Mr Popodopolous

Might be interested in this @Davefevs though it could also be more innocent, admin errors etc. https://www.bluestrust.org/2020/01/st-andrews-ownership/

WIll add a little more too, on Birmingham. We only know so much, what was, is in the public domain etc. However I do note that they received the notification from the EFL in connection with failure to comply with the business plan on 14th May 2019...which was before if Companies House anything to go by, the Birmingham City Stadium Limited appeared at CH. Unsure when that company was first devised but CH suggest it was 20th May 2019... Also it mentions something about 17th May 2019- date Received maybe in the document. Point is that both of these appear to be after the notification of the charges- perhaps the EFL dropped the charges after this arose, or maybe Birmingham didn't get this done in time to avoid the EFL notificaiton? All very interesting.

One aspect I didn't necessarily note before or whether it's badly drafted rules etc- if anything it could even tighten margins for quite a few- or possibly the reverse: Hi @Coppello is this the case or is it yet again an example of badly written/badly implemented EFL regs- or maybe both? Like I say, looked at a few clubs and if you added it back on, many would surely be in breach! Many. Would certainly surely make the losses and problems of those under the spotlight worse. Example: Sure Birmingham certainly are not the worst candidates but come on!! If you add that back to the FFP loss...? Or am I being a bit daft and double counting?

This hits the nail on the head, well and truly. We can debate it on a forum and come to the sensible conclusions that we have- I still wonder if the controversy over the TV deal in November 2018 could have affected this...they certainly seemed to be mean business with what on paper are strong regulations, as voted for by the clubs. By which I mean, I still cannot help but feel that the TV deal Controversy meant that Shaun Harvey lost his nerve or maybe gave a free pass to try and appease- it's all speculation so no real point but I wonder if he saw a threat of a breakaway and may have lost his nerve. Think they are in the new rules, if applied correctly- some at least. Shaun Harvey oversaw it all though and his track record in football speaks for itself...how he got the job I've not a clue! How he kept the job, I've not a clue! Highly paid though he certainly was...made £1m or thereabouts last year, about half of that was severance etc though- well worth it to get rid! Just look what he said about Ken Anderson- back in February! Still think he'd have let Bury try and start the season if left in charge, just a gut feeling... Well quite. I read in September that the EFL were trying to close the loophole...suppose they have to get 3/4 of clubs to agree it though! Again, Rule 2.3 may well cover the spirit thing, though I'd have to check the precise number. This last bit is really important...in particular I'd like to see swinging punishments to right the wrongs and vindicate clubs such as us for Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday. Reading too, but their valuation looks alright. So does Birmingham plus they have been punished...but if they refused a business plan- £12m bid for Adams they turned down last January apparently and sold him for £15m in the summer, then their conduct surely open to question. PLUS just read an interesting point on Birmingham forum. If the owners company owns the ground, how can Birmingham therefore receive commercial revenue for naming rights etc?

Here's how I'd have it work. Let's simplify it- they have the right idea but are not implementing it as well as it could be, possibly a bit over complicated too? Club as we know submits Projected Accounts for the existing season (T) in March of the existing season, EFL have real Projected and Real Actual Accounts T-1 and T-2 for the two seasons that preceded it. Club has claims in T that though they are in breach, it'll be alright. NOT quite good enough and already possibly covered by the regulations. Going to sell the ground? Proof of Independent valuation, proof of Valuation method and EFL hire valuation, and their hired valuer takes precedence- this should be clear at the outset! Paper trail. Profits from Transfers going to see you alright? I then have two counterpoints- 1) Why not in January? 2) Is a deal setup, arranged- paper trails Pre the end of your Reporting Period. If you can provide verifiable proof in either of the above or for any similar yet legitimate transactions you have passed albeit your figures will likely still be close so you will remain under some form of monitoring for the foreseeable if so. If NO Proof or Paper Trail, that Projected Accounts- ie T along with T-1 and T-2- will be treated as their FFP figure and the club treated as in breach and referred to a Disciplinary Commission. Reasonably simple and already basically allowed for within the regs I'd have thought. One more Birmingham note...amazing how Accounting seems to let you bank a profit on a transaction when there's nothing about it the Cashflow for that year! Creative or what! ? It comes up under "Cash flows from Operating Activities" the profit but the actual cash doesn't come up under "Cash flows from Investing Activities". Books a Profit in the first but shows nothing in terms of Proceeds for the 2nd. Seems legal though. Nothing on the Land Registry. Sheffield Wednesday's shows even less than that in that section...think £7.5m of £60m was under Other Debtors or something! As well as no lease arrangement. Appears on the Land Registry. In Derby's and Reading's case by contrast, it shows up both in the Cash Flows from Operating Activities in terms of the Profit and the Cash Flows from Investing Activities in terms of the gross price paid. Derby's appears on the Land Registry though...Reading's doesn't! A right old mix there.

Well Kieran Maguire cleared that one up- basically linked to RPTs not counting so much under HK, cancelling out etc- same reason ground transaction doesn't appear on that one. As for their neighbours, had they stayed down it really would've been interesting to see what would have happened!! Tammy gone. In terms of other important loans, El Ghazi, Mings, Tuanzebe and Hause loans up...permanent signings a no, might have been able to get Hause, Tuanezebe or both back on loan though? A MAJOR FFP question, which even if staved off with the Villa Park sale and the £28m profit or whatever it was to May 2019, would have to be dealt with further for May 2020. If Projected Accounts system enforced as it had been, then they may have even been docked points along with the others during the run-in last March/April which IMO would have been fair as I suspect it was before the ground sale idea was even devised. Would Grealish have stayed I wonder? McGinn too. Now Smith is used to working on a budget- see Brentford- but I really wish that they had lost in the semis at minimum- torn between them and Derby as lesser of two evils. I think Derby probably due to sales in 2017/18 and 2018/19. I know a lot of players were out of contract, wage savings etc but it was the third and final Year of Parachute Payments- at best these two likely cancel out. The amortisation would've been pushed up by the January signings too...might have been a tough spell! To say nothing of the EFL investigations into ground sales and value, related to FFP etc. That would have been fascinating to see had the playoff final been lost or better yet, the playoff semi final. Or better yet- EFL clarity of punishments (ie points tariffs), combined with EPL standards of Governance...big trouble!

Well then, let's have a look! Seems they do a bit, on early checks. YES! £15,723,000 or so profit PLUS £1,466,000 which represented the Release of a Deferred Capital Grant...total profit is £17,189,000...Gross Sale Price therefore was £22,760,000 and as it hadn't been valued in years a revaluation was probably overdue, net Book Value was £7,037,000 at time of sale and £22,760,000 sounds sensible enough IMO. Still unclear how! We're none the wiser, but what does seem clear is that Birmingham have fallen foul whether its of the rules as a whole or a specific aspect of the rules, ie the EFL Business Plan perhaps. What confuses me on early glance, ground sale aside is why does the the Turnover differ for the 12 months to June 30th 2019 between here and HK...12 months is 12 months, isn't it? Given that the Revenue was earned in the UK... Birmingham City PLC- to June 30th 2019- Key figures! Revenue- £23,325,000 Birmingham Sports Holdings segmented into Birmingham City PLC- to June 30th 2019- Key Figures! Revenue (using Exchange Rate of HK$ to £ on 30th June 2019)- £21,207,840.86 Disaggregation of said Revenue: Birmingham City PLC: Match Receipts- £5,180,000 Broadcasting- £7,989,000 Commercial Income- £10,178,000. The last one raises eyebrows because it rose by £3.69m in a season- in a season where Birmingham did okay and yes they improved and were in the playoff race for a while- but nothing incredible. ? Birmingham Sports Holdings segmented into what I assume to be Birmingham City PLC Match Receipts (Total figure)- £5,278,996.80. Meh, Exchange Rates fluctuate- fairly sensible margin of error and maybe I didn't pick the right margin of Exchange Rate. No big deal. Broadcasting- £8,170,142.40. Meh as above- No big swing and these can balance up and down if there are Exchange Rates and fluctuations, margins for error etc. Commercial Income- £7,294,492.80 This last bit needs explaining IMO. The Exchange Rates fluctuate but not to that %, that extent in a few months! Why do those two figures, for what is ostensibly the same period, differ by nearly £3m! The Exchange Rate certainly doesn't give a nice neat explanation for this one so far as I can see, unlike say the Match Receipts or the Broadcasting Income. I put those two down to Exchange Rate Variations but this last one is a bit curious. So long as it's not an RPT or a shell company or similar all well and good, but I'm struggling to see how it's booked in that period given it's 30th June 2019 in both cases. Let's see how much the Commercial Revenue in particular rose by on 2018 though, as that's the big area to look at: Birmingham City PLC: Commercial Income- £10,178,000 (UP £3,696,000)- UP 57.02%!! Birmingham Sports Holdings segmented into what I assume to be Birmingham City PLC: Commercial Income- £7,294,492.80 (UP £311,986.21)- UP 4.47%!! Now it's entirely possible that Exchange Rate Fluctuations over a year could explain it but I am struggling to see the reasons at this stage for the notable difference in Commercial Income that they reported to CH for last season and that they reported to HKSE. Deferred Revenue perhaps, deals made then that happened now...I wonder? Currency fluctuations- mix of the 2? All seems a bit curious though.

The reminder. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/birmingham-city-could-face-new-charge-over-che-adams-xtd0dbnd8 Some quick key word searches also threw up the following from a week or 2 later: This was something I vaguely recall from the time. Birmingham wanted £22m for Adams, Burnley bid £12m and they rejected. Birmingham therefore waited until the summer when they got £15m, but that doesn't appear until this seasons accounts as there seems to be no sign of it. Think their "plan" was to sell the ground this summer or by June 30th 2019 and maybe one or two other useful players, Adams then in 2019/20 season. EFL need to check if that was at fair value too- though it seems like it could well be! It makes sense in a way albeit for a smaller deduction as it's a breach of something less specific than the big ticket loss limit- by keeping him they gained a sporting advantage despite still at that time being over the limits. OTOH a club has the right to try and get the best right for a player...it's a hard one but those goals/assists would have gained points for Birmingham- albeit unlikely they go down anyway but if they sell at that price they may fail FFP again! This could set a very interesting precedent moving forward, these secondary charges for not selling in January windows!

That's for later though, onto Birmingham- and will look at various comparisons later. This is another good scoop for Matt Hughes though- he called something like this back in February last year, after the closure of the January 2019 window! I'm also interested to see if St Andrews was fair value or not- I think it actually might have been, ironically. Worth a reminder of what Hughes wrote last Feb!

Am only going by the letter of the rules etc- basing it purely on overspend vs mitigating vs aggravating. IF rumoured overspend is true then that's 12? Increasing losses was an aggravating factor in the Birmingham case that's 3. Knock off one for complying with soft embargo? Okay maybe 14 or 15 then. I'm sure there were other factors pro and anti though...this is off the top of my head though. There were rumours though that EFL wanted to enforce a points penalty back in May, or maybe the clubs so it's all deeply unclear right now.

All the other main stadium sale deals appeared within a month or two between sale date and appearance there...pretty sure it was less than 6 months though! This is at least half a year- yet nothing! Sounds about right though... Hope the EFL commission an independent valuation and if necessary, adjust accordingly. No free passes!

Will have a proper look later but looks like Birmingham sold the ground for somewhere between £20-25m. Profit of £17m or so in any case...Now funnily enough, ironically for a badly run club as these appear to be, that actually sounds about right to me IMO. Don't know what others think...but £20-25m for St Andrews, which is 3 miles from the centre of the 2nd city doesn't sound crazy or inflated. They're due to be paying rent on it too, all listed in the accounts unlike some clubs *cough* Sheffield Wednesday *cough*.About £1.25m per season and some of that might be Coventry City paying rent so it may be around £1m per year x 25...so pretty much spot on in terms of rental yield to years lease etc. The only question is, why does nothing appear on the Land Registry about it- at least last time I checked there wasn't.

Wow. I remember Dave, first calling the possibility back in early October that they might have failed again. Might and it's still might surely. Because I refused to ultimately countenance the idea that they would blunder into the same mess in successive seasons..yet the HK results were less than promising! Loss of £30m+ but was unclear whether it included Adams sale or any sale and leaseback of St Andrews to take it back down to just about level. Percy is one of those aforementioned reliable sources...will be interesting to see what their UK accounts say when they appear at CH which should be by end of this week at latest.

Ooh, sounds promising! I read that they weren't necessarily planning to buy in January...that the summers work was due to be for that. I remember reading that Fulham's buying in summer 2018 was meant over 3 seasons, steadily build and gel no doubt after Season 1, maybe some similarities here? Randolph to West Ham apparently? Or perhaps it's between the two...

I read on Off The Pitch when I had a free trial that they were forecast to lose money this year...somewhere between £15-20m I believe. Well, a mix of the TV money and the higher loss limit- if it was £13m x 3 and allowables for newly promoted clubs then it would get very interesting, with or without the ground valuation. Or if they spend big in January without adequate sales, maybe that would tip them over the edge, regardless of the ground...not the 10-15, maybe 20 pts we all hope for but a deduction that could be the difference in a tight relegation battle with a big influx of new players in the summer and some more in January. ? My other interesting question- and I really hope the PL and EFL are all over this- is given that it was sold to a company that was already within the Group to begin with unlike some of the others, is that could it cancel out at the Group level meaning a net benefit of zero? Howebve The only caveat is that the owners took direct control of NSWE Stadium Ltd but it was already within the group from 2017- unlike the "companies" that purchased Hillsborough or Pride Park, but I'd argue that can be a debating point between Aston Villa and the PL/EFL at least- in terms of whether it should even count at all. One of those areas in which even if it's aok accounting wise, might be a serious piss-take out of FFP and therefore something to be pulled up on.

I was thinking more of a points deduction this season for failing in the 3 years to May 2020...wouldn't that be great if Projected Accounts submitted in March, prior 2, problem with the ground valuation and then 10-20 points off- bang- down they do! That Impairment of 2016 of nearly 50% on relegation- and we all know it's an accounting trick- but in terms of actual justification, set against standards, tests etc, well it's never been properly explained or justified IMO...

Aston Villa fans some of them on Villatalk seem to believe that it resets on promotion. I am quite sure that this is NOT the case. They should read E.60. Looks like potentially harmonised regs to me...shame a soft embargo cannot be enforced this January as part of a holding pattern, to stabilise and prevent further breaches...or can it? I still can't help but feel that Shaun Harvey wouldn't have cut the best deal on it. One thing I will say, is that the PL HandBook seems to set it out in a more user friendly and is less lengthy and wordy, possibly unnecessarily wordy, than the EFL site in this area! About FFP (or to give it the most updated name, P&S).

Thanks. Had a funny feeling their Governance would be quite a bit better- think we all had it, but yeah £35m x 3 (unsure if that £35m includes the allowable costs as with others or if it's £35m + allowables), but either way it strikes me as very difficult to fail when we factor in the limit, the TV money, the Revenue Streams- fact that PL to PL transfers seem quite high when there are sales between PL sides. I think, though I'm no expert, that the only club at risk of breach in the PL might be Aston Villa in terms of a carry over from Championship, aligned...I wonder if e.g. the EFL were not happy with the ground sale and requested a soft embargo this January say, as a precursor to an investigation, whether the PL might enforce. Morally they should I think, but that's merely a personal view. I also think that had the EFL had a similar standard of Governance to the PL, an agreement to enforce between the two divisions might be watertight and binding...properly harmonised, contractually speaking. I'm assuming it isn't as watertight as it could be and I largely blame Shaun Harvey but I hope I'm wrong! On an FFP note at this level,Birmingham's accounts are at CH...says available in 5 days so will be interesting to see. I do note however given I'm looking through it now, that they have Profitability and Sustainability and seemingly the Projected Accounts- T, T-1 and T-2...and the fair value thing for RPTs. The fact that the Aston Villa issue has not yet quietly gone away and keeps reappearing in the media via reasonably reliable sources- Matt Lawton, Matt Hughes and John Percy- does make me wonder...because between them they are 3 of the foremost journalists for FFP related news, or have been in recent times.

Listening to one of the Pride of Football podcasts at work- fell out of the loop a bit over Christmas. Says there is- and this was done before Christmas so it may only have been Pellegrini- but there is/was a PL club who were lookng to sack a manager, but couldn't as they were in discussions with the PL over FFP, or investigations as to whether there was a breach or if they're in breach. ? Imagine...imagine the EFL had such Governance last season- and the PL's isn't perfect, but as I'm sure @Coppello would confirm that the PL's is quite significantly higher than the EFL under Harvey.

in fairness, perhaps I was being pedantic and overcautious. Okay Middlesbrough not a breach but actually trying to get things enforced. Agreed...Shaun Harvey a big part of the issue IMO. Agreed...can of worms, but I'd be interested to know if it was in the Projected Accounts. Yep- spot on. EFL valuation takes precedence. Also feel that the correct valuation method must be ascertained...I'm unconvinced on either score, for example selling for Housing or Commercial Land would differ to DRC or Value in Use IMO. Yep, agreed- Derby I still think were closest of them to compliance, at least for in-season 2017/18 due to player sales- 2018/19 a different matter of course, but Derby hard to say because more than maybe the others they seemed to be spending on Infrastructure, so it depends but if adjusted their 3 years to 2018/19 could be in q I think. Yep, makes a mockery as you say...but perhaps they have questions over certain things which could complicate things further but certainly delay- DM will be incoming, a friend found it one day and if they could, hopefully the EFL would. Could be something and nothing, or could be interesting. I'm sure he got his independent valuation as and when required!

The EFL really didn't enforce their own rules and regulations correctly, did they- looking again at them! In particular, 2.3- should they have not got in Independent valuers etc AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION- if it even appeared in the Projected Accounts that was? Which in most cases, I really doubt they did! Secure funding appears a bit of a red herring here. Essentially this means checking the accounts afresh after adjustment if necessary. Fair's fair, they did eventually with Sheffield Wednesday!! A good example would be Butland and Gray- assuming this was in Birmingham's Projected Accounts for 2017/18, as in we'll fail BUT Butland and Gray sell on clauses will save us, for this 3 years at least. When that didn't happen, they were in trouble. Absolutely the case here...what proof is there that the transfer will take place- is there a deal in place, paper trails etc? Standard. Shouldn't the soft embargo for Aston Villa that was apparently there in May 2019 have continued until compliance guaranteed? At bare minimum. Well Middlesbrough suing is a bit of a breach, but the bolded bits...*cough* *looks away* *whistle, snort* etc That's a laugh! Am interested in the thoughts especially of @Davefevs @downendcity @chinapig and @Coppello

No sign of Birmingham's accounts yet. No sign of their mooted ground sale on Land Registry yet, or at least not last time I had a look before Christmas...maybe info unavailable. Technically I suppose they have 9 months...but it's worth reiterating that they never miss an HK deadline, and listed as PLC at CH tends to mean end of December or carries over to early January. Granted, it could just be from the past and end of March could make sense. They've had their AGM and confirmed their results in Hong Kong though...the plot thickens? ? Funnily enough, such is our laxity in submissions dates that we could in theory see their half year results for this season before we see the final ones for 2018/19 at CH, possibly...they're due at end of February- 9 months to get accounts done is a laugh! Then again, guidance seems to on a brief look over there suggests something different in terms of filing etc..but in HK BSH seem not to miss deadlines!

Assuming it's a one-off, holiday related or linked to Investment that is expected not yet being there. I mean, last season Reading's wages were late over Easter IIRC but it seems not to have happened again. Sheffield Wednesday in November, there was some story about only 50% of wages appearing in a month...or some % below 100 anyway! Glitch, or something more serious? Only time will tell.

Not City or even Championship related but I see that Chelsea- Chelsea- one of the top clubs in England and CL regulars- lost nearly £100m last season, according to Reports!! ?

Birmingham though is possibly of more interest right now- not least as they were the first team to fail FFP under the current system! Worth reiterating what those 2018/19 accounts as submitted in HK looked like...helpfully they were segmented unlike 2017/18, separating the Football Club from the Parent/Holding/Group Company's other activities. It's in HK$ BUT exchange rate would I believe be apt as per 30th June 2019. Pick an average I guess? As for their neighbours...the PL should be really tight on them! The ground sale is questionable and as such, there should be a big asterix about their January spending https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50894893 Saw this on Twitter- @Davefevs @downendcity and @Coppello will surely be interested! Some others too, @29AR @martnewts @chinapig and @Drew Peacock Will post a bit more on Birmingham later in the week probably. I don't have such a major issue with them atm given a) They got punished b) They sold Jota, Adams- lost Morrison and Mahoney and seem to be moving towards sustainability of some sort c) There are many more pressing priorities in terms of clubs with FFP questions atm.