Mr Popodopolous

Read on their forum that the unreserved seats thing being scrapped or changed. Believe it's the Dolman wings usually? Or was, as the case maybe.

Thanks, had a feeling it was something like that. Chelsea had they not made CL this year- given their reliance on player sales or profit on player transactions, utilisation of the academy to these ends etc, might have been an interesting one for failing FFP- Arsenal- Arsenal- of all sides- maybe too. Saw a graphic in January that suggested that they could be losing £90m or something (before allowances granted) this season as a projected figure. Or not? Internet is a funny thing, all sorts on there!

Ha but a reprieve for Colin. Or Bryan (not too bad granted). Would provide a fair solution though and denial of promotion the ultimate realistic punishment. One bit I don't quite get in UEFA FFP PL limit split. PL loss limit the aforementioned £35m plus costs. UEFA loss limit is quite a bit lower IIRC. Which one takes precedence for obtaining a European license- UEFA I assume.

Agreed- but given this seems not to have happened, I don't know how it would work if say Aston Villa win the playoff final- it could in theory but who would go up in their place? Mnd you I saw Swindon mentioned on this thread in 1990- precedent?? I think most clubs financial years end at the end of May or June- and in a couple of cases, end of July- so all clubs have an opportunity to sell within time but some more than others- something needs to be standardised if possible on this- maybe accounts up to a certain cut off point- end of May? Can't say I know of any ending in March though. Agree, forecasted sales being abolished would be best. Still the above paragraph may have some sort of scope for standardisation. Agreed- and especially for the entitlement brigade, love to see them taken down a peg! Think the rules are mainly alright though, it's the implementation of them that is the problem- what @Coppello wrote on Friday about his discussions with someone at the EFL was shocking!

If they actually have a hard and fast deal in place to sell though- that is possible, then that would be somewhat more legit? I very much doubt they do, but look how quickly the Kelly transfer happened- this can be possible. As in, he goes regardless. Agree, denial of promotion the only way- unsure how it would work though- replay the playoffs but with places shifting around- ie Leeds 3rd, WBA 4th, Derby 5th and Middlesbrough 6th? Award the final to Derby by default- maybe Leeds as the highest team who didn't go up automatically, but seemingly actually did comply with FFP?

I think if enforced by UEFA (or us on here )instead of EFL, we would have seen harsher and swifter punishments- the fact they i.e. UEFA are pushing for a Man City ban from CL is belated but finally- they have been trying to reopen the PSG investigation too, post Football Leaks. Same could go for EPL, but then the limit is set at such a level that combined with TV money and allowable write offs it is almost impossible to fail (STCC a different matter)- funny that! ?

It would for the period to 2018/19 season yeah, but if they stayed down they would have a major hole still IMO. A question as to whether Kieran Maguire's Infrastructure figures included depreciation etc as part of it, if they did that takes total losses down but still in breach- similar for Derby. Also questions about whether they are getting a lot of HS2 compensation- saw one below the line comment on an article of £15m! No idea on that though- but a former Aston Villa chairman is in HS2 committee or similar in that region!? http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/former-aston-villa-chair-announced-as-wmca-hs2-growth-delivery-chair Given Aston Villa are or maybe were due some compensation, it's an unbelievable conflict of interest, or has that potential at least- but then is anyone surprised anymore?

Excellent comment I saw from what I assume to be a Birmingham fan on a Guardian comment- media have been pretty pathetic, as per- but that is exactly the questions media should be asking.

It is complex- perhaps they did and they didn't. With Birmingham, they enforced the period of 2015/16-2017/18. This was the period of 3 seasons prior to this season. The regulations/rules to which I am referring are the projected accounts. The Derby example I gave would have been the prior period as per Birmingham, but I am referring to the in-season accounts. These were quoted directly in this thread. The point of them was to prevent clubs from wriggling out of their obligations- possibly even quoted directly from EFL website but will look into that later. In terms of any hypothetical lawsuit. Us and Middlesbrough for a start would be eligible in terms of a directly affected wronged party. So too might Leeds and WBA- both stuck to the rules and yet lost to sides who appear to have disregarded them. Then I would add Barnsley and Burton- both 2017/18 season, but both well within both finished level on points, Birmingham should've been docked points that season as that was the period their breach occurred in- should have been relegated. Then you have sides like us and Middlesbrough, Leeds, Nottingham Forest- hell even Swansea who have all sold to help stay in line. Hull another. Though tbh, Hull and Swansea smack of asset stripping. Norwich too but that cash flow and solvency as much as anything. Sheffield United too- Brooks sale- neither solvency or cashflow but trading and compliance purposes. With the exception of Derby- who tbh sold 5 first teamers and 1 squad player, the other 2 big unpunished clubs have made no effort to comply. Can't see the serious efforts by Aston Villa or Sheffield Wednesday. Birmingham still have hold of Adams and Jota to name 2. If you don't enforce own rules such as these in a timely manner, it seriously distorts the competition. Will go through examples of clubs who sold to help comply in due course.

I was looking back at this thread, around February, March time- and the EFL have literally not enforced their own rules- projected accounts in particular. They have simply neglected to enforce these, in particular against likely offending clubs. Derby's ground thing may have got them off the hook though. We and Middlesbrough to name 2 compliant clubs have missed out on a legitimate shot at promotion via the playoffs. Any scope for legal actions against EFL/offending clubs?

As regular readers of this thread will know, Kieran Maguire has tracked differentials between Derby accounts and their holding Company Sevco 5112. Noticed it when looking at his Twitter for something else- credit to him. However I noticed there's nothing- unless he's accounted for it in a different way in his figures- about Depreciation on there, or indeed amortisation of Intangible assets which don't include football. Comes to about £9.09m, but that is still £3.11m (roughly) over the limit. Dunno how many points off that would be but it would surely have meant Middlesbrough in 6th rather than us- would have to find the points to overspend tariff and see. Now I don't know it could be the case that Infrastructure covers depreciation etc. Found it! Without the ground thing, going by this- assuming my amortisation isn't me double counting somehow, then it would likely have been 4 points plus deemed an intentional breach so 7 in total- but one given back if like Birmingham they admitted to it. If it is/was me double counting then 9 points plus the aforementioned 3 for a breach- plus of course one given back for admitting which we assume they would. Regardless we may not have made the playoffs- that may have been Middlesbrough- but we would have finished above them. That's before we even get into the cop out of failure to implement projected accounts.

Partly what Coppello said, partly what you said about still working it out, partly what I said about gross incompetence- those 3 cover it! I think the reason for tax is okay- because say s club makes a pretax loss of x but gets a tax rebate of some sort, past losses etc can help bring it about for companies I believe, maybe that law has changed but I'm sure I remember seeing a clubs accounts which had losses then those losses reduced by tax credit. That could be a difference between passing and failing FFP so to cover all bases it's probably for the best.

FWIW, dunno if they backdated the transaction or what, but it said on their accounts for 2017/18 tax bill £0. Checked it a bit earlier- plausible to offset against prior losses? In an FFP context, taxation doesn't seem to be a factor anyway from what I can tell.

Dunno how serious this post of yours is but anyway Related party, arms length transaction rules. Or have I been WHOOSHED! On a serious note, we could boost commercial revenue and stay within the rules as I think we will- you maybe don't something. Make sure it's cleared with EFL etc but we could get each stand sponsored by a related party perhaps provided it's within market rates. The HL stand, the company he has invested in - Sustainable Energy Technology Investments Ltd for another, maybe if he's got any business interests in Botswana- if it's within accepted market rates I don't see an issue.. Have the training ground sponsored too- again stick strictly to market rates.

Agreed on what you say- EFL seem to be working it our far too slowly- these rules were in place the new 3 year ones since 2015/16. Yet they only deigned to announce points deductions in September 2018, even that could've been leaked to the Times- in the early stages of Birmingham's eventual punishment. Plus announced a proper range, tariff, only after the Birmingham deduction- this should have been put out there in 2016/17 surely. Alas on the tax thing, think tax liabilities can be offset against trading losses. Their accounts said £0 tax. Because like many clubs, they post losses- so paid no tax so far as I can see. Plus for FFP tax isn't counted- believe it's the profit/loss before tax that is used.

Thank you for the responses. Arms length responses can be legitimate and genuine agreed. This one strikes me as not- or for want of a better phrase, taking the piss. I think somewhere between £20-40m about right- the latter the maximum. Weird to see how it doubled- and doubled again- since 2013 however! Maybe there was improvement work and it was undervalued so £40m maybe...but not likely. Anything over and above? Grossly overvalued IMO. Wonder if EFL did that. If the independent surveyor found it was grossly overvalued, could the profit then be struck from the FFP calculations, or is it now too late?

I'm surprised it doesn't have implications for tax purposes, HMRC, the Revenue etc as well- but then I'm not a tax specialist! How can an asset just shoot up in value like that, it's nuts. In fact, the Derby accounts from 2016/17, says the following- my take is that a £40m may have been generous but let's assume it is fairish value. Anyway though...below. Bottom of P.22. We're therefore expected to believe that it was undervalued by 50% in 2013, that it had somehow doubled and doubled again by 2017/18. Now it may- I don't know the ins and outs- but it may have had refurbishment done, corporate facilities on and off matchdays etc upgraded- I can accept that a valuation of £40m might- and I mean might- be possible if stretching it a bit. £80m though?? That's before even factoring in depreciation in the 4-5 years since this took place!

Very interesting stuff, this insight you are providing. Sounds like the promise of future transfers to make up shortfalls needs real oversight...my solution and it's purely theoretical would therefore be an embargo for any club that 'stretches the truth' on it, until such a time as the deficit is cleared or the obligation is fulfilled. One question I would have, as the rules stand, in your opinion is it possible to strike from the record the profit on transactions to related parties, or is that stable door and horses bolting? E.g. Derby FFP submissions would show £40m instead of £80m on 'sale' of Pride Park.

Have to say, reading the Sheffield Wednesday forum many- not all, some are saying it'd lead to more problems down the line, some are saying profit won't be counted, but many are predictably moaning and predictably declaring "It's not our fault it's the regulations- blame the regulations". Now the regulations are not perfect, but they are (by which I mean the posters) dead wong It's your- by which I mean obviously their- fault for good, but over time it became average recruitment, little thought about sell on value and wanting to buy your way out of issues. Your- or rather your owners fault- take responsibility!! I'd like to see a summer embargo at the least on them in order to ensure they cannot benefit immediately from any upturn brought about by this- with pressure still to comply so they'd have little choice but to sell one or 2 decent players as well. I know they are popular on here but they've drifted right down in my estimation recent months. @downendcity I'd like to think a professional body would have professional experts even if only a few to scrutinise these types of cases especially- the worst cases- but with this bunch... Coppello would probably be best placed to answer this one.

The EFL HAVE to close that loophole before Aston Villa can get cracking on that- before the playoff final basically. At minimum they have to make any inflated profit from a related party illegitimate in, struck from FFP submissions. The fact Sheffield Wednesday have a) Delayed their accounts for 2 months i.e. extended reporting period b) Still haven't submitted their revised reporting period accounts and c) If the Times article to be believed, still not submitted accounts that were due in December 2018 to EFL, means that they should have a summer window embargo- well IMO anyway- as a total minimum. I'm talking the weakest punishment. In reality they should have closed it early before anyone could- now it may sound like being wise after the event but they are the Governing body who see accounts...should've been closed in 2016 or 2017 at the latest. Mind you, with the state of play as described by @Coppello what hope is there!! Three sets of scummy cheats- Aston Villa, Derby and now seemingly Sheffield Wednesday- hope for the worst for all 3 of you, decent fans from Sheffield Wednesday on here notwithstanding. Okay the only possible saving grace for Sheffield Wednesday, on the ground thing is if they sold it to an external party and I mean a truly external party, not a related "external party". Other than that, yeah cheating scumbags!

Think Nottingham Forest would also be pretty hacked off at this being let slide, even Birmingham now from sinners to sinned against in terms of double standards. Then any number of small to medium clubs at this level who absolutely do the right thing. Leeds too maybe, they usually produce player sales or profit on. Mixture of gross incompetence- and I mean disgracefully so- and letting all but the stupidest or worst breaches slide- appalling. This could I think be easily voted for- perhaps Gibson went about certain aspects wrong but proper and full enforcement without tricks that take the piss, all treated without fear or favour and rules being adhered to but with each case also judged depending on efforts to comply- e.g. if new owners try to clean house through player sales or even existing owners but there are lots of players out of favour but on good wages that can be a mitigating favour. To me the rules are quite right, the big problem is the EFL- always thought that enforcement a problem when overseen by the EFL and it seems my fears (and those of many others) are being realised. Theoretically, would it be too late to void Aston Villa's result especially and maybe depending on precise numbers Derby's and have a Leeds-WBA playoff final? In order for both to feel the full consequences of their actions!

Credit to the excellent Swiss Ramble for this earlier in the year. I am now making an assumption that they got £15m for HS2 as one comment on an article said and that it'd be in this seasons accounts. This therefore is strictly a best case or an ideal case scenario of mine. Allowable loss: £39m + £45m=£84m over 3 years- that's when taking into account allowable costs. That is more than plenty for any Championship club except if one of the top 6 got relegated suddenly for financial irregularities or match fixing say. 2017/18 £36m loss- £15m=£21m 2018/19 *£54m loss-£15m-£12m=£27m Already in Birmingham territory in this their final year of Parachute Payments. About £9m above. Rough calculations though it is, but if this is in the right ballpark- and let's say it is... £54m loss-£15m- so the same as before- put pushing further into the red -£17m parachute payments and £15m in HS2/land and until sales occur, also subtract £7m in profit on transactions. I therefore estimate a loss of £93 million- before FFP exclusions of £15m- so nearly double the 3 year FFP in 1 years!! Or £126m in FFP adjusted losses for the 3 years to May 2019!! Were the £15m this season for HS2 to have been fake news, it'd be £138m in 3 year FFP losses admittedly before sales, loanees and players released. £50m in profit on player sales let's say and £15m in wages saved- or vice versa...even that would have them well in breach. My numbers may not be perfect but they're in the right ball park- what's a few million between friends such as Villa and the EFL In consideration of all factors therefore, I hope Derby smash Aston Villa...then get >11 points and have to rent Pride Park at several £m per year.

Haha, knew it! Knew it- incompetent and in some ways reluctant to be too pernickety- but incompetent absolutely!! Thank you though, that is very interesting stuff- and the difference between EFL and PL is evident. Mind you in terms of the base FFP in the PL- not talking the STCC thing- for that is slightly different but the £35m + allowable losses- with their TV money and commercial revenue- and marketing on a global level, it's almost impossible to fail! £105m over 3 years...makes sense in some ways but in others, forgetting parachute payments for a minute they also have £44m + any profit accrued in the prior 2 years to play with- should be £13m per year and allowable losses in PL IMO but that'll never happen. Personally I think and I'm sure most right minded people would agree that Derby and seemingly Sheffield Wednesday if reports are true selling the ground to themselves effectively- even if technically different corporate entities- for a 'profit' is taking the piss- but then business regs and ethics don't always exactly align. @RoystonFoote'snephew Ah, did it? Thanks. Read on here at some point that it was June 9th- I'll go with what you say though, small window for Aston Villa if they lose that playoff final before it rolls over to 2019/20 financial reporting period.

Their accounting period runs until May 31st 2019- summer window opens in June...unless they can prove demonstrably to the EFL- doesn't have to be public, but it would be nice if a lot more of it was- then surely they'd be snookered for this season in that respect. Maybe...but I prefer to think of it as clubs who abide and make decent efforts- and even mad though it sounds, Derby are better than a few having sold Christie, Hendrick, Hughes, Ince, Vydra and Weimann last 3 seasons to help at least, and those who don't- namely the 2 Birmingham clubs plus Sheffield Wednesday it appears. I mean there are those who will push the allowable limits to the max but won't breach it- Wolves and maybe Brighton spring to mind. In terms of those who sold to help try to ensure compliance, as well as Middlesbrough we have us, we have Norwich- though that was as much solvency as FFP, we have Nottingham Forest, they sold Brereton for £7m, we have Leeds- Wood, Taylor compensation amongst others summer 2017, fairly sure they sold in 2016/17 also, Vieira last summer, they're planning to bring in £7m in sales this summer and that's just early on if papertalk to be believed, albeit they're 2 players on loan elsewhere- helps offset losses though. Then we have those who make small or moderate operating losses anyway, or in an FFP context- made smaller by sales, e.g. Preston, Rotherham, to an extent Wigan, on some levels Sheffield United- I'm sure there are quite a few if I look into it further. Then you have a handful of clubs who think they are above the rules- the 2 Birmingham clubs, though Birmingham City a shambles anyway I'd suggest, Sheffield Wednesday who if the Times article is to be believed haven't even submitted their accounts to the EFL though that could just be poor reporting- another badly run club, and Derby using a profit to cushion future spending/prevention of necessity to sell players. Then you have the stupidest of all which was Barnsley selling Bree, Hourihane and Winnall even when they were already posting a profit for the season and were in the playoff picture- yet Birmingham survived at their expense a year and a half later!! Mix of asset stripping, loan repayments and debt reduction to owner IMO. Perhaps preparation for takeover too. Precedent set- would seem so. I maybe wrong but I don't think they can forbid fair market value even if a related transaction- so £40-41m in the case of Pride Park, but perhaps moving forward they can disallow the profit as illegitimate if sold to a related party- that's the bit that really riles me personally, again Derby because of the aforementioned player sales and compensation for Rowett may just be in it if we strip the £39-40m profit from the sale but pretty hemmed in if they lose the final. In a similar way to debt write offs not counting as income for FFP.

Agree with this- definitely approaching crunch time. Think the Birmingham ruling is now for the duration of this period 1 year- so £13m + allowable expenditure, as they can't be punished twice for the breach which occurred last season. However 6 month accounts to December suggested that they had already exceeded £13m, to the HKSE (Hong Kong Stock Exchange). Birmingham Sport Holdings that is- presumably the overspend would be adjusted accordingly for the points tariff or is that another loophole the EFL haven't thought of I wonder! In short, they might be saved in part by Butland sell on fee- IF it is by June 30th 2019 as that's when their accounts end and also the surely highly likely sale of Adams- again June 30th 2019 would be the deadline. https://almajir.net/2019/04/23/bsh-credit-crunch/ They seem in a bit of a mess though, to say the least- perhaps not just with FFP either! Or it could provide them with some fresh legit income, who knows really. https://almajir.net/2019/02/28/bsh-interim-results-to-december-2018/ Those results. Oh yeah, my point about the tariff thing- if x-y in losses above the limit equals a given number of points then the obvious thing is to divide it by 3- so say £3m overspend=5 points (I know that isn't the tariff but can't remember it right now), then for an adjusted down limit it is £1m overspend=5 points. Bet the EFL haven't covered this base however! For all that, yes they could be allies with us and other clubs in compliance. Inconsistent punishment by law of the same offences is very shaky- in sports law too. CAS proved this with AC Milan last summer.