Mr Popodopolous

Yeah, agreed- think we could have pushed it Jan 2019 on a higher calibre striker but I do agree most certainly. I don't think a lot of fans per se fully understand, or 'get' FFP- across the board. Or think it's a daft invention. Definitely it has been a long road but while we're here now- isn't always the best received. Well said. I can accept the Sevco 5112 thing I suppose- legal and lots of companies probably do it. I can accept the residual value- short term gain v long term risk- that's fine to an extent. What I cannot accept is how shuffling a transaction worth £81.1m from club to company owned by owner- whether it's real cash or paper I don't know but it'd show on the balance sheet- to not only avoid FFP sanctions but to provide a bit of a base to spend again moving forward. Is wrong- cheats the competition, and as you say getting back to the PL is their big aim so they will come up with ever more creative arguments, while avoiding the crux of the issue- their overspending and their *punishment dodging. *-To date- wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall in that Portugal meeting!

I don't think much of the EFL- the fact they bottled in-season penalties on Birmingham in 2017/18 and Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday this season shows what they are all about- Shaun Harvey is not terribly capable, our own Mark Ashton IMO would have seen to it that the right punishments would have been handed out in a timely manner. I think it simply flummoxed a less than capable organisation- Birmingham's case was nailed on, look how long it took them to get sanctioned! We'll see- no smoke without fire. If you aren't then you should be while EFL investigate properly. Would make sense...I believe you can sign within certain conditions loans and frees under a soft embargo but it's a good holding position I think to prevent major signings. The rules also refer to "Fair Market Value" and related parties- this will perhaps form part of Gibson's legal argument. I would also consider putting the golden share in EFL as a matter on table for clubs that take it to an external court personally- put that to a vote of member clubs, see how you like that! In short, the risk of suspension of membership from the EFL. Putting aside that nuclear option, the other way of looking at it is that if infrastructure expenditure does not count towards expenses, nor should income of this nature count towards income. Now it isn't wholly a view I agree with, but the clause should read "Third and unrelated party or sale of a ground as moving to a new one" Words to that effect but much more legal language etc. Do you think the other 21 clubs at this meeting in June in Portugal are going to take it well from yourselves, Sheffield Wednesday and though they have gone up, trying to push for the deductions for Aston Villa? Tell me why they should...I'd be furious if I was a chairman who had played by the rules and the spirit as most had. Or for that matter, Birmingham getting punished as they did. Yes, for FFP purposes. Johnson seems a decent player in any case agreed. The situation you are in- and why are you in it? You overspent! Badly...to me you should be docked 10-11 points as per the formula, EFL has provision to punish historic breaches within the rules- well if they bother to enforce that is. UEFA does I know that. These rules are based to varying levels on UEFA's. If they have nothing in the regs about it, that is another huge fuckup on their part but they must have as QPR got punished for offences in 2013/14. Not punished enough granted, but they were punished. Wonder if Carson, Davies, Anya, Thorne, Martin will incur a loss- well Martin won't but he should therefore be up for sale- pure profit and wages off? Depreciation- like I say going to look through 10-15 years of accounts. Is this work done, or work that is and has been in the pipeline? To me planned work, counting as current value is a bit odd. I struggle though to understand why you refuse to accept- you've overspent and you've been looking at any and every loophole to try to get out of it. From Sevco 5112, to this, to the residual value- I struggle to see your argument other than it just being a technicality. Sevco 5112 Limited takes non footballing wages off the wage bill, does it not? On the related party thing- so what Morris did basically? To me a stadium sale with a large profit fits that bill perfectly- if accounts adjusted, then you're in breach. If you're in breach it'd be points off? It is just a way of funnelling income from the owner to the club- whether actual or paper as far as I can see. For example, I'd remove £30-35m based on that. https://www.mikethornton.xyz/new-ffp-tests/ The rules themselves are mostly pretty sound- it's the morons who cannot enforce them with sufficient rigour or speed that brings about these issues.

EFL should've sent an independent valuer before passing it IMO. I am and have been consistent on this...I struggle to believe it is £81.1m legitimately. Who said anything about listening to me- EFL should appoint independent valuers to these matters- do you think UEFA would have accepted it? Not sure. I understand the independent valuer argument, but I'd want a 2nd opinion in the circs... Hmm...I think you'll find that they can. IF EFL were to put it to a vote of clubs then I could see it going wrong for you! EFL need to get it to a vote- Leeds got punished under a rule that wasn't even a rule in place at the time and yours is IMO a lot more damaging towards the competition as a whole. EFL could reverse this if they get it right, disallow the profit- if you're under a soft embargo it would suggest this is still a live matter. Well you should have put more up for sale then- why sign Waghorn and Marriott? One would suffice! Had a quick google for Sam Rush- "Respective differences settled", doesn't sound like you got the £6.8m you were hoping for I would assume, but we'll see what the accounts say. You sell Bogle, you only sign one of those 2 strikers- you don't sign both- there are solutions, you just didn't look hard enough- compare it to our transfer activity and that of Middlesbrough to name 2!! Forgot about Jerome fair point, but you would still have been in breach- that's on yourselves and nobody else. However I do put you and have put you in a different category to out and out flagrant breachers like Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday and in some ways Birmingham- you have sold players, you have moved in a positive direction but it's quite simple- if you can't afford within the regulations, then you can't buy- therefore buying one and one only out of Marriott or Waghorn would have been a good start. Bogle sold? Maybe- would have to look at the figures in more depth. We could easily have flouted and purchased Assombalonga in Jan- had he been up for sale. Big chunk of wages yes, and you do seem to have a useful academy but you're overlooking an operating loss, you're overlooking your accounting methods in which unlike the bulk of clubs has players on straight line amortisation, you seem to sign players and there is a residual revaluation- chances are those 10-11 if no fee received will all be at a loss , but this will be superseded by savings in wages. I don't doubt you are moving in the right direction but punished you should be and if clubs vote on it and it is watertight, punished you would be. If it is truly £81.1m- then I'm a Dutchman. I find it laughable- EFL should have appointed an independent land valuer and got them in there right away. Same as for any club who wants to sell a ground but especially to a related party. £50m rather than £41m maybe a more realistic value but depreciation had it under £50m until recent revaluation. Will look through 10-15 years worth of Derby accounts later and try to work out depreciation rate- it was somewhere between 2-10% for Pride Park according to your accounts. A list would be good- done under the old regs perhaps, before this became a thing- good reasons behind it in order to separate out the club and ground in event of bankruptcy but I certainly don't think most clubs rent their grounds. Regarding this case, well let's say you had sold it to for example Barclays Bank- and you had got £81.1m and leased back? I and many others would have been a bit annoyed likely but accepted it for what it was- a legitimate, arms-length non-related third party transaction. Oddly I would have no problem with that- you would be taking a risk on your ground short or even medium-long term but you take the risk then it's legitimate IMO- if no connection. If it goes wrong, that's life. You gamble, you can win or you can lose! If it goes right, you reap the rewards- if it goes right you can buy ground back...incredibly reckless but if you do that, well risk-reward and no conflict of interest. You didn't do that though did you? No- you sold it to a company owned by Mel Morris...would Barclays have paid £81.1m for Pride Park? Doubtful! Interesting- Derby related- tweet. Any ideas on this one @DerbyFan ?

Thank you for the response. I struggle to believe it would be £81.1m, that's my view- if an EFL appointed independent valuer came to the same conclusion, I suppose that would change the picture somewhat. Yes, loopholes are a fact of life- good governance can severely clamp down on these though- which leads me onto my next point... The EFL...an organisation headed up by Shaun Harvey is questionable. To me it isn't a legitimate profit unless sold to a bona fide third party- and Gellaw NewCo 203 Limited most definitely is not. We are easily in a position to do the same- so too are Middlesbrough financially I expect, in fact so would a lot of clubs- SL was a chartered accountant he could easily, easily have done this! Could have come up with it standing on his head I reckon- it's so blatant that it shouldn't be allowed though and I assumed he like many other owners who could also took the view that it just wouldn't be allowed- it's ridiculous- not even any great attempt to conceal! You have sold players, you are still in deficit- here's an idea, cut the wage bill! Same goes for Aston Villa in spades and quite likely Sheffield Wednesday...Birmingham also. Parachute payments are a different matter and though I don't believe they should be done away with, they definitely need reform. Did we transfer AG to the club and then sell to Steve Lansdown or a company that he has a stake in? Did we bollocks! We instead sold Flint, Bryan and Reid- 3 key players, we also sold Messrs Magnússon, Djuric and Engvall- 2 squad players and one who never made it but it helped bring down costs, amortisation and the like. Did Middlesbrough sell the Riverside to SG? I could go on! We also sold Kelly right near the end of our financial year- an England U21 international LB who also can play and indeed in medium to long run will likely play there- only signing one out of Waghorn or Marriott maybe an idea? Or selling Bogle in 2018/19- either of those would have moved you significantly towards the right direction if not reached compliance. Technically your accounting period until 30th June 2019 so you still have time to be legit- get Bogle and Waghorn out that door but be quick! Or put up ticket prices, or further push on with commercial revenue- gained legitimately of course. Pride Park- cost £28m to build, completed in 1997...about £50.12m in 2017/18 prices according to an inflation calculator. Doubling and doubling again may have been a slight technical misunderstanding on my part- happy to correct that. I've always had a gut feeling that you might have scraped FFP so it came as a surprise to see you failed it or would have done without this sale. Then there is the matter of Newco 5112- non football staff paid on that- funny feeling that even with the stadium sale if the Newco 5112 Limited were your FFP figures you might have failed regardless. 'Revaluation reserve'- that sounds interesting, will look closer on that. Premier League seems a law unto itself- they pay lip-service to FFP although not necessarily STCC- time will tell on that. EFL in terms of FFP in the Championship[ do less so but if I was in there, I would be very serious on it. Would have to find rent but to me, if owned by a related party then rent should be at market rate- why after all would a true, 3rd unrelated party charge a low rent in most cases after all?

Let's hope so...but if Mel Morris a Derby fan and cares about the city of Derby- which I believe to be true incidentally on both counts, I fear it maybe wishful thinking. Would be great though! Based on 2017/18 season, their turnover would be slashed- down by £13,198,070- or 44.56%. To comply with existing FFP in that great scenario, firesale?

That is what some posts on sites suggested- I'd say somewhere between £4-5m perhaps. Seen 8% with a quick search, so that would be about £6.488m per season/year. Definitely not £1.1m!

Struggle to see it myself- saw a breakdown of that said same £55m valuation minus depreciation on Twitter somewhere- £41m or so I can believe, but not £81.1m which I believe was the sale price. Just doesn't seem that plausible to me. Maybe work done takes it back to £55m. Well fair enough on that point, but surely that would be a future projected valuation- if the work hasn't been done yet, how can that be the present valuation? Yeah, I can believe that Mel Morris wants the best for Derby i.e. the football club and the city. He is from Derby and according to Wiki an actual fan so I don't doubt that. I have severe doubts about £81.1m price at the time of sale. I understand too people always look for loopholes but EFL should govern it a lot better...should have and should. As for yourselves and other clubs who have purportedly done the same...why is it so hard to stick to the regulations- if you have to sell players, then so be it like a LOT of clubs! Your wage bill too...higher than Wolves in 2017/18 once promotion bonuses stripped out for them- though they had an "interesting" business model admittedly. It's cheating the competition IMO and yeah I can imagine clubs aplenty will be furious. Any rent for Pride Park should be set at a market rate- according to sites I have read that is anything between £4m-£10m per season. However it is seemingly £1,1m which is a nonsense- EFL should insist that leasebacks are set at true market value. Perhaps cheats can be a bit strong but it's not right- it can't be right. Were it down to me on FFP, I'd be handing out soft embargoes while investigating and getting clubs into EFL hearings left, right and centre- including in-season deductions.

Okay then, I don't see how it could have gone up to £81.1m...maybe doubled and doubled again a technical error from me but the profit should be disallowed for FFP purposes owing to it being a related party. Only way it should be accepted IMO is if you had sold it to a bank, or a property developer or similar unrelated to your club, to your owner, to your owners family, to any other companies owned by your owner, your owners family, your owners business associates to name a few- indeed UEFA regs on this offer provision for this very scenario. EFL should have hired their own independent valuer also. As they should for any other clubs who have done it. I think you've made the move in part to buy time for contract expiries amongst other things owing to your fairly unusual model- lot of players out of contract will save on wages but will take a hit as you amortise differently. To me, any club doing this unless it is to a true and genuinely verifiable third party are cheats. Pure and simple- cheats. If I had my way, you and Aston Villa would have been demoted from the playoffs and Birmingham would have received their deduction in-season, as the rules seem to allow for so they would have got the relegation that they merited in 2017/18. In fairness, with yourselves there are mitigating factors- you sold Grant-Christie-Hendrick-Hughes-Ince-Vydra-Weimann in 3 seasons. 4-5 first teamers, 2-3 squad players? Nonetheless, I guess you needed to sell more or to cut costs further on wages or sales- hope the EFL have a vote and punish clubs who did this if the vote wins. You are in a separate category to those who complied though and those who broke FFP and made little efforts.

I believe Derby despite an £81.1m gross transaction have no taxation liabilities on their £14m "profit" in 2017/18 reporting period/season- owing to offsetting it vs past losses. Yep, I was right- they paid no tax in financial year 2017/18! Maybe I got the reason a bit wrong but seemed they paid zero tax last season. Possibly because Sevco 5112 their holding company made a small loss even after the transaction.

One compromise solution here- obviously such sales need to be backdated and retrospective punishment applied. Failing that though...let every club do it once and then shut off the loophole for good. EFL have a lot to answer for though- MA in Shaun Harvey's position- he would have seen this was enforced and do so well...going to be a very interesting end of season Conference/meeting indeed in Portugal!! To be a fly on the wall eh?

Yeah- the worst I have seen certainly. I hope they come back down, straight back down and get a points penalty either this season or held in reserve for their return- think EFL FFP rules suggest historic breaches can be punished- UEFA going after Man City sets an interesting benchmark in this respect. Well quite. There was an excellent window of opportunity to close this loophole- they might actually do it in any case to spend more still in PL? 13th May 2019 was when name was changed for this, therefore paving the way for it to be done- EFL and the useless bastard Shaun Harvey asleep...again! Ample time to change the rules between Derby and that. On the Derby front, the company who purchased it was Gellaw Newco 203 Limited- Companies House says it was incorporated on 18th June 2018...EFL should've been wise to this at the time, the transaction would have been done in 12 days therefore as Derby's accounts ran until June 30th 2018. I also notice that NSWE Stadium Limited- previously known as Recon Football Limited until 13th May 2019 had an "Audit Exemption subsidiary accounts" . Could all be legit and not suggesting any wrongdoing- seems applicable with company and accounting law etc. One more note on Derby. https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/stadium-transformation-plan-revealed This, combined with commercial revenue showing its potential, it being completed in 1997 and and Mel Morris wanting to make the most of the commercial facilities minus depreciation is why I believe it could have risen from £20-21m in 2013 to £40m or so in 2017/18. Never in a million years what it went for though!

Rumours that Birmingham now looking at the same in terms of stadium sale and leaseback!? Birmingham fans on their forum aren't exactly optimistic about it though!

https://astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/cheers-steve-gibson-is-crying-again-major-changes-behind-the-scenes-at-aston-villa/ Aren't a substantial minority of Aston Villa fans odious? One note on this- they should be docked points in PL, but failing that? Simple- follow the formula used on Birmingham and dock points according to that- historic breaches are breaches nonetheless, none of this fine nonsense- doesn't matter if they are up for 1 year or for 10 years, they should be in no doubt that a punishment- and using the Birmingham formula that is 11-21 points- should await them on their return. Soft embargo too. Dunno if clubs would need to vote on it though?

Other end of the table, but Reading may also be under an embargo of some description.

Agreed...the one possibility with Birmingham is they could have sold and sold well in the month or 2 until June 30th as it would have been included in their accounts- say sold well I don't know who was a real saleable asset for them a year ago, but if they had sold some, Adams was okay but not spectacular a year ago- was only 2018/19 he really kicked on, and Stoke had sold Butland in that period, then that would have likely resolved their issues- they were banking on a big sell on fee for Butland in particular I believe. Should have been applied in-season as per their own regulations however! Better be quick about it, sale and leaseback- Aston Villa's accounts run until 31st May 2019, though what odds they shift the reporting period to 30th June or 31st July 2019? I am fairly sure I read somewhere there was an agreement between EFL and EPL to enforce EFL sanctions in PL, but is it worth the paper it's written on? EPL won't want to dilute their "brand" in any possible way- an outside body maybe useful in the medium to long run to get a grip...£35m losses combined with huge TV money means it is virtually impossible now to fail FFP as a PL club and that suits them just fine! Fully agree- I think EFL are a mix of cowardly and incompetent though- they missed the boat somewhat with Birmingham- and have possibly made a rod for their own back. These things can still be changed, and the 2 in the Championship who have sold ground could yet be punished- Aston Villa we'll see- but it would require a full vote IMO.

Haha, I think many on here could be also classed as that- those who post on this thread for one and many more besides! The other interesting angle- other than favouritism to "big" clubs of course, is that maybe the EFL only wish to punish the most blatant of breaches e.g. Birmingham and QPR heavily, to keep the "product" more attractive. Less money to spend on wages, means less bigger names, less players- it can still be done of course but the EFL are likely walking a tightrope. Serie B is quite a bit harsher on financial breaches though it is unclear if it's FFP or outright irregularities! Dunno if Germany still has the license requirement. As for EFL I mean if rules bent a bit, and especially if it is a "big" club look the other way and whistle. I also wonder if they messed up projected accounts legally by not punishing Birmingham in 2017/18...9 points slapped on a year earlier would surely have sent them down. Birmingham's misfortune was through being too honest in a sense, and yet their fortune was the EFL seemed unwilling or unable to do projected accounts as submitted by Birmingham themselves in March 2018!! Precedent set- for the in-season punishments at least? By way of comparison to a 2nd tier which while not as big as this League, go on Wiki, 2017/18 and 2018/19 Serie B...note how many points deductions etc! Think 2 clubs even got demoted TWO divisions from Serie B to D for financial irregularities.

My depressing but possibly likely take on the Aston Villa issue is that the PL won't do anything or want to do anything to dilute their "brand", brand at all costs so won't apply the regs for an FFP overspend- I reckon based on formulas and mitigation- somewhere between 10-15 points and a soft embargo. It is almost impossible to fail FFP in the Premier League and I don't believe that to be an accident. Why is a League with such higher revenue- and costs admittedly, but a higher by far ratio of income/costs, giving such leeway of £35m (plus allowable costs) per season?? Where we may well have more hope is the Derby issue... That means thought that this is unfinished business and possibly significantly, the EFL might yet conclude that it was completed as an attempt to evade the rules- it is unknown at this time. I think a vote of clubs is the best way to settle this Derby, possibly Sheffield Wednesday issue. How they do it elsewhere. I believe Bundesliga you have to get a license to prove finances all in order. Palermo got docked 20 points in Serie B season just gone, admittedly a court downgraded it from automatic relegation. Think 2017/18 Serie B table looks nuts with deductions, demotions etc!

Agree with all of this- an organisation headed up by Shaun Harvey though, can we expect anything better, look how they messed up the Birmingham one, how slow it was, never mind such wizardry as interpreting projected accounts and punishing accordingly in 2017/18! I always think back to what @Coppello wrote about someone from EFL finance department on here and it makes me pretty pissed off. A soft embargo and an appropriate points deduction could see them come straight back down, but you are right the money aspect is ill-gotten gains as far as I'm concerned- not in a legal sense I hasten to add, but ethically, morally. Now Birmingham are on one season account submissions until the 2017/18 period is spent and I assume that will be a precedent moving forward...therefore rationally they should also cut the overspend threshold by a third- bet they won't though!

I wonder if quite a few are planning on doing a Mel Morris and selling their grounds to related parties. I would say giving it up could pose a problem, not just from a financial POV. In the highly unlikely event that a club outside the top flight wins FA Cup, or Carling (whatever it's called now!) or a relegated club wins either, if EFL has no FFP rules, would they get a UEFA License? Not sure- this is an outside possibility. More realistic perhaps is if a club goes up and then gets into Europe the same season and is in 3 year breach as per the rules of FFP when there were none at this level, again UEFA would be well within rights well IMO anyway, to refuse a license during that period for said club. Wouldn't expect some of the short termist foreign in particular- but not exclusively- owners to think this far ahead though... I can't see a majority voting to scrap it though. I'd like to see a vote this summer tbh, on whether to punish Derby and when they choose to release their accounts if they have done the same, Sheffield Wednesday. EFL should grow a pair literally put it to a formal vote of clubs and particularly those in the Championship- if there is no majority then so be it! Interesting story as it goes, just found it- not even read it! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7088131/Championship-clubs-fear-Aston-Villa-avoid-points-deduction-breach-FFP-rules.html

I think a few may have done- there are rumours that Bristol City and Nottingham Forest are also keen on, supporting this legal case. Unless you mean the March/April meetings? I remember talk of SL being keen on it, on seeing these rules enforced correctly and Nottingham Forest too- seems to be a bit of a split in the League though...some clubs were actually pushing for a relaxation of the rules from what they are now!

Is an interesting one. When it was first mooted, FFP, I remember it was part of some grand idealistic reform, so it was said. Not just French, I seem to recall his vision was a reformed CL- a seriously reformed one and I seem to recall straight knockout in a huge competition of 256 sides. Maybe combining the 2 European club competitions- was a wide range of ideas, seem to recall these in mid to late 2000s. PSG and their failings...think they've got significant cultural failings. Great players, some good managers but lacking something... their collapse v Man Utd was astonishing and I think the star players there hold a lot too much sway. Something rotten, sub-elite in the culture the DNA almost there IMO. It's looking that way. This season was an acid test really. I suspect though that if an EFL club were to win FA Cup or League Cup and no FFP rules, then a UEFA License would be doubtful. I also think though from a Platini viewpoint he wasn't keen on monopolies or near monopolies... he got votes from smaller and middle ranking European Leagues for one. I remember he made some changes to CL...possible clash or sign of clash between UK and European types of capitalism? More laisse faire v interventionist, Platini looking at pushing the latter in CL. Think more to it though than he just wanted a French side winning it or going far.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Especially about the business of football. I also think this issue won't go away though- a simple majority vote of the clubs, absolute democracy in action there. I just don't see the remaining 21, 22 clubs accepting the status quo, how on earth can they. More to the point, why should they? Maybe FFP will be scrapped in the Championship because letting 2-3 clubs get away with taking the piss is plainly untenable. People like to and rightly so slate FIFA and UEFA, but are our own football Governing bodies really much better?

Emergency meeting or announcement that the playoff promotion of whoever wins today will be subject to a review and a vote by the Championship 24 would do it. That'd be a game changer. Do the EFL understand the seriousness of all this- clubs going to the court system as they appear to have lost faith in the Governing body, is pretty drastic escalation of the stakes!

I have read in places that sanctions ie points deductions or embargos can follow a side up- whether it'd be enforced though... Kieran Maguire thinks fines only but in reality they should. Not in the PL's interest though, is it.

I saw it too Dave. I read a figure on some comment on an article that Villa Park sale maybe £200m...TWO HUNDRED!? Clubs and the EFL have to be really firm if they've done the same...think the question of "EFL Golden Share" needs to come onto the table. It really does. Are the rest of the League owners going to take this on the chin? I'd be stunned if they did...some very rich men indeed amongst those owners, and in some cases- Marinakis being one- influential in their own nations to some level.