Mr Popodopolous

Promised I'd come onto it and come onto it I will. @Begley On the Webster thread you declared that you had to do something to avoid breaching FFP. While I totally get it from a business, technical, regulatory and of course financial POV- from reality, for integrity of the competition it makes a total mockery. Absolute mockery. Other clubs appear to have done sale and leaseback but the big 3 here are yourselves, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday. Birmingham seem to have done a mix of the 2- stupidity but now the sale of Adams and Jota. If St Andrews sale in 2018/19 period and Adams sale too, well they're on one year periods until 2019/20 so they'd still be hamstrung even with a ground sale but would surely avoid FFP sanctions for 2018/19. Reading sold a ground worth £20m to owners for £26.5m, which is strikingly low and doesn't help their FFP all that much. What else could Aston Villa have done- let's think shall we. Sell Grealish Keep Grealish but sell say Chester, Adomah, Kodjia- it all can help. Sign cheaper loanees. Not replace Snodgrass-Grabban with El Ghazi-Bolasie-Tammy. Not sign Kalinic and Guilbert in Jan for a combined added amortisation of £1.1m. Utilise YOUTH more- utilise it more to help make up shortfalls. Utilise squad players more- fair enough if some you loan out help make up a shortfall and you sign cheaper ones making a net profit but you did not in the main. Oh yeah, not even mentioned your January loans for Mings-Hause-Carroll!! Looking at your many, many signings last season the ones I'd say were acceptable from a moving towards compliance POV were as follows: Nyland- Not a huge wage probably. McGinn- Not a huge wage probably. Hause- loan Tuanzebe loan- Maybe. Man Utd connection to Bruce perhaps helps with wages- or maybe his wages just are not so high? Maybe some younger and cheaper loanees- certainly less proven on top. Now I'm not saying that saves you entirely from FFP but it does what parachute payments are intended to do- and these steps would all be seen as very concrete with potential for significant mitigation, in terms of a point penalty or similar. What yourselves have done- and Derby, and though there are zero accounts, Sheffield Wednesday is essentially tried to cheat the competition albeit within the revised regs!! Disgusting basically- ******* disgusting. I take back some of what I said about Mel Morris too. EFL have a hell of a lot to answer for, I actually think clubs should look at legal action against the EFL themselves- mind you why clubs agreed to it as an 18/24 god knows. They certainly kept it very quiet. Your club has got a lot more dislikable- no personal dig at you, you're a good poster in good faith obviously, but your club since last summer- looking from the outside your new owners seem a lot less likable than Xia, and Purslow? Liverpool fans didn't much like him apparently.

Some uncertainty about Sheffield Wednesday. Apparently their new free transfer signings were spotted at their pre-season event called "Owls in the Park". Odubajo-Borner-Harris. Not bad range of free transfers- think first and third are good and Borner good experienced CB late 20s, Bundesliga 2 and useful on the ball. Bruce would like 4 more apparently. Also extended Westwood-Palmer-Lee- wasn't aware you could under an embargo? The uncertainty comes because a) Obviously they have not been unveiled officially b) They are apparently under a soft embargo c) Unless anything new has happened in secret which it could well have, the EFL may well lack their accounts from season just gone and d) The big one- no accounts at CH- for 2017/18!! Originally made up to May 31st 2018, extended to July 31st 2018- these were due on February 28th latterly April 30th 2018- this surely, is there nothing that smacks of aggravated breach here? Haven't even explored the prospect they may have breached FFP- I'd say there is a reasonable chance they have but we shall see, Jack Hunt aside, who have they sold?? Said it before, any club not getting accounts to EFL by deadline, full summer embargo- end of. Let alone the lack of 17/18 accounts to CH!! Possible of course that ground thing going through, some say accounts not signed off by auditors- either way they should not be in a position to sign anyone at all or even negotiate for frees IMO, while in this position.- hope the EFL have tied up loose ends and refuse to register them for as long as it goes on and if they unveil them while a) 2018-19 accounts with EFL- which they might be now tbf- or b) 2017/18 accounts not with CH, EFL hearing Birmingham style I'd suggest. Probably just a few isolated idiots, certainly not in the Aston Villa League (Begley excepted of course), but yeah I hope it evolves into a full embargo and maybe a disciplinary hearing at the EFL.

So Aston Villa have as mooted sold the stadium then? Few thoughts: Given parachute payments too, nearly £90m in 3 years- wow how dislikable they increasingly are. Had the benefit of that and still needed to do this?? Derby at least sold Grant-Christie-Hughes-Ince-Hendrick-Vydra-Weimann. Birmingham got stung but have now sold Adams and Jota as a result. Who did Aston Villa sell of note?? Not talking foreign players who would have wanted out on relegation, but of note which first team or near first teamers did they sell? Same can be said of Sheff Wed- Jack Hunt the only one, but they didn't have all those parachute payments to help. On that note, Parachute Payments really should be conditional on a club making significant efforts to help to balance the books IMO. Aston Villa did not therefore under my system would be fined a proportion of their parachute payments- obviously FFP would still apply as it would to everyone else. The ground went for £56.7m right. Was that "gross" or "profit"- if it was the latter it'd be interesting- because only the profit on such sales, as opposed to the total transaction would be of use in this instance- especially if an internal transfer such as this. Anyway their accounts appear to in terms of Villa Park- unsure how much it's worth. They probably did sell it for enough to get through FFP. 80-90% profit maybe? Again- questionable. This must surely call into fresh question the Pride Park deal. Reading ground worth £20m, goes for £26.5m- though only 24k capacity, similar modern build and 1998 was its completion date as opposed to Pride Park which was 1997. The next bit is a RUMOUR- but Hillsborough apparently gross sale price around £30m- current value based on 2013 valuation around £22-22.25m. Margin about 1/3 on each. EFL or perhaps I have more faith in club owners with hefty resources and proper business nous need to get some sort of inquiry going- to challenge the valuation, the profit based on benchmarking, hire some high end valuers and lawyers- these things can be legally challenged but it ain't easy! Someone mentioned projected accounts. It's possible that they had this in their projected accounts- highly unlikely but possible that they had it as a fallback plan in these in case of no promotion. Fine I reckon. Not saying we can go nuts- we cannot- but the profit on Flint and the academy lot, the savings on amortisation on some others- all a big help. The Kelly sale likely would fall in the 2018/19 accounts, the savings this season to date would be there but not huge- Fielding, Marinovic, Pisano wages and possibly a small profit on Eisa. However our 3 year position is decent but again that £24m loss in 2017/18- before allowables-has to be kept in mind. OTOH we should've made a profit last season, the Kelly sale making absolutely sure- the bigger the profit the more we can spend in the subsequent window or 2. As I say can't go nuts but by the end of this season, that aforementioned £24m loss- so summer 2020 basically, June 1st 2020 this will drop off and our new starting point will be summer 2018 and the restructure. I don't have any particular concerns about breaching it with SL, MA and LJ at the helm.

Taxman/HMRC may have something to say about it. Pretty sure they'd have more than FFP to worry about then- definitely couldn't happen like that IMO.

Thanks- I'll have a look at them in depth later, they do ring a bell actually from this thread. Still unconvinced by the valuation personally- seems sale and leaseback in the regs, but £81.1m just feels too high- always had it in the bracket of £40-50m, maybe £55m- still think the profit size should be challenged by EFL- their own independent valuers etc. Paid for by the EFL of course. Reading- value around £20m, sale pride £26.5m. Margin/ratio about 1/3. If rumours to be believed- Hillsborough sold for £30m- shown in accounts as a 2013 revaluation of £22.25m, margin/ratio about 35%. Well aware that Pride Park is bigger than Madejski Stadium and a fair bit better, more modern than Hillsborough, plus property prices in Derby so therefore land value higher than Sheffield but I'm thinking about £40-55m about right- based on 2007 valuation which was just that. Add on the additions to Tangible Fixed Assets which presumably represents work being done on it, subtract the depreciation- would property price rises shunt this up to £81.1m? Using historic figures and benchmarking etc, it just "feels" too high- not the fact there is an uptick but double!!

Alas, seems it is within the updated regs. People call it a loophole but actually seemingly it's one enabled by the club owners, the EFL- did 18/24 vote for this then? Will have to look through the new regs- first I've seen a lot of those actually. Part 2 onwards would appear to be the updated/most recent/relevant. I still wonder if the ground sale and leaseback might be challenged and adjusted- not excluded but adjusted- for FFP purposes what with Gibson's. Would need a full and far reaching inquiry though. Example A- Reading. Their ground was worth around £20m, income from sale and leaseback to owners £26.5m- that's about 32.5% profit margin. Bear in mind Madejski built similar time to Pride Park and adjusted for inflation, £50m to build today. Example B- saw a rumour that Hillsborough gross figure was £30m- profit margin about 1/3. To me either of those might pass the "smell test"- I don't approve of any of it but it feels like 25-35% uptick what with post 1992 developments of grounds, new builds, further work, property rises and inflation adjustments- might be within the bounds of normal. Double though, or as good as double? Just struggle to see it, given valuation in 2007 was £55m- unclear what revaluation in 2013 might have been- but for subsequent revaluation I've been taking £55m as a starting point, adding on extra work i.e. additions under Tangible Fixed Assets and subtracting depreciation.

Oh I don't like the ground sale at all- Aston Villa certainly the worst of the 4 likely big FFP botherers- by far, but this is a very good post. Agreed. The thing about Derby and where they differ to other clubs- by which I mean Aston Villa, Birmingham and seemingly Sheffield Wednesday- we don't know either way yet as still no accounts for 2017/18- was the first team and squad players they sold- seemed like a move to buy time for a restructuring rather than a big FFP dodge/cheat to me- but then it comes down to which accounts used for Derby's FFP submissions as well, is it the Derby County ones or the Sevco 5112 Limited? If the latter then yes FFP failed for sure without it, if it was the former then there's a small chance they pass. I've looked over their 3 year figures for Derby 2015/16-2017/18 and it really wouldn't have been a done deal that they fail to June 2018 with the DCFC accounts- grey area. Sevco 5112 though, absolutely it was FFP related! I hope they have to go through some austerity times though, if not fall foul of FFP. It isn't right I agree- he's usually a good listen though. @DerbyFan Thanks- will take a listen. The bit about events bringing in £12m per season sounds notable, like you are looking to stick strictly within the regulations in the future. Also do you know if it is "The Derby County Football Club Limited" or Sevco 5112 that is used for FFP submissions?

Mel Morris has defended the stadium sale and leaseback on TalkSport- saw it on another forum. Also added: Think he's pretty engaging, pretty interesting tbh- and a good owner who is clearly a Derby fan- just a shame about the ground sale and leaseback!! Dunno if it's a direct quote or a summary but this bit was also of interest, on the financial side. Like I say, the ground move is not one I much care for at all but an interesting owner definitely.

Just noticed a "Sheffield 5 Limited"- so by August you may well be right! ?

Fair- and that would be a good deterrent for sure. Problem is, would 18/24 clubs vote for it? You'd hope yes! Maybe a full embargo a good compromise- the Sheffield Wednesday situation is particularly interesting. The accounts on CH for 2017/18 have not yet been submitted- but the EFL likely have these. Original deadline May 31 2018 was when the accounting period ended, so it was due by Feb 28th 2019. This of course shifted to April 30th 2019 because the accounting period was moved to July 31st 2019. Still nothing nearly 2 months on. If I was to have a stab, they failed narrowly or passed narrowly in the 3 seasons to May- or July as it is- 31 2018, but surely failed or as it stands will fail in the 3 years to the end of this season! Oh yeah, the other interesting aspect of the Sheffield Wednesday situation,, they may not have submitted their accounts for season just gone to EFL- their inaction is incredible as it goes!

Interesting developments potentially from Sheffield Wednesday. Still no accounts, as in from 2017/18 on CH but what is interesting is the formation of "Sheffield 2 Limited", "Sheffield 3 Limited" and "Sheffield 4 Limited". Presumably one of these will be buying or has purchased the ground for the sale and leaseback? Or perhaps it is a method of splitting staff costs- i.e. catering Sheffield 2, and so on. Or perhaps a mix of the 2- much like how Sevco 5112 took non football wage costs off the books. First accounting period has accounts made up to 31st July 2019. Sheffield 4 Limited incorporated 20th June 2019, the other 2 21st June 2019. Chansiri controls Sheffield 4 and Sheffield 2- Sheffield 3 significant control is by Sheffield 4. Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Ltd now owns Sheffield Wednesday it would seem- £21m in fresh shares. To cover losses for 2018/19- or even 2017/18- or an internal ownership shift? The fact that all 3 companies- Sheffield 2-4- have their reporting period at just over a month- these will be disposed of presumably- or maybe a month and then a full year in subsequent periods. This should surely only help moving forward though if indeed it improves things at all- they surely can't retrospectively go back and improve their 2017/18 results, or their results to 31st July 2018- their 3 years to that, well I say 31st July 2018, actually was originally 31st May 2018 but they shifted the end of the reporting period to 31st July 2018.

Could also be that other clubs "played the game" somewhat- and avoided further escalation. Knowing what we do now, still cannot believe the idiocy of Birmingham and Pedersen deal! Completely appalling governance but would you put it past Shaun Harvey?

I suppose there is one other angle to this- which isn't good enough but is perfectly possible with EFL being as they are, and especially as they were under Harvey. Soft embargo like a warning. Part of me wonders if Birmingham only got punished and it escalated beyond a soft embargo because they took the piss and acted in that ridiculous manner- Pedersen £2m- under a soft embargo. Gross, gross incompetence. Whereas if Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday all under one at varied times as was suspected, but especially Sheffield Wednesday and they stuck to instructions, plan then it doesn't go further. It's a terribly inadequate way to go about it, but then Shaun Harvey- EFL... https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11703/11475256/sheffield-wednesday-transfer-embargo-lifted This is from 2018 but a very notable 2 quotes in the article! Working with not against- EFL had no choice but to escalate with Birmingham once Pedersen signed for £2m under a soft embargo! Well, a bit of toadying always cannot hurt in that situation, but it does make me wonder- soft embargo, a sign that over the limits. Work with EFL- a lot less chance of penalties e.g. points and hard embargo. Shouldn't be the case but... About application of the regs in a firm, fair and without favour manner or about the ex CEO of the EFL's ego- or indeed the EFL keeping face??

Having looked fairly extensively at their prior 2 seasons accounts, and seen an AV FFP specialist, a football finance specialist in Kieran Maguire and Swiss Ramble another football finance specialist all on Twitter, and taking into account falling parachute payments, their 2017/18 losses- even taking into account what was written off for FFP expenditure and £22m falling off the allowable losses without some "exceptional item"- then I really don't see it. The figure of £25-30m over seems somewhat commensurate with expected overspend over 3 seasons. Possible of course that new owners inflated sponsorship deals through a related party- Adidas I think one of them has? Problem there is it's a related party and EFL can or should adjust it down using benchmarking for market rates- probably removing all but a few million for FFP purposes. That base therefore covered or should be- that loophole closed. Intrigued to see how they therefore passed- their profit on transfers could of course help to offset the FFP losses, but they appear to be lower than 2017/18 too. Of course the Terry and Samba contracts expired, then also Johnstone, Tuzunabe, Onomah-Snodgrass-Grabban loans expired. Richards also retired partly through injury and Agbonlahor left. That would be a very good sign of intent to try to move towards compliance. Or would be except: Tuzanabe returns on loan. El Ghazi joins on loan Bolasie joins on loan (cancelled after half a season granted) Tammy joins on loan. January rolls on by Hause joins on loan Mings joins on loan Carroll joins on loan Permanent not even kicked in yet Nyland joined summer 2018 from Ingolstadt. So did McGinn from SPL. Kalinic and Guilbert join January 2019- combined fee £9.9m apparently, 4.5 year deal- that's an additional £1.1m in amortisation on those 2 alone for that season. Of course amortisation was saved on departures and may represent a small net improvement. Would love to know how they cut wages and amortisation or gained profit on player sales to the tune of £25-30m then- that figure an improvement in the case of the latter because they made a profit on player sales in 2017/18 of £15,882,000 according to their accounts. Oh, Moreira also had a loan but this was cut short. Haven't even factored in the Bruce sacking and the hiring of Smith compensation . @Rapax - got you confused with @Riaz for some reason, apologies to both - must've been the "R" and purple background. All ears then- what do you think was done to work around it? Or indeed comply through legitimate means.

Haha, what a laugh- what a joke!! Intrigued to know what the other 23 owners make of this in the event of an instant return?? In any event, the EFL must not release any statement until sometime in March or April 2020 at the earliest when AVFC real accounts will be out- but they'll have this info already. Justice must be seen to be done etc. Possible scenarios: They either had a ground sale and leaseback in projected accounts- in which case they lied as it appears not to have occurred within the relevant accounting period. Back to EFL. They claimed Grealish would be sold for £25-30m and they had a deal in place- in which case bad faith and an aggravated breach if anything. Back to EFL. HS2 did indeed yield £25-30m in compensation. They sold and leased back training ground- Possible I guess? 1) and 2) would be in bad faith so should drop them right in it, and 3) well this is possible but given the controversy of HS2 and the delays then I don't really see how they could have jumped the queue to get £25-30m- that goes beyond football, that's a political scandal on a regional if not national level so I can't see it. HOWEVER the big interesting thing about this is a former Aston Villa chairman is high up in HS2 in that region- clicky here The 4th, seems to have been nothing about it. Given recent work on it I don't see how 3) could apply and 4) must be the best kept secret if so. If they've done either 1) or 2) and in fact made a £25-30m FFP deficit to May 2019, then I'd have them suspended from EFL IMO if they return soon- or at least it should be put to a vote of the EFL chairmen as an option on the table.

One quick view on Sheffield Wednesday too. I remember saying something about or like this a few weeks ago- but it's probably hope over experience etc. IF a club has not submitted accounts to the EFL for the season just gone by the deadlines i.e. end of March but especially by the end of season just gone, that should be embargo for summer window. No ifs, no buts no lifting as soon as received- embargo summer 2019 if no accounts submitted by end of season. Just IMO anyway. Soft embargo all of the subsequent summer bare minimum.

WBA did I believe, though I'd have to research it fully mortgage against or borrow against the 2nd half of 2018/19 parachute payments and this seasons one so could that signal issues on the horizon? Definitely a good chance of pragmatism there. I think Swansea's problem is partly wage bill, partly owners- they made a write down in their relegation season on player valuation which seems to help in the future- way I understand it allowable losses Swansea and WBA could have made last season if equity put in is £35m + £35m + £13m. Plus any accumulated profit, that's before we even get into expenditure of academy etc which either reduces FFP losses or increases the leeway moving forward. However there's a caveat- I don't know if it applies in the PL, read different things but in the Championship the equity being put in is key- without it that £13m turns into £5m. Swansea's owners appear not to, WBA's might but I see no statement of capital in the last years- IF it was the case that PL losses also came down to £5m per season if no equity, and like I say read different things on this, then their position would be transformed- in a negative sense. Would mean allowable 3 year losses £15m + whatever spent on academy etc. As opposed to £35m + £13m + £13m. I believe WBA like most relegated clubs had relegation wage clauses- surely Swansea did too, you'd think. Max equity an owner can count towards FFP being £8m- so without £5m, with £13m max losses- and I guess anything in between. If PL that'd be £30m but like I say it's unclear. Their profits in 2016/17 will drop off the books and their small losses in 2017/18 will be the new starting point, as soon as their accounting period for 2018/19 done- for WBA it's 30th June 2019 and for Swansea 31st July 2019 so any sales before then count as profit in this season.

Quick point on Reading embargo. I might of course be wrong, but my guess for it is that the embargo is a holding pattern- and they have until 30th June to bring their finances into line, as per projected submitted accounts- that's when their accounting period up. If they don't shift a few by then, even if it doesn't clear the deficit fully but shows excellent signs moving forward it might suffice. If they don't though, then surely the Birmingham precedent is that an EFL hearing awaits- though part of me wonders if they had stuck to soft embargo and not signed Pedersen for £2m when in that situation- a ridiculous move- did they think "soft embargo" meant relatively cheap transfers only?? Anyway, part of me thinks that had Birmingham stuck to it then they wouldn't have ended up in a hearing and with an EFL Business Plan, strictly conditional embargo etc. Maybe that's what has saved various clubs from Birmingham fate to date- shouldn't do of course but it's possible and especially with the "calibre" of the EFL! Final quick note on Aston Villa. Yes I posted this before but it is interesting that no EFL statement to this effect so far. Maybe they're still being investigated, mayne EFL are waiting for their actual accounts from 2018/19 because I don't see the other 20 plus clubs and I even include some who have had moderate losses and sold ground or Birmingham and their stupidity getting themselves punished being happy for them to come down scot free if they make a quick return or if that looks on the cards in 9 months- or maybe it's the aforementioned "calibre" of the EFL in evidence again and we'll see a statement in months to come. Definitely intrigued to see how they passed given Villa Park seemingly not sold though! Maybe it was a significant HS2 compensation- or the wage bil/profit on transfers was an improvement of £20-25m higher than anticipated? We'll see I guess in March!

It's an interesting one. I think the rules have loopholes that would be easily amended. See the Derby ground sale as case study a. Some people suggest that fixed asset sales mean it's aok, but others rightly point out an inconsistency which basically reads that if depreciation on fixed assets doesn't count against FFP costs, then sale of assets shouldn't either- certainly not to related parties in a leaseback! Before we even get onto what might have been true value. That's just one example. Agreed- Birmingham a lot lower profile. We'll see. I think there are medium and big clubs in favour too. To name 3, Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest. Then you have a majority of medium and smaller clubs who have stuck to standards and want no more than equal treatment under the regs regardless of club size. Need 18/24 having a vote in favour to have them so watered down tbh- dynamics could change of course but I'm not sure I see an appetite among enough clubs to scrap them.

Possible that they're waiting for Hillsborough sale and leaseback reported to be on the cards to come through- though it is also equally possible they're doing a Birmingham and signing a player while under soft embargo- Pedersen which should if precedent set see a referral to disciplinary commission. Though last I read on it, said sale and leaseback has not happened or had not at that stage- unsure about fig leaf given Birmingham 9 points and varying stages of embargo. PL won't apply penalties on Aston Villa- if and when they return, EFL might- under pressure from at least 20 clubs I'd have thought- have a penalty waiting. One thing to watch though it sounds small might be whether EFL declare Aston Villa to have passed. Purslow seemingly declared it as a fans forum last week, and their odious fans seem or seemed to think that an EFL Statement was on the cards confirming this. Obvious what Purslow is up to there and I don't think even the EFL will fall for it- if they declare publicly they have passed, I don't see how they can re-open it. Therefore either: a) They declare they have passed "as it stands"- in much more legalese obviously. or b) They don't say anything.

Sheffield Wednesday are too apparently- albeit for different reasons, seemingly once you don't submit your accounts and a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic soft embargo. It could well be one with conditions i.e. no fees, frees and loans alright within a certain wage pattern, Sheffield Wednesday that is.

One thing I have noticed though. Wasn't (yet) confirmed by EFL that Aston Villa passed- it's that Purslow has declared it and also asked them to release a statement to the effect that they have passed. Will be interesting to see if this statement is forthcoming. Regardless of pass/fail it certainly shouldn't be but their entitlement knows no bounds. Here we go, found it in full.

Good question- one which I believe @Coppello best placed to deal with, but I believe a Nicholas Craig to be their Governance and Legal Director. He's been a lawyer in excess of 10 years. Aston Villa, I wonder if in March 2019 when their full accounts are published this issue will become live again- projected accounts barring exceptional items cannot show a pass, surely! Their losses should be very high but bear in mind that promotion bonuses which will show in the wages but not necessarily as a separate item, will not count as FFP expenditure. Same presumably goes for the upgrade to the McCormack contract and the payment to Randy Lerner- all comes under "cost of promotion" which is excluded for FFP purposes. Would also include e.g. fees due to clubs in event of promotion being achieved. Even taking all that into account though, they surely failed without some curious exceptional item. Birmingham's hearing had Charles Flint QC overseeing it. James Seagan acting for EFL vastly experienced. Here it is in full actually! https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf I think the EFL have made a mess of things overall though- the flip-flopping over projected accounts the big one. Precedent set- can only be judged on the 3 prior years of existing accounts unless the rules voted to be changed by the clubs. If they try to stop promotion now barring a fully voted for change of rules, first stop the CAS IMO. Plus- on Aston Villa. Also possible that they put "sale of Grealish" on projected accounts. IF no such sale transpired in that scenario as they went up, that's a seriously aggravated breach. No way should if that was the case EFL declare them as having passed, as seemingly requested by Aston Villa- they should release a statement to the effect of "Passed- As it stands, pending further material change of circumstances and if applicable, investigation". The gall, the entitlement of Aston Villa wanting a statement released by EFL about them having passed- hate them!

On a serious note, their accounts in March 2020 will show how they passed- or "passed". Wonder if other club owners will be so happy to take this at face value? The other possibility of course is that as we kind of guessed, EFL aren't bothering with projected accounts now and only the 3 prior years actual accounts will be the period that's judged. Or maybe the £3m assumed for HS2 was in fact some other form of land sale and a huge HS2 compensation took them over the line this time. Because I struggle to believe they raised a net £25-30m through a combination of sales and wage reduction. @Rapax You sure you're a City fan? Only I looked at your posts and there's a lot pro Aston Villa in there. Which is only a good thing- other fans on this board only adds to the perspective and the quality of debate, but some kinda dual interest? Regardless of how they somehow passed, never in my 21 years as a City fan have I seen such an odious entitled fanbase in any division we've played in (PL will have a lot)- not all of course but if social media a gauge, in one and only one way- if they fudged FFP good- I'm glad to be rid of them, just hope they don't come back.

That must've been quite the exceptional item!! Perhaps we now know why it was in Portugal the EFL conference- very nice. Deductible against FFP obvs!