Mr Popodopolous

It's not new material as such but I'd love to know how the following teams are in compliance and their current FFP positions- accounts for varied big European clubs are out by now, why does it take 9 months in the UK?? Look how quickly Birmingham's were out at the HKSE- 3 months after the accounting period until 30th June 2019 and 3 months sharp. Okay, mini rant over. Reading- soft embargo in summer, we know they sold Madjeski for £26.5m so that's a profit of £6.5m or so. Took their losses down to "only" £20m or so in 2017/18. They sold some and yes some high earners go, but then again to purchase Puscas, Joao,neither of whom I suspect will be on tiny wages, then to loan in Miazga, Ejaria and Boye- the latter a fresh one, the first 2 renewals. Rafael, Morrison, Pepe on frees and Charlie Adam too- may have raised a bit in the market but I can't see how they will be compliant by the end of this season, given the 2016/17 small loss/profit drops off the books. Still some of the departures and wage savings surely cancelled out by some of the free/loan additions. They apaprtently have an option or obligation to buy Ejaria for £3m in the summer too. QPR. I know that they have cut back certainly, and yes a fairly small loss in 2016/17, ably assisted by a frankly ludicrous 4 years of parachute payments despite yoyoing were lucky enough to catch the tailend of that, but they loaned both Wells and Hugill- surely not cheap- look at our terms for Afobe after all! Yes I know FFP deductions and that, but QPR being able to sign two on loan in a post parachute payment season seems incongruous- but then the lack of clarity over whether projected accounts are applied means it's possibly legit. Oh yeah, Birmingham. Their situation is clear as mud. Will their UK Accounts differ to their Hong Kong ones? Will there be e.g. a stadium sale and leaseback that was mooted in the former which didn't appear in the latter? Is it now 3 years of £13m which get judged next season to eliminate the 2018/19- or is it a separate one year period of £13m for last and this season? Because if it's the former they lost £31m in 2018/19 but tbh that seems not to include the Adams sale, oddly- at least according to HKSE results.

Demolition in the series for them it's looking like! Currently Tea on Day 3, 26/4 in their 2nd Innings- needing 309 to make India bat again! What is also interesting is that though India generally thought of as a trial by spin, nearly as many wickets have fallen to pace than spin- especially SA's. Possibly more in fact, certainly in this 3rd and final Test. Winning the toss each time and racking up a major 1st Innings in each Test seems to have been a major boost of course.

One thing I did notice when re-reading the article and checking the Birmingham case is that the law firm hired by the EFL were the same ones used in the Birmingham Independent Disciplinary Commission- ie Blackstone Chambers. Charles Flint QC works for them and was the Chairman for the Disciplinary Commission, before whom it was heard. Should anything be read into that law firm being hired for this one?

Decent read. http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/administration-of-football-clubs/written/105929.html?sfns=mo

Punishments and criteria- a flow chart would outline it ideally but don't have time for that. Test 1- Applicable to all. Is the EFL valuation roughly in line with the amount it was sold for- Fair Market Value the key thing for most. If yes, then fair enough if no, proceed to Test 2... Test 2- Applicable to all. If reduced and restated to the EFL figures, how does this affect the FFP submissions to May/June 2020 ie for 2017/18. If still in line then carry on, if not...proceed to Test 3. Test 3- Applicable to all. If the restated value pushes them into breach- and I suppose you could test the period of 2015/16-2017/18, 2016-17-2018-19 and 2019-20- essentially any season or period in which the transaction is applicable, then it's an EFL Commission as per Birmingham. Mitigating and aggravating factors etc, all legal style. OR Test 3- Applicable to all- Version B. Simply deduct points as per the formula outlined in the Birmingham case setting the precedent. Further points for consideration- Applicable to all: a) Should a significant overstatement of valuation be included in the EFL Commission or should this be a separate charge? You can argue this either way IMO. Should there in this instance be yet further charges for inaccurate accounting and submissions? Deliberately misleading the EFL in other words!! Should the methods of valuation be tested? For example I read in an early article that one had been valued as if sold for housing yet there it is, still being leased. Misleading at the very least and if the methods of valuation vs the reality are not commensurate with each other then- yes you've guessed it, even more charges? b) Specific to Sheffield Wednesday- IF it is proven that they have put something from 2018/19 into 2017/18, should this be yet another separate charge? Because say what you will about the other clubs, at least their transactions seem to have been clearly and definitively within the right accounting periods. To say nothing of the wildly delayed accounts- which again the other clubs have not done.

Story on the current investigations- wonder if PL and EFL jointly coordinating, as there seems to be nothing on Aston Villa. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/10/16/efl-step-investigation-derby-sheffield-wednesday-reading-stadium/ This one isn't fading away quietly. Some interesting exerts from the article: Interesting. Standard. Some serious players then!! This last bit, although mooted in a previous article, nonetheless is a very interesting twist!? One more thing, I notice there are a lot less leaks than there were for the Birmingham Investigation. Better run post Harvey?

Sad day for Bury FC,- and for football- barring some last minute miracle. Case 87. Little bit of background which slipped through the media unnoticed. https://www.foreverbury.org/post/forever-bury-statement-14-10-2019 EHHH Think I missed this post by Andy Holt. "There was no vote". No guarantee they would've got back in but what a final indignity if accurate!! RIP, Bury FC.

The reports are unclear- whether it'd be gifted, sold separately or continue being rented from Morris- maybe it's the latter, he would still own the ground but the club and new owner still own the stadium. Read it's rent until 2038 at £1.2m or something- for an £81.1m transaction- very nice commercial terms and truly arms length I'm sure! The other bit is that once every 5 years, rent is or would be subject to upward only free market tests. That has potential to change the equation down the track.

? Interesting- seems Leeds owner turned down the whole suing of the EFL thing, despite an offer by Gibson to join the case. Said he agreed in principle but wanted to focus mainly on the football. I've got a set of sanctions in mind if any valuations were significantly overstated line and tests for sanctions which I'll post later. Another interesting story is that Derby are for sale for £60m apparently- well it's a story anyway. I wonder if it would include the ground- because if it does...serious questions to answer there IMO.

Think the valuation is the bigger issue personally. However we can't say for certain whether the right reporting period was adhered to, not without actually seeing the documents- IF it was the incorrect reporting period and that's merely an if, then the right step is to exclude it from the 2015/16-2017/18 accounting period and impose a points penalty based on the adjusted FFP result. Then it would be needed to checked for fair market value and would be adjusted accordingly. Of course if there has been a significant overstatement of value AND a dodgy accounting period vs transaction then that in turn should lead to further penalties. The ones I really want to see hammered are Aston Villa- had parachute payments, yet still did it- their fanbase seems to contain a high ratio of arrogant belters too. Yep, auditors themselves have come under scrutiny in recent times. Conflicts of interest in these sorts of things should be very much avoided and without looking to question professionalism, certain things make me wonder a bit with 2 clubs in particular on this front.

That is the million dollar question- why were they changed, who instigated it? Would also add when exactly they were changed? We believe 2016 but I still feel the when is quite important. Yes, it seems a bit of a soft line of questioning on reflection. David Conn or Kieran Maguire for example would be a very different proposition! Potentially the two Matts who actually swapped papers, possibly even direct job roles- Lawton and Hughes- both seem pretty sharp. None will be on his interview list! Like I said he seemed to have one or two interesting ideas but for me, the rule change- this leaves more questions than answers. I am assuming he did not instigate fair market valuations when Derby and Reading in 2017/18, possibly Sheffield Wednesday that said same season though it's not in the public domain, when the contract in place etc, Aston Villa season just gone- should he have been quizzed on this too? I know it's being done now but it's far too late in some respects, even were we to reach the final outcome with an adjustment made. Certainly in Aston Villa's case! Additionally, in the case of Sheffield Wednesday should he not have been all over the fact there was a possible discrepancy between sale date of Hillsborough and accounting period? Again, an ideal q for him! The interview thinking about it should also have asked him about Projected Accounts- did the EFL just ignore/forget these? Because for a long time the system was mooted as 2 years of real accounts and then third year of projected accounts as submitted by the club in order to prevent what we've seen in the past of sides who have clearly breached and by a good margin going up and flourishing as only judged retrospectively. If there were legal concerns about this fair enough but again, more questions than answers unfortunately! Serious note, I wonder if the EFL could take legal action against Harvey if it turns out that certain rules were just blatantly overlooked, disregarded or at best, significantly misinterpreted etc when he was in charge- ie projected accounts. Let alone valuations and even possibly on one case, the correct accounting period!

Shaun Harvey speaks- including on FFP! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/10/09/wanted-hold-carabao-cup-draw-space-ousted-efl-chief-reveals/ The relevant sections...the headline with one of his ideas is a cracker though! Incidentally, I think he actually raises one or two good points, but overall he was useless... Denies a 2016 rule change was an oversight? Curiouser and curiouser...raises some serious questions IMO. I struggle to see why 18/24 clubs would vote for it when the majority comply or make serious efforts to comply with FFP! I think they already have mandatory wage cuts in the form of relegation wage clauses, but maybe not all clubs do and could they be higher? I agree though that a closure of the loophole should be tied to other reforms. Wage cuts repaid as a bonus in the event of promotion is in fact an interesting idea. The first bolded bit, makes me wonder further whether they appointed him as he's an idiot who won't bother much with oversight and is just somewhat of a patsy. @Davefevs @downendcity @chinapig @BobBobSuperBob @CyderInACan @Coppello you might be interested in this. Varied others too I suspect.

Not had a chance to look properly at accounting standards etc yet but two interesting lines on ground valuations etc. After some digging I eventually found in plain sight that St Andrews was apparently as per Al Majir sold for £30m to owners in sale and leaseback- sounds reasonable tbh! Profit 3.5-4 x net book valuie though if that transaction true, net book value seemingly somewhere between £7.5m and £8m could make it interesting again? The second one is the PL but I see that the company that purchased Upton Park for £40m- Boleyn Phoenix- sold it on for £60m. Profit according to WH Holding, £8.7m (or thereabouts) on sale of Upton Park to Boleyn Phoenix. Yet, it's unclear in the accounts as neither Cashflow nor Profit seem to show £40m but I could be missing something! As per Kieran Maguire of course, the 2nd one! Still have significant doubts over Hillsborough and Pride Park in particular though- Villa Park may pass the test, unfortunately but I wonder given a £44.8m impairment of Villa Park in 2015/16. EDIT: Have looked further back and yes, the £40m is somewhat explained- by Kieran Maguire, at a prior date. http://priceoffootball.com/west-ham-united-2017-financial-results-fools-gold/

Some lightish reading while I listen to City on the radio-! Owers summary will get me through... One thing I did note briefly in the FFP rules though it's unclear if it is exceptional items or not under the new or old regs. These need to be applied for, and heavily scrutinised against the backdrop of the FFP situation of the club, not just granted- well that's my interpretation anyway! Reversal of losses seems like the closest thing to reversal of impairment- and I'd suggest on first glance that suddenly reversing a loss, revaluing a tangible fixed asset (okay, stadium!) back up 3 years on from a major impairment of £44.8m is well outside the spirit of the regs- but not just the spirit and should've if at all possible been excluded from FFP calcs! Seems incredibly convenient...or valued by an independent valuer before the all-clear given. That latter point also would go for Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday- and if they've done it, Birmingham. That could be another element of Gibson's case perhaps, regarding the regs not being applied correctly. Unsure of 11.3.1 still applies but if it does: It well and truly could be considered to cover the above!! Under duties of disclosure- and this is most definitely under the new regs, but in part it's unclear where the old ones end and the new ones start. Okay, Middlesbrough considering suing Derby probably doesn't fall under this either! Neither for that matter arguably does Middlesbrough considering legal action vs the EFL. Still think- though maybe clutching at straws- that the EFL not making a public statement as Purslow purportedly wanted declaring that they had passed FFP could end up making things interesting. Certainly if they make a quick return!

Sounds about right @Davefevs . Though worth pointing out that it seems to take place under Randy Lerner's ownership. Are there not rules in place about this kind of thing (the upstairs, downstairs valuations, not the owners!) though? Don't mean FFP, talking accounting and even legal. Sometime later, I'm going to try to get a handle on it with this. https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/financial-reporting/financial-reporting-faculty/financial-reporting-webinar-slides/2018/2018-09-27-accounting-for-impairments-under-frs-102--final-web.ashx?la=en Looks quite fun ? but also quite long...Think under US Accounting standards, such a move wouldn't be permissible. For FRS 102, on early reading and my general understanding it doesn't look too easy to justify- certainly the EFL seemingly waving it through seems below par about right under Harvey and co?

Oooh a reply from the EFL to my mate!! Going to read that statement now, but possibly read it before anyway. Well, that was a waste of time :laugh:- directed me back to the statement and judgement. Can't see anything specific in there but will re-read and see if there's anything I've missed.

I remember mentioning this or getting at it in the past, but glad to see it confirmed. Answer of course was... Now I am pretty bloody surprised that you can just revalue or get revalued a tangible asset (ie stadium) upwards just like that and bank the profit selling it to NSWE Stadium Limited (formerly the same company known as Recon Football Limited, Aston Villa Limited and initially I believe Vilden - as far as I can see there is no Revaluation Reserve, nor is this a new company created within the group to do the transaction but an existing one renamed! (Owners changed, granted). Is there no expectation of a regular assessment ie annual of impairment and grounds for reversal, or adjustment- or is it simply fine as and when a company sees fit? No limitations on time either? They certainly didn't reverse the full impairment or it would have been a bigger profit- reckon Villa Park book value (not the same as market value) in 2017/18 was around £28-29m. Hopefully the attachments work- definitively proves it is an existing company within the group. If is an existing within the group, is there no scope for it to be classified as a transfer, inter or intra company- in which no money changes hands, no profit?

Possibly futile, but I helped someone I know to draft an email to the EFL yesterday. Usually they respond to people with at least "we cannot discuss any individual cases". Will post any reply that they get on here- they've (via me) asked them for something specific which likely wouldn't betray commercial confidentiality- but tbh may not exist.Typo in first bolded word may not help!

Okay, done a bit more research etc. Seems that- and maybe I misinterpreted this at the time- their 3 year cycle reset from last season. So in 2018/19 because of the sanction in 2017/18 that brought about a new 3 year cycle? In a way I can understand it, but in a way that doesn't seem right! Means that if you breakeven or make a legit profit over the following 2 years you can basically lose £39m + allowables in 2018-19 , that can't be right- that'd be ridiculous! Sure that wasn't how the media reported it after they got docked the points?

Maybe jumping the gun here and it's still early, only just out etc. Put it this way, even when judged on one year- eg 2018/19 £13m + allowables, unless this is incomplete, it's possible that Birmingham as per their HKSE Results have failed FFP AGAIN!! They're in HK$ which doesn't help but early indications make me think it's possible at least. https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2019/0930/ltn20190930601.pdf https://www1.hkexnews.hk/search/titlesearch.xhtml?lang=en They appear based on this, not to have done their stadium sale and leaseback thing after all, or at least not within that reporting period- unless it would show up somewhere else of course. Bit puzzled as to why there isn't a bigger profit on transfers given Adams, Jota sales. I mean, I treat it with caution because I struggle to fathom how they would set themselves up to fail again given a) What happened last time and b) They were working under/with an EFL BUSINESS PLAN!! Actually, b) Maybe part of the issue. Serious note, I struggle to see how they would land themselves in it over successive periods- Governance?? EDIT: I suppose it is possible that their apparent stadium sale and leaseback will show up in UK Accounts, but not the Hong Kong ones- that aside I'm struggling to see how they haven't failed FFP once again even when we disregard 2016/17 and 2017/18 results so they can't be punished twice for the same losses.

Thanks. I found it independently myself later. At this time, football was in a bad financial state, I am assuming he liquidated or sought to liquidate it to buy debt? Middlesbrough and Gibson were not the first club to go down this route- there was precedence! Not saying I agree with it though, but again I refer you to Leicester 2002 administration. Definite similarities! Still all told, I agree with Gibson in the main on this specific issue- maybe not so much about the cheats thing but looking at how they sold players etc, showed restraint in the market- I have to agree and IF there was a significant overvaluation and the readjusted amount takes into FFP breach, sanctions must follow for all clubs who have done this. If the accounting period vs transaction discrepancy is proven or unable to be explained sufficently then further sanctions must follow- that's just one case AFAIK though, that's additional to the debate over the valuation.

Interesting stuff, how long ago was that? Will have to look up on it...football in 1980s did have some significant financial issues though. I thought he saved them from bankruptcy though. Other clubs had I believe used liquidation prior to this to escape issues. Modern equivalent maybe Leicester gaining promotion in 2002-03, while in the same season they went into administration? Before any points deduction regulations etc. The second one is quite interesting. I'm not fully sure it counted towards FFP- certainly given FFP is measured on profit (or at our level mainly loss!) before tax, then any profit gained on sale of a tax loss certainly should not! Is a bit different too, because at that time the regulations allowed for a fine (possibly a hefty one) if promoted, an embargo if not.. and that's it! No points deductions, demotion from top 2, top 6, probably nothing in the way of projected accounts for the current season either. I do get the point you're making, that Gibson hasn't always adhered letter and spirit but both numerically and timescale wise there is a definite difference timescale wise! Example. Club Sells their ground in May 2018, let's say- or that's when it shows at Land Registry. Done within right reporting period etc, appears in 2017/18 accounts. Because of the 3 year rolling period thing- it solves issues from 2015/16-2017/18, it provides a cushion in 2018/19 once 2015/16 drops off and provided it isn't blown that season, it helps all the way until the end of 2019/20. Only truly disappears off the calculations in the season commencing 2020/21!! If it's at true fair market value and consistent with the correct accounting period, then it's acceptable I suppose- but it can't be right!

I also wondered a bit earlier what the precise nature of Gibson's legal action vs the EFL might entail. Whether for example, it could be not just about the stadium deals but also the projected accounts- or more accurately the apparent failure to factor these in. Year 1- Real. Year 2- Real, Year 3- Projected by the CLUB. If eg the Year 3 Projections don't include a ground sale- thinking very specifically Sheffield Wednesday and then quite possibly Aston Villa and Derby- well that's a big mismatch right there. I wonder if this rule and apparent failure to utilise it could be at the heart of his actions here.

Parachute payments definitely a thorny issue- they need reform for sure. Not counting them for FFP is a good idea. So too is the idea of having them set aside for existing commitments- most notably wages. A write down of assets ie player value also acceptable plus also I guess clauses that may carry over from PL. Other variants I would also add, but maybe harder to police. You could let it be used under FFP but for high earners that the club needs to ship out- ie high earners who are either ineligible or loaned out- think UEFA have some version of it for FFP, in that certain players cannot be registered in CL if a club in moderate breach. Or tie parachute payments to sales of better players, released in segments- but this probably would be the least realistic because you need a taker on both sides! How do you police that, prove intent or otherwise? Dunno if you can! A further problem I have is the differential in loss limit. No problem with £13m + allowables in the Championship but the problem is if a side has spent 2 years or more in the PL, the PL loss limit is £35m per season. In layman's terms, it means that a regular side at this level can lose up to £13m + £13m + £13m- and say £5m per year in allowables ie youth etc, that's £54m. Fine! However PL side can lose up to in penultimate PL season £35m + £35m in relegation season- and then £13m + allowables at this level. £88m assuming that the allowables remain the same but that PL doesn't include these...BIG difference, £98m if not. That's before we even look at how parachute payments are used!! The one thing I am unsure on is whether that £35m is inclusive or exclusive of the allowables and if it's the latter then that may help a bit... This is why I have the biggest issue with Aston Villa. £35m loss limit, x 2, latterly one, 3 years of parachute payments totalling nearly £90m yet still the stadium sale and leaseback despite all the inbuilt advantages!? Oh and the utter arrogance, lack of humility of their fanbase. The slick ****** Purslow too!

Gemune question, not having a djg for any reasonable contributors who post on here and support Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday. IF that fixed asset loophole hadn't been opened up seemingly in error or had been noted sharpish and closed that same season ie before any- and I include Reading- of the stadia sale and leaseback and indeed the other fixed assets applicable what could be done? I accept Derby sold players so are in a slightly different boat to the others, especially Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday, plus their losses seemed borderline but still. @DerbyFan @OwlsonlineAdmin Any reasonable Aston Villa fans on here? Quite interested to see 'the plan' in the event of that loophole being shut soon after it opened or better yet not made available in the first place from fans of sides who did it. Mainly Aston Villa abd Sheffield Wednesday though but I also suspect less of Tomori, Mount, Wilson, Jozefzoon. Maybe 2-3 of them?