Mr Popodopolous

Agreed. Sale of old land and old ground seems fair enough I guess, but then again given infrastructure investment doesn't count under FFP there could be a case for harmonization there. We'll see what comes out in the wash I guess. Pretty unlikely to say the least though, as you say! Yes, think that is part of it- trying to pre-empt the possibility of outside regulation too, after some bad years (largely under Shaun Harvey). Agree that the rules should've been explicit, you need fully clear rules but at the same time, I think that to leave it unchecked won't go well- a lot of owners and hierarchy, albeit privately, are pretty resentful about it IMO. The Hillsborough sale and leaseback has a feeling of the final straw, given the context around that particular transaction! How the hell that was signed off as okay... Oh they need to change the rules pdq. However I agree with the investigations- as I touched upon above, I cannot see this issue being left alone without it, all those clubs who have sold quite big, made sacrifices, restraint in the window. If the valuations broadly correct then fair enough, we change the rules and we move forward- but if not...for the sake of the integrity of the competition I believe this is very necessary. Police Tweet and Lampard's (Derby's?) version of events didn't quite overlap entirely IIRC. Bielsa's press conference though pretty honest, was pretty ill-judged! I remember the discrepancies though. See the odd Tweet, unsure if I follow him on Twitter- if I don't I will now! Definitely a good read. Mel Morris- I'm conflicted on him! He does this FFP related stuff, notably the sale and leaseback, Rooney stuff and maybe the variance in amortisation model, yet clearly he is a local owner- read he went to watch Derby in the 1970s? He seems to have a good connection with your fans- seen him leading the bounce at Accrington on YouTube eg, in the stand itself! If it wasn't for the FFP stuff, he'd be up there in the mould of Coates, Gibson and Lansdown- in that category, yet he shares a number of characteristics, FFP notwithstanding! I have respect for him being a true fan but I don't like some of the FFP practices is how I'd sum it up.

Agreed, seems pretty odd... Certainly you'd think so- hope so too! Yes, agreed. Surprised that a lot of clubs seemed not to raise this as an issue, certainly not in public, before the fact. I wonder too. Have to say all seems quite odd. Part of me thinks it's EFL looking to limit damage/flak post Bolton and Bury. I don't like the practice with related parties but I do wonder what exactly the EFL expected, how they believed clubs would use the rule! Don't think Harvey was all that bothered in general IMO.

Makes sense. Still, and especially under Harvey, I wouldn't put much past the EFL. This subtle yet important rule change certainly was slipped through, usually there is something on the website or some kind of publicity. Was notable that the Telegraph article said when this rule was changed, they didn't expect clubs to utilise it. Big failings in Governance! Reading your forum is interesting, a few cite Leeds doing sale and leaseback. It's not quite the same- initially it was when they were screwed in the mid 2000s. That was to a third party I believe and rent was paid. Unsure how much they profited but was surely not double NBV at that time (I know NBV misleading, not sale price etc). £8m!! 2004 money granted but £8m!! They now lease it from the owner but he brought it back from a 3rd party- Leeds certainly didn't profit in anything like the same way. I don't have such a problem with it if it's a true 3rd party, unrelated arms length transaction as a club is taking a real risk in that scenario!

(Potentially) very interesting Tweet by Andy Holt here- or is it that only Championship clubs would've voted on the regulation about asset sales counting towards FFP? Certainly makes you wonder...

Stage One- More reliable from a neutral Governing body than a club- it just is. EFL should have been involved in the valuation process from the start IMO. Well I say more reliable, it's actually 2 valuers who may have a different view but justice must be seen to be done as well as being done- principles applicable here. Stage Two- Yes, this aspect is true. The two separate valuations, unclear how you would go about settling that part of it. Taken in good faith, yes- but it is awfully interesting that clubs who have done it were largely near or over the line with FFP without it. Why don't other fully compliant clubs do it for example as a revenue boost? Suggests a slight vested interest here...agree that an outside company is necessary. Yeah, additions cover work done do they not? Additions under Tangible Fixed Assets- certainly the cost involved. On the other hand, we have depreciation. All needs to be factored in. £55m in 2007- what has enhanced the value other than work on the ground? Is it to the tune of nearly 50% even factoring in depreciation since this time? Reading's looks more realistic but yes without checking their accounts for the last 15-20 years it'll be hard to tell- not done that yet, could have been revalued, written down, written up in that time- had a load of additions. Book value means little agreed- read some of that link, will do so in full. Where was the £60m, was this the 2013 revaluation? Assets in the course of construction- that could mean training ground, infrastructure or whatever else would be classed as a Tangible Fixed Asset though unless specifically stated as such. The interesting but doubtless perfectly legit thing is that I see no reference to the amount that the 2013 revaluation came to, unlike the 2007 one. Been looking at assets under construction and still doesn't explain the uplift. Probably an old training ground or something, the Reading disposal. In all honesty, part of me isn't 100% against disposal of fixed assets even stadia regarding FFP if it is to a verifiable 3rd party, open and transparent and full market rent is paid though it is simpler and probably best to just disallow it from the calculations end of. Maybe the old Elm Park site? Found it from 2016: Stage Two and Three- Not inconceivable that a club knowingly exceed FFP limits- look at Birmingham and their idiotic purchase of Pedersen when under a soft embargo! Admittedly, none of you, Aston Villa, Reading or Sheffield Wednesday have acted like this! Pure idiocy that act...but they surely knew they were over but did it anyway! I can see that argument but there are not a huge number of loopholes to exploit that aside. Because a further valuation from the EFL is more neutral and therefore justice is more easily seen to have been done than if commissioned by a club! I would suspend the clubs who take legal action if I had my way. It can be done- these arbitration panels are pretty binding- QPR nearly got refused re-entry to the FL in 2015 when threatening court etc, and that was a real risk until they decided to go in and fight their case internally within the arbitration process. Vote of the 24 Championship clubs to suspend membership of legal action- maybe something within the regs or small print, articles of association? Would be interesting to see how clubs would vote in this scenario even if it had no effect! EFL commission on this matter can issue anything from a warning to expulsion from the Football League, it's an independent Commission and they have a very wide remit of powers! Pretty sure in 2014/15 there was a risk that the EFL would allocate QPR no fixtures if it came to it with regards that FFP scenario on their return. You talk about legal action, I'm convinced there would be plenty of clubs lined up on the other side. Wouldn't surprise me if the many compliant clubs have looked at legal action and that this has helped to bring this about! Oh yeah the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission. Provide a warning, expel a club- and pretty well anything in between. Full list on the EFL site! Different club by club too- Aston Villa were too far gone before Villa Park, save for the sale of Grealish. You I'm not wholly convinced were in breach, Reading's £6.5m- margins must've been tight! Sheffield Wednesday well their transaction was very, very questionable for multiple reasons.

Should be 3 stages to this set of investigations IMO. Stage One- Test the value and whatever comes out is the value. If correct or broadly so then fair enough, if not. we escalate to the next stage... Stage Two- If the values are deemed to be vastly overinflated- and I don't think the Madejski is, £26.5m for a modern ground built in late 1990s seems reasonable, capacity 24,161. The others are less clear. Anyway Stage Two should then be deduction of the surplus between sale price and independent valuation from the FFP calculations- with current, and past FFP results recalculated on this revised basis. Has to pass the duck test /reasonableness test to avoid this stage! Stage Three- If applicable by which I mean if the readjustment pushes a club over the limits then it's an EFL independent Disciplinary Commission Birmingham style. Even if it doesn't push them to this stage, the "profit" still must be readjusted accordingly with the readjusted FFP results the new starting point. With an additional possibility of deliberate/aggravated breaches coming into the equation if applicable. Attempts to deceive, distort the competition etc.

Listening to it now. Which company purchased it? One of the Gellaw Newco ones wasn't it? On a general note, before I get back into it fully I do think the EFL will be looking to do something. These bits of the article give me some reasons for cautious optimism. Who made/authorised this decision? Would legal proceedings be possible against that individual if indeed it was an individual for opening the door to this whole mess! Possibly a certain individual who is no longer with the EFL? Can't speculate too much on an open forum obviously. The mess and interclub warfare is evident in the views of the 2 clubs cited. Regardless of whether it's said individual, he made a real mess of his last few years- what was the point of those few years?? Debbie Jevans certainly isn't wildly impressive but in fairness to her she's been left a huge in-tray by her predecessor, most of it bad- "a tidal wave of shite"! I also think that because the rule was never intended for this purpose, supposedly, if true then yes the EFL now they are under a new regime will be properly scrutinising clubs that did this- the previous CEO was deeply unimpressive, especially in his final season. I think the EFL would indeed do something about it if there was pisstaking e.g. if a club brought it for a nominal fee and then sold it again but yes technically a club could buy it back without impacting on FFP. This should've been changed as soon as it was spotted or as soon as the first asset sale and leaseback or asset sale to a related party occurred!! They should have been looking at this in summer 2017 if not sooner! Classic case of not reading the small print and tailoring a clause appropriate? I wonder if UEFA have had a quiet word? Especially given that Aston Villa have reached the PL and could theoretically qualify for Europe before 2021/22. Plus one of Derby, Reading or Sheffield Wednesday could via a Cup. Also think an element of this is attempted damage limitation post Bury, perhaps to stave off some external regulation.

Can't trust it fully if the club has it commissioned. There is a vested interest, whereas with the EFL there is not- they are (or should be) thoroughly neutral. Agree, it's the property of the club, they get the valuation but when it comes to potentially circumnavigating FFP regs through it then it IMO becomes the League's business! Because it seems that the bulk of clubs comply correctly and it distorts the competition A part of the article that beggars belief is the claim by a source that the EFL lifted it, but didn't expect clubs to actually pull such moves off- that bit is baffling and maybe an attempt to cover themselves legally. Six figure sum? Well Shaun Harvey eaent a lot- they could've paid him quite a bit less and valued at the tine- the valuations likely would've worked out cheaper than a big investigation now. He was hardly good value... EFL have accounts, their turnover would he interesting, think over 2 seasons they could've saved themselves a lot of time and hassle had they done this at the time.

Well I'd have had more faith in the veracity and independence of the Villa Park valuation, transaction had the EFL commissioned it. When it's commissioned by the club, still that element of doubt... Hsf the EFL come out and publicly stated as Mr. Purslow was seemingly keen on that FFP was passed- then that would've been case closed. Sources close go the transaction are claiming it but nothing from sources close to the EFL itself as far as I can see.

Indeed- we're getting closer to that point IMO. One bit in the article did throw me. Well what on earth did they change it for then?? What did they expect! Good news though on this bit but tbh I hope that the EFL would see through a ruse. As I recall, Purslow wanted a public statement from the EFL- he got none! How can they deem that independent of the club commissioned them?? A subsidiary- wasn't aware that an internal transaction, as this is a commonly owned company within the group could yield £28m profit. NSWE predated these owners- just renamed and admittedly owner changed.

Aston Villa's turn now, by the PL. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/09/05/premier-league-check-aston-villas-sale-villa-park-against-ffp/

For a bit of fun, here's a potential loophole or 2- is it permitted or is it forbidden? Honestly don't know! Selling a ground to a 3rd party is perhaps okay for sale and leaseback purposes, but whether a commercial company would go for it is a different matter. What if there's a deal to free up cash, to extract some of the value of the ground- club sells say 40% of the value of and by extension the rights to their ground to a 3rd party- independently valued, properly independently valued- but not a high enough % sold to risk homelessness. The sponsor receives rent and gets some of the commercial revenue- the club receives the revenue which helps take them over the line to promotion. Against the regs or not? I honestly don't know! How would that sit with FFP, on the balance sheet.

On the Aston Villa transaction, it was notable that Purslow said the following at a Fans Parliament or whatever equivalent- Q and A? Which raises the question, was it a true transaction or an asset transfer? If it was the latter, I am puzzled as to how it's classed as a profit when it comes to the P&L. Because unlike the company that purchased Pride Park, or Sheffield 3 in Sheffield Wednesday's case- both companies set up for this purpose but still owned by the owner- this was purchased by NSWE Limited. This was an existing company within the group, just renamed. From Recon Football Limited to this. Originally incorporated as Vilden Limited, changed to Aston Villa Limited- Recon Football Limited and finally NSWE Stadium Limited. Internal asset transfer or RPT? Admittedly, ownership changes may supersede all of this, but it wasn't set up as a specific new company to purchase the ground it would appear. Was already an existing company within the group. Company details and history https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/gaapuk/21-10-1 Will read that in due course, maybe that it's all above board and on the level. Fair value or Book/Carrying Value? At least seems a little puzzling to me.

Think it is the prices as opposed to the actual deals that are being investigated, and it's legal accounting wise probably, related party for FFP purposes though more questionable. If anything, £26.5m for Madejski seems low! Can't see £26.5m gross, so a profit of £6.5m or so being inflated however. The safest ground for the EFL would be to look afresh at the FFP figures based on the independent valuation- can't disallow it but tbh the EFL should have got an independent set of valuers in paid for by them as soon as news of these transactions took place. Like I've said from Day One, I'm not wholly convinced Derby breached regardless but Sevco 5112 and Derby County accounts of course have some differences, bigger losses in the former but bigger allowable costs too. (Slightly less income one year in Sevco 5112 than Derby, curiously). Put another way if you subtract the transaction price profit from that which an independent valuation throws up, quite possible they pass anyway. Reading, £26.5m, £20m valuation roughly- seems legit. The big 2 are Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday! Of course, then you have questions about whether it's an aggravated breach, an attempt to deceive the regulations and whether that needs an independent Disciplinary Commission- but right now it should be about the numbers as a first step. I believe a precedent can be set for investigation of past results. See QPR, on a UEFA level see UEFA investigating Man City for results from years back. Interesting post on the Sheffield Wednesday forum. In which case, I say refuse to allocate them fixtures- it's a non starter but if they did- do as with Bury and suspend fixtures while the stand off is in place.

One more interesting (possibly) aspect. This aspect is raising a question about Sheffield Wednesday specifically. Profit of course is Sale Price Minus current Carrying Value. Cash Flow is the Gross Price paid. Derby'. "Profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets" appears as £39,940,387. Appears as £81,100,000 on the Cash Flow Statements. Commensurate with each other, no problem there! Reading'. "Profit on disposal of fixed assets" appears as £6,518,222. Appears in Net Cash Outflow Statements as £26,500,000 ie "Proceeds on Disposal of Fixed Assets". Once checked against Tangible Fixed Assets Disposals Minus Depreciating Eliminated in Respect of- it's all commensurate and the two stack up. Sheffield Wednesday. "Profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets" appears as £38,061,000. Nothing in the Cash Flow Statements, yet under Debtors "Amounts falling due within one year" £7.5m. "Amounts falling due after more than one year £52.5m". That is roughly in line with the valuation- one year is 1/8 (roughly) yet it appears in the Profit on Disposal of Fixed Assets in one go. Unlike the other 2! Maybe all legit but there are a lot of interesting aspects to their transaction... If he wants to spread it out over his own time period, all well and good- provided Sheffield Wednesday don't profit twice or have £7.5m in year 1 and each of the subsequent 7 offsetting FFP when a £37-38m profit appeared in 2017/18 accounts!

Maybe just maybe, there will be benchmarking along the lines of the first. ie The acceptable profit would be the ratio that Reading got in 2017/18 which appeared to be around 32.5%- so a 25-35% ratio. You adjust the profit down IF NECESSARY and remove it from the FFP calcs- and then reassess the Fair Play result.

Does it? As has been said many times, the club told everyone when the accounts were released that they got an independent valuation to determine the market value. I assume they have all the evidence of this valuation. The valuations they obtained in the past were from reputable companies, they were mentioned in the accounts. Should the valuation the EFL obtain prove different to the clubs, then I'm not sure what could happen as I'm not sure what makes their independent valuation any more correct than the club obtained one? They're both independent valuations after all, and they can surely both argue that theirs is correct. The club have been open about the sale and it was sold to outside of the group of comp Mel Morris is still a related party though and therefore a company owned by him though outside of the group, would be treated as such, FFP regs would confirm this. RPTs can be adjusted downwards under FFP regulations- I think the EFL are doing the right thing here but may lose out as they should have got an independent valuer in when it was first mooted. Property experts though- I think the valuation by the EFL might take precedence but who knows- vote of the 24 clubs for each of the valuations? The 2013 revaluation- there are a few queries here, Revaluation Reserve perhaps? Which you mentioned IIRC. Definitely questions to answer if the independent auditor hired for and paid independently of a club, has it under £81m or more accurately, substantially under £81m. Anyway if all is well, then the £81m will stand won't it. They owe it to the competiition and the integrity of it to get it valued independently, paid for by the League not by a club- for all of the transactions that are being investigated. I'd suggest a ground valuation easier to challenge than RPT sponsorship. On a general note, I remember the extra work done in the future to enhance/release the value now. It sounds a bit questionable. I agree with this unnamed Senior figure. This is from that Times article.

Said it before and will do again. Pride Park. Calculations of additions, depreciation, net book value and yeah work done so far make me think £50-55m. £60m at a push- thinking £50-55m however!

In a sense this is about the time of the year. Last year actual sanctions threats first came to light for Birmingham late August, early September. In 2014 when QPR were the first big ones to be stung by it for 2013/14 results, was looking back at it, first arose around September time. Add in the fact Jevans appears to be an upgrade on Harvey- mind you who isn't- and it could be interesting. Here's what I think happens. If an inflation is found to have taken place, then the ground transaction profit gets readjusted to whatever the independent valuers decide. RPTs you can do that with if applicable The one puzzling aspect of the article is that it mentions Reading and Sheffield Wednesday too. Which is great but one notable side is missing- the worst of the lot, Purslow's Aston Villa!! I guess until they come back down?

Well well well well well!! https://mobile.twitter.com/TimesSport/status/1169311409609613314 Shows how inadequate a CEO Mr. Harvey was but things could be getting interesting. The irony of course, is that procedurally and in terms of loss offsetting, their transaction seems the least offensive of the 3 in many ways.

Was just thinking earlier. What if..."sliding doors moment"- What if when Gibson put his vote to the EFL 75% of Championship clubs had voted for it by the required margin, ie the 18/24. Because let's face it about that ratio seem to comply! Might Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday have been docked points? A creative solution might have been that if clubs said clubs had got awkward legally, a vote of Championship clubs whether to allocate them any fixtures. Not expulsion but suspension.

Reckon it'll be somewhere between £25-30m. I'm not sure how much the position to place theory holds at this time tbh- certainly at the top end, I think there are probably quite a few wage bills of £25m+. More than 6 in other words, but we should be playoff contenders! Just take a look at Sheffield Wednesday accounts for 2017/18! Granted that was a 14 month period but even once adjusted for that...think they finished 15th. Nottingham Forest I think had £25m that season and were 17th. Let alone Birmingham and Reading who nearly went down, plus Sunderland who did!

That's even worse! I assumed it was a board meeting and then a decision- bad enough that in effect only several, was it 6 or 7 out of 72 clubs got a say but worse still. Don't even think the board is sufficient, seems very odd- 72 clubs should've been a given, at an EGM.

Yeah, think they did say that. Didn't sit well with me that he quite likely voted for it, let's hope he votes correctly this time if the takeover etc credible- a vote of the 72 is a must though.

Did Ashton as part of the board not vote for expulsion? I fear he did, but unsure- if it passed unanimously though then sadly he did! However that was a specific event- I am sure if it comes to it we will do the right thing!