be £42,500,000. Comparison 2. The aforementioned Leicester one! In May 2014, £41,463,000 on an existing use basis. Included within it was £4,777,000 of land which would not and will not be Depreciated. This was off the back of a return to the PL and actually a 2nd promotion in 6 seasons. £81.1m Pride Park, £60m Hillsborough and £56.7m Villa Park- come on?? I know actually that it isn't that simple but it just doesn't really stack up. Looking a little further back at Leicester again. In May 2009 after promotion back to the Championship had been confirmed it was valued at £41,463,000 on an existing use basis- yet though it had barely depreciated in 5 years- fair enough- it had barely shot back up either on promotion to PL. May 2017, interim valuation- which appears to be inclusive of fixtures and fittings- and remember in 9 years they'd gone from relegation to third tier for first time in their history (haha Hollowhead) to promotion back to Championship, promotion back to PL, winning title and playing in CL. £45,808,000- this states that it is inclusive of fixtures and fittings but doesn't seem to have soared in value all that much considering! Valuation in May 2017 of the ground was of course £45,808,000- net book value stated at £19,106,000. Some takeaways: Depreciated Replacement Cost appears not to fluctuate wildly over the years. Promotion and relegation don't seem to see wild swings in value. There's not an awful lot of difference between the existing use basis and depreciated replacement cost one, in terms of cash it seems, or % wise. Net book value definitely diverges when set against "real" value. Still, more questions than answers for the clubs under investigation IMO. Based on 2014 revaluation at Depreciated Replacement Cost, disregarding Depreciation post 2014 and taking all of the additions at cost- ie £500,000 makes it £500,000 more and factoring in a Revaluation Reserve then £30m or so for Hillsborough seems about right... £32m Hillsborough also seems sensible enough as seen online. Pride Park and Villa Park appear to be harder to decipher.

Okay, on closer inspection seemed to be the same article. ? Still think these transactions would have raised interest in the various industries, sectors however!

Dunno if this is behind a paywall but we'll soon see I guess. These transactions certainly seem to have raised eyebrows over time in the various sectors.

That late equaliser really saved them- Bromley from a big Cup shock! Sure they'll do it at home though.

From what I've read of his posting on it, seems very on the ball with it. Different valuation methods could change things- I should have stated at the start that I was basing my workings on a Depreciated Replacement Cost basis as a starting point. Which I still think is a good method for transactions such as this. It's good to have these discussions- dunno where @DerbyFan went but they were good discussions too. Echo chambers are crap!

To a point I agree @OwlsonlineAdmin to a point. I think differences may depend on methodology being used? For example, the valuation I am basing the £30m or so on is that of Depreciated Replacement Cost. To me, that seems to be fairly appropriate for this kind of transaction- read MK owl on Owlstalk every so often and he's alluded to this being the case before! Value in use? That could change the equation, not an approach I'm altogether familiar with- but if it was under Depreciated Replacement Cost then £60m seems waaay out of kilter- for completeness, it was £22.25m in 2014 under Depreciated Replacement Cost- for that again according to MKOwl a while ago, you would pick a number and work back? Fair value and market value, both require an active market. Comparative value can be useful, I note that Brammall Lane and the training ground went for a combined or are due to be sold back to Sheffield United for a combined £50m- perhaps there is some sort of major discount or special deal? McCabe back to Abdullah/Sheff Utd feels more like an open market or fair value or whatever transaction than Chansiri to one of his own companies- benchmarking in short is something that can be used here, but it has limited use for this sort of specialised propety I'd have thought. Valuation method could be quite important here IMO. Now the rent, this is another debate. I note that when Home Park was sold to Plymouth Council in 2010/2011 and leased back it went for £1.6m! Hillsborough clearly worth quite a bit more, but what's the rent?? That was quitre onerous this transaction because Plymouth as part of the terms were due to play the Council £135,000 per season- or that's a yield of 8.4375%! Ouch, but that was clearly done on commercial terms and Plymouth were over a barrel a bit. Applied to Hillsborough, if £60m is right, you should be paying £5,062,500 per year if that is a benchmark- and it is a benchmark as there is/was a market report on it. Personally I'd say 4-5% makes good commercial sense, but would have to be worked out dependent on commercial yields in Sheffield probably. See, the reason I strongly suspect these transactions need real scrutiny is because if a bank or a Commercial Property company or another Commercial entity and not a related one but an actual arms length entity brought Hillsborough etc, and leased it back- don't worry security of tenancy would be guaranteed- then the terms would be nothing like as generous- nothing like, especially the rent! For completeness, Andrea Radrizzani purchased back Elland Road- Leeds sold it and leased it back and it changed hands a couple of times during their financial troubles for actual bona fide arms length transactions- he purchased it for £20m! £20M!! In a more expensive city for what that is worth- he rents it back to Leeds now, would have to research the rent. I wouldn't be posting a single word- not a word- of criticism of any of these deals if they were sold at genuine arms length, with proper commercial rent arrangements to boot- if you could still get £60m or Derby £81.1m or even Aston Villa £56.7m I'd be hailing from the rooftops the business acumen of the owners! Bit on Leeds- just look at a snapshot of some of their terms when it was sold to, subsequently leased back from, an actual commercially based 3rd party! The only caveat here is I'm unsure what Radrizzani is charging- saw some stories of a 33 month rent free grace period, after that? Unsure! Whether the stories are accurate, I'd have to delve deeper and see. Here's a good Twitter thread you might like too- about to read it myself, with an open mind! I've looked at the acreage though, granted in Derby vs Sheffield as it wouldn't go deep into the postcode- and the £250,000 v £110,000 for house prices- well I question whether price per acre or house price is a better comparative factor here. They said about £32m- a little above but nothing vastly so, above my guesses and estimation based on precedent- possibly using a slightly different methodology too!

Equally interestingly, an old ground like Hillsborough and more importantly in a city such as Sheffield- well that's about 50% higher than London. An old ground which has flooded in the recent past- that may have an impact on commercial valuation? An old ground- and trust me I've looked through accounts going back to 1990?- that has been within a fairly consistent range of valuation when this was done at DRC, in a city that is cheaper than Derby- but not all that far away geographically. I also note they didn't seem to depreciate it through a lot of the 1990s but am guessing that was alright for football because of the obligatory upgrades to stadia post 1989. Maybe it was just the accounting policy for Freehold land and buildings for a while. Valuations in the range of £20-25m and maybe a bit more, plus periodic adjustments to the Revaluation Reserve which you will gain on disposal...suddenly sells for £60m! How does that work then? Cheaper per acre in Sheffield than Derby, albeit perhaps not a huge amount in it...the gap to London that is! Actually, scratch that- slightly cheaper in Derby than Sheffield. June 2007 the flooding I think.

Thanks @Port Said Red I do try- they are very complex indeed, agreed! Agree with much of this, though the Fair Value rule is fairly clear, the EFL appointed valuers will as a starting point if they haven't already, decide whether these stadia were sold and leased back on proper commercial terms- an FFP regulation allows for adjustment to such transactions if required. You're right though, the wording must be spot on. I'm not so bothered personally at this stage about court cases or legal action or anything like that, the main thing is to get those values, adjust if necessary and Test afresh for FFP over given periods- I think the EFL should have done this at the time and had they done so, then this could have helped to prevent a lot of problems. The other thing the EFL need to do is to make sure that the clubs are paying rent at a commercial rate- that Plymouth Market Value Report is quite interesting and Derby's rent payment and that of others is certainly well out of line with this! I'd suggest 5% seems fair, this report though had Plymouth paying £135,000 per year on a transaction of £1.6m!! Or 8.4375%. Apply that to some of these and said clubs will have quite a bill...like I say I see 4-5% as about in line but that report was instructive. Court cases or legal action bu the EFL are probably something that should come into action later down the track if applicable IMO- the urgent priorities are Fair value, adjustment to said fair value then reassessment of FFP but certainly for the most recent periods. Quite possibly, though if these ones are pulled up, then the regulation needs to be changed quick sharp and a stipulation inserted that: Clubs can do this but it won't count towards FFP calculations in any respect, regardless of purchaser. Any actual disposal- by which I mean a bona fide sale to a third party and the ground no longer used by the club in any form- that is an actual disposal so I'm not sure if I have a problem with it counting towards FFP there. Allow this in terms of FFP, but only when a bona fide third party is involved, such as a Bank, a Finance company, a Professional landlord etc- presumptuously the third party won't significantly overpay or undercharge on rent. Any Related Party deals in this respect simply don't count as FFP- they still appear at CH and in the accounts but nothing relevant for FFP. Mind you, in general terms- football finance was not Shaun Harvey's strong point seemingly! Only clubs who publicly took the piss, acted like idiots or fought it- see QPR and the protracted legal issues- or see Birmingham signing Pedersen under a soft embargo, were the ones to really get it- well in his world anyway. In partial defence of Harvey, his pushing on safe standing and alcohol for fans in view of the pitch is something to praise him for - shame he was so useless in many other aspects!! I also have the belief that the EFL and other football Governing bodies think the fans are idiots- "Sale and leaseback with a profit- paper profit or real profit from a related party to bring into compliance and provide some headroom? Ah, they'll never know!" Part of the equation? The comments by Tad Detko cited earlier in this thread were pretty damning in terms of the EFL's approach at that time to this sort of thing.

Interesting to see that Stoke actually show their ground at market value and book value. Interesting because the current market value based on the most recent valuation is about £41.6m or £42.1m if we include Plant and Machinery. £27,290,896 at Cost. This valuation carried out in March 2018. It's particularly interesting as both Pride Park and the Bet365 are in and around the Midlands, and the best bit is that, both grounds were opened in 1997! Similar capacity too. One small note but not really looked in much depth is that their Revaluation Reserve seems not to depreciate unlike many. Only appears to change on revaluation or re-assessment. Now it could be about something other than the ground as their accounts once you find the right part seem fairly transparent, Book Value of buildings seems to be individually listed but that small bit is a little confusing. Also interesting to see that save for player registrations, there was no writedown of asset value on relegation- actually that Aston Villa one on early inspection seems fairly unusual! This could be instructive...another thing for me to add to the Plymouth one to have a look at! http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/Decision_Documents/documents/NDR/425026586935134N10.pdf In short, if it's classed as a material change of circumstances then it feels more understandable. If not however... All I do know though, is that the timing was very helpful, as it meant that Lerner could get rid of the club quicker and more easily- with £30m to be paid as a bonus or part of the deal on promotion. Also worth noting that Xia first season did not seem to have Book Vale vs Fair Value required as other clubs such as Derby did on takeover and indeed Lerner himself in 2007- possible that it isn't mandatory in accounts or that regs changed with shift to FRS 102 of course.

To simplify my argument. IF a revaluation plus write back of depreciation occurs in 2008, there shouldn't be a new Revaluation Reserve or certainly not much of one. Either there should be the Upward Revaluation Plus write back in the Accounts in 2008 and next to nothing, in the Revaluation Reserve. Or the Book Value should have remained similar but with a whacking great Revaluation Reserve added in 2007/08. To have both seems incongruous to me! For arguments sake had it been Option A, assume Depreciation at about 2% year but yes some additions...Pride Park sells at maybe £45-50m. Had it been Option B, what with Depreciation and yes some additions, Pride Park sells at £45-50m. I'd have to do the full workings later but it seems to me that both were benefited from. There was no Revaluation Reserve in 2006/07 Accounts for example- this is purely IMO about Pride Park.

Yeah I know that...just puzzled as to how it reached that point in first place- given Depreciated Replacement Cost was nowhere near that and subsequent Depreciation and additions...that valuation is "interesting". Also know that NBV doesn't represent Fair Value, or Depreciated Replacement Cost necessarily. That's why the EFL have hired independent valuers etc I guess for the Pride Park, Hillsborough and the Madejski Stadium transactions. I'm arguing that it is quite a bit less than £81.1m. Maybe I'm wrong but something doesn't stack up- however its weighted and balanced, it doesn't all neatly fit together. Of course, this is all the EFL's fault largely. Because, had they kept in place the regulation that says profit on disposal of fixed tangible asset isn't considered as part of FFP calcs then this would all be a moot discussion- for some weird reason that clause was deleted, or they should have kept it but with an amended, or deleted it but with caveats. Or even allowed it but passed FFP submissions provisionally while they investigated, or perhaps more realistically insisted that they as an honest broker commissioned the valuation not the club and the EFL commissioned valuation would be the one used for FFP purposes. Now they are re-assessing the valuations but the problem is that Aston Villa are now in the PL- but still being checked themselves apparently. A million ways in which they- the EFL- could have worked this better! Still- from an organisation that appointed then kept on for 6 seasons Shaun Harvey as the CEO- can we expect anything more??