Mr Popodopolous

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.

Interesting- but this could be seriously challenged at a number of levels. Nor only our courts but the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). July or August 2018, AC Milan banned from UEFA competition. Their legal defence was that PSG and Man City especially weren't banned, plus Inter. Though I looked at their losses and they were far more restrained than the petro clubs in their building days. Anyway I digress- the point was they were treated in a fundamentally different manner- CAS sent UEFA back to drawing board for AC Milan. Hence, unequal treatment can set a precedent. Here maybe it can compel EFL to produce Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday accounts.. Then EFL may have little choice but to allow some kind of parity. That could be consistent punishment. Or allowing all other clubs to do this once before shutting the loopholes off.

Would've thought Mel Morris could pay off the second, but 1and 3-5 absolutely. Solid objectives IMO. Perhaps a 6th..deterrence. Lots of owners will be watching with interest. May even be involved on the quiet. As if I owned a club that made sacrifices- ie player sales for one, maybe restraint in January- or even both and saw this unfolding I would absolutely be!

Yeah- got a good feeling about this. I wonder if EFL might in a bid to save their own skin suddenly enforce the in-season punishments and have the playoffs replayed...it's highly unlikely but people do funny things when up against it- as EFL may yet be: Demote the two finalists, scrub the results? Leeds-Bristol City West Brom-Middlesbrough I would have thought, but maybe the rules don't have sufficient scope good faith, abuse of a dominant position- as pointed out by @chinapig the other day and market rates, vs doubling of rates could cover a lot of this anyway- still thinking it's also a question of willingness and indeed competence to enforce as well as loopholes being exploited.

Not just us though- there are many clubs who have sold or restrained spending to try to stay in-line with it all. That is why I think as many clubs as possible is a good way forward- it is gaining an advantage through manifestly unfair, means. A points deduction would have settled the issue for Derby and Aston Villa. Out the playoffs? Their hard luck, for not adhering to the regs correctly. Technically I think the EFL have the power to stop promotion. Any punishment they see fit, nothing is off the table- as per their own rules. Whether it is at all realistic is a different matter.

Could it I wonder lead to a chance the playoffs getting replayed- or is that too late in the day? Or Derby, indeed Aston Villa stripped of promotion and a playoff final between Leeds-WBA as a) The losing semi finalists b) The fact they complied c) The next 2 highest ranked compliant sides?

Are you just talking playoffs, as that'd make sense. I would add all of the clubs who sold key assets to help to comply, or restricted spending to stay in line- whichever way we look at it, that is an unfair advantage for 3 or 4 clubs who are unable to abide by the regulations that the League are Governed by. Fingers cross the fight back begins here...and that this is just the start.

Happily, not being a Telegraph subscriber means I miss out on the full nauseating detail! Sure Dean Smith local lad, that connection there- but overall nauseating I am sure!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/24/aston-villa-restored-pride-hope-sense-identity/ What a lot of shit this article is- nauseating, biased crap...bet it doesn't mention their wild overspending despite Parachute Payments! Now admittedly it is behind Premium so can only see some but...

Brilliant news!! The two Steves fingers crossed but certainly well done Gibson...righting wrongs of FFP or beginning this!! Would also add, Nottingham Forest were not too happy about it, Nicholas Randall. I doubt Marinakis a shipping magnate who has stressed his obedience to FFP would have been too amused at Derby, Aston Villa and to an extent Sheffield Wednesday- Hillsborough status still uncertain! Class action anyone? Lots more clubs have abided- or made significant effort to comply- than not...!

We're lead to believe that he is- he must be, Mark Ashton was talking about it a while ago. Nothing public on his part but certainly he was more public on Spygate. He must be bothered though- why would he be happy about sides gaining a seriously unwarranted competitive advantage over us? If we had kept Reid, we make the playoffs- and if we had dome some related party sponsorships maybe we would have kept Reid...that alone should have him angry- he and the bulk of the owners should be all over this. Shaun Harvey- linked with the FA despite his track record over his career. Couldn't make it up- yet in a way not too surprising. People go on about UEFA and FIFA being dreadful, but the FA and EFL are pretty useless at best themselves. I think that one from AG- though likewise no clue who- would look to have this enforced a lot quicker and more rigorously... https://offthepitch.com/a/bristol-city-owner-wants-tougher-sanctions-deter-clubs-overspending But the punishments are not tough enough to discourage clubs from overspending in their pursuit of Premier-League football and higher income, Lansdown reportedly believes. He is an influential member of a small group of Championship owners who are demanding more stringent punishments for clubs who fail to stick to the rules of Financial Fair Play, according to the Bristol Post. Besides Lansdown, the group also includes Middlesbrough owner Steve Gibson and a representative of Nottingham Forest. No harm done if you win promotion The group fear an uneven playing field is being created between clubs who are run carefully, and those who are willing to take the financial risk and overspend to secure promotion to the Premier League, in the belief that this will help cushion any potential long-term damage. Lansdown and Gibson therefore want the Premier League to intervene if a club wins promotion by breaking the rules. In their 2018 campaign, Wolves won promotion but lost more than £1 million a week following the examples of Bournemouth who got fined nearly £5 million for their losses in 2014/15 and Leicester City who got fined £3.1 million in 2014. Now established Premier-League sides, these amounts are insignificant for the clubs. Bristol City themselves reported a loss of £25.3 million in 2018, up from just £6.6 million in 2017. This is mainly because of the lack of player sales and an increased wage bill. The Robins are currently placed 9th in the Championship - just two points from the play-off spots with two games in hand. The one erroneous aspect in there is Wolves. Bournemouth and Leicester breached- Wolves as the rules were constituted were in line, but only just! The Wolves losses were under the new rules so just about legit, the Bournemouth and Leicester losses under the old rules so very much not!

Ideal scenario. Aston Villa have the book thrown- plus further punishment for trying to evade the rules and spirit of the rules- aggravated breach then- if indeed they have tried the ground sale thing. Disallow profit from ground sale. Sheffield Wednesday have their punishment and of course if they tried to do this to get round, further punishment for aggravated breach. Derby have their profit on the transaction disallowed and a points penalty applied- plus some kind of embargo- it should follow them into the PL. If I was SL, Gibson, Marinakis, Leeds owner and the rest of the less high profile but nonetheless affected, I'd be fuming at this and really pushing hard for severe punishments for the clubs who have flouted.

Infrastructure- so that covers stadia, training grounds etc, Academies, women's football and community expenditure all exempt under FFP yeah. Agreed on that- in fact it's so simple it's watertight. Open market sales- fine, acceptable. Open market and arms length transactions. No issue. If Derby had sold their ground to I don't, know a property firm in Dubai and then leased it back and this was a totally unrelated party, I can't see any cause for complaint. Similarly as you say, sale of the ground in order to help build a new one. Agreed- paper transactions, with related parties/companies- no income for FFP purposes. I assumed (naively?) that the rules already covered this. I hope SL and similarly affected clubs are planning a fightback on this- there will be a lot of aggrieved parties here, people that will be less than amused at the EFL allowing this...including 'medium to big 'clubs too, e.g. Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest- not that size should matter in this case. Agreed. Would apply something similar top parachute payments too- allocated to pay wages of unshiftable players, but said players not being eligible to play, something like that.

Yeah, maybe not then- it's one of those things that is justifiable but throws up a lot of real world issues in that instance. Not sure what they can do aside from barring related party transactions- or certainly barring any such profit on transactions to count towards FFP, as indeed the rules arguably already stipulate. Or, one alternative route- allow all clubs to do it once then close off that and similar loopholes for good. Think the latter could do more harm than good though.

UEFA's own rules give provision for this and cover it quite well. The loss of the players, it results in a very uneven playing field- no rogue clubs. If you wish to be a rogue club, then your FL membership is put to a vote of the 72 clubs IMO. The golden share is put on the table. Proving of loss is a problem granted, but my formula might be compensation to the value of each player sold as it turns out for unnecessary reasons- e.g. £10m for Reid. Or maybe analyse the total profit on transfers n that period from the amount that shortfall in FFP that would have happened otherwise and set a formula based on this. UEFA regs actually cover for these sorts of transactions. This is/was a very easy case to prove that it was a related party- It isn't even a family member but the owner himself via a different company!

One more idea. Clubs- not individual owners but clubs- sign adherence to FFP or willingness to do their utmost, all reasonable efforts in conjunction with golden share. They flout this and do so wilfully, then their Football League Golden Share is a matter of debate- or accept without legal recourse whatever alternative punishment EFL deems fit. That in this instance would include demotion from the playoffs for Derby and Aston Villa- that would be if their other regulation of projected accounts was enforced correctly.

Funny, but depressingly likely! I read one horrible prediction that Villa Park sold for £200m if they go down this road- loophole must be shut now- actually should've been already.

If EFL were to say "We question this valuation and profit owing to it being a related party" pointing to the regulations in question- which Derby signed up to along with all clubs as a condition of membership. If the EFL wished to appoint a truly independent valuer, with their rules- what's to stop them? If second independent valuer backs it up quite well, then it's unbelievable but you have to accept it.

Well said! I think the EFL should have had it independently valued- I can still accept it doubling to around £40m from £20m- that is hard to believe, but within the realms IMO. Definitely a paper transaction- should these be allowed between related parties especially under FFP? Doubtful! Bit of all 3 I imagine- that stuff posted by Coppello was very depressing reading about some finance offer from the EFL/ Should, could Mark Ashton have done more? It is a disgrace this- we have sold Flint, Bryan, Reid and now Kelly- partly to maximise value, partly as players being kept on the circs would remain but partly due to this. I think and clubs like us could have a real legal case here. I believe clubs who have sold to comply should be due millions in compensation from the clubs who have breached- or the owners at least. I would say the EFL but I doubt they earn enough as a company so suing them seems fairly pointless. Forget the consumer aspect but a lot of this could tick boxes IMO.

Doubled and doubled again- I think doubled since 2013 is fair enough, that has likely happened- prospect of redevelopment. Was listed in accounts as £20m as per a 2013 valuation. Doubled I can buy...doubled again? Nah. Landlord puts rent up very true. Arguably they don't utilise it enough- this is a good point. Would push valuation up. Yeah, true. Depends which fair value though- £20m to £40m or so, or the doubling of that which yielded the profit. 2013 it was worth £20m or so, then it said the profit was basically £39m- which is a total sale of £81.1m, nearly double that 41m. One solution might be to have EFL appoint the independent valuer. We go with their verdict as the final word. If you don't like it? Then off you **** out the League! That nuclear option aside, this should not have been signed off- as per their own regulations. Given albeit through a different company he owns the club- how on earth was the "profit" signed off??

Interesting. A third party then, enticed by the prospect of large annual rent? If it's to a third party and a bona-fide third party at that...that changes the equation significantly. Hope Pride Park doesn't get sold off for student flats then- or a concert every weekend! ? It's sold to a company linked to Mel Morris the owner though, so I don't see how fair value couldn't be applied here- arms length transactions, related parties- definitely a stay of execution but there are rules about related party transactions in FFP, are there not? It was sold by Derby to a company owned by Mel Morris- presumably he owned the ground in any case. Independent valuer doubles the valuation- which in turn was doubled from 2013! Absolutely laughable to believe it's legit.

I think there must be some sort of law about abuse of a dominant position in a trade association, however yes FA ceding power to PL absolutely started this ball rolling- agree on that. On the dominant position thing, if they have it- there is an onus on them not to abuse it and I am sure it can be tested in the courts, be they here or elsewhere. That is where CAS could come in. AC Milan got their ban from EL overturned- okay hardly a small club, a huge one in fact- because they went to the CAS and were able to prove or at least have the onus on UEFA to prove that they were not being singled out- UEFA nearly had to produce the accounts for Inter Milan, Man City and PSG- oddly enough they did not wish to do this and went away to reconsider! I suggest Birmingham take a case there for a start. As you say richer clubs getting a greater share of TV money - one reason maybe the threat of a European super League. EU Law may well thwart that. Now we won't be in the EU sooner rather than later, but for a European Super League many nations would be and I could see potential of it being blocked- in practical terms though I don't know how! As for Derby, very rough calculations- and basic sums. Did a quick calculation though, doubtless much more to it- but Pride Park and site is about 180 acres- so in DE24 i.e. the fringes of Derby, Pride Park and surrounds are worth £450,555.55 (approx) per acre! Which I consider to be a load of crap...it surely is! Think somewhere between £20-40m fair, market value most likely. @Coppello Any thoughts on that? Acreage to price paid- £450,555.55 (approx) per acre is surely one hell of an uptick!? ?

Maybe. Still even if it is, any profit or revenue from doing that shouldn't count however. I agree. Wondered it myself, perhaps that's a line, a legal.argument that MA, SL and other chairmen etc who are furious about this should pursue! Unsure the provisions would allow for it, but one thing that might be acceptable is the profit on transactions suck as this being disallowed- £14m profit becomes a £39m loss in Derby's case!

Should be tbh. Pride Park also brings non matchday revenue and has conferencing facilities- a lot of grounds do now- but AG redevelopment is much more modern, location- both in terms of near centre and Bristol being a lot more desirable than Derby, multiple sports as you say- many reasons.