Mr Popodopolous

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.

On that note, interesting story in today's Times. Seems that Sheffield Wednesday have even failed to file accounts to EFL last December- they should be embargoed for that alone at minimum! That article overlooks one point though- they actually- as is their legal entitlement once every 5 years so no rules or laws breached- extended their accounting period by 2 months. The curious one on that list is Leeds- if there are not in-season punishments then they're not in danger. If there were they might be but they have lots of players on their books- them being sold will remove amortisation alone, let alone profit and wages, but then they would have legal recourse if they went up next season for no punishments against others, legal recourse to the CAS. Also read which made me sick, Aston Villa £15m- that's FIFTEEN MILLION- compensation for HS2. Surely fake news?- but then again if we recall, an ex Aston Villa bigwig involved in HS2 in that area?! If true though...Spawniest. Bastards. Ever!

My personal take on it is that as it showed, they were in Aston Villa in compliance until May 2018. Now I'd suggest a breach of the 3 years even after post-deductions of £20-30m- in theory the EFL can strip promotion from a side, prevent them from going up- I hope they lose the final absolutely but I also hope that if they don't then by some miracle, the EFL will declare the promotion null and void and award it to the opposition. Unicorns apt for this post/wish? @downendcity I'm not wholly convinced Derby in breach without the stadium sale- if we assume market value of £40m is a fair transaction, or thereabouts then their 3 year accounts until May 2018 have them quite likely just within the limits if we knock off the profit...they've sold players for good money too so I see it as likely they may just about be compliant after allowable costs- way I see that one is largely to give Lampard a warchest and wage budget by adding £40m to "profits" to 3 year figures- that profit should be declared illegal- not necessarily in breach but very little headroom either. The other issue with the EFL, is they're quite simply not very good. Slow off the mark- look how long it to them to breach Birmingham 9 points in what was a pretty easy case! On the point about uneven treatment- Birmingham need to take this to the CAS! There is excellent precedent with AC Milan last year and basically if UEFA hadn't chosen to go away and rethink, they would had to have produced the accounts that they had for the 2 petro-clubs and Inter Milan that they all submitted, for AC Milan to inspect as part of a legal case, an appeal.

As per Kieran Maguire, still overdue. Bear in mind, they were already extended by 2 months so quite what they are up to will be very interesting surely...

As per Kieran Maguire, now officially overdue! Fair's fair, been a number of bank holidays lately but given they extended it by 2 months I'd say they have little excuse personally... Bolton's are also officially overdue but then they are a basketcase of a club, run into the ground by terrible ownership in recent times whose very future is in doubt so it's hardly surprising.

Saw this on @KieranMaguire Price of Football Twitter. Two things. Firstly Sheffield Wednesday must be in a huge mess FFP wise- not solvency wise of course. Secondly, it is possible they used that to buy time for some dodgy manoeuvre- the EFL have had 2 months to prepare and plan for it, I hope they are wise to it and will act accordingly. If it were down to me, moves like Derby owner selling ground to himself and whatever Sheffield Wednesday may have planned? I would dock points for not only breaching the regs but the spirit too- now Derby may not have breached the regs themselves, but if it was viable they should be docked points for such a move. Sheffield Wednesday likely have breached it and if there is some dodgy manoeuvre, would aggravated breach cover it? I hope so! In layman's terms they extended- as is their legal right I hasten to add- their accounting period by 2 months when it was due in February 2019. Accounts which were to May 31 2018 are now to July 31 2018. Despite this, they still appear to be late - clubs and businesses have 9 months to submit accounts to Companies House after their reporting period ends. I assume they are in a fairly tight spot indeed.

Obviously wouldn't do it myself but a friend subscribed to Off The Pitch for varying reasons. Sent me this article- has potential to interest a few. Still maintain that there may have been a legal precedent for what Gibson was wanting- if taken to the CAS then precedent- well say Birmingham took it to CAS for getting punished when others may avoid, the CAS could compel the EFL potentially to provide Birmingham with the accounts of other sides who may have got away with it. Would take a club with a strong legal case that they had been treated differently to others- Birmingham v Derby, Sheffield Wednesday or Aston Villa could be it. Settled in CAS or other courts. They were told they would not have to alter the rules to shine a brighter torch inside the accounts of their Championship rivals. Off The Pitch understands that those clubs pushing for greater scrutiny and stricter control have used the current rules to get inside rivals’ books and are confident they will find corporate structures have been put in place to avoid punishment for breaking the EFL’s profitability and sustainability rules. Yield of 5 per cent One of the major areas of contention has been Derby’s ability to sell their stadium to the owner Mel Morris for £80 million, which allowed the club to post a pre-tax profit of £14.6million. It has been said on a commercial deal that the yield is around five per cent but Derby are paying just £1 1/4 million-per-year to a private company owned by Morris following the sale. Aston Villa, who are in the final season of their parachute payment following relegation from the Premier League in 2016, valued Villa Park at just £39 million in their accounts for 2016/17. The three-year rolling period for what is effectively FFP means that next season their maximum loss for any of the three years is £13 million, rather than the £35 million allowed for a Premier League club. Morris claimed yesterday that Middlesbrough had declined the opportunity to go through Derby’s books in March. "Middlesbrough were offered by us in writing to come with their advisors to go through our submissions for profitability and sustainability, they declined,” he said.

I agree £57m losses is shocking. I wasn't too clear- it wasn't that Wolves last season were financially responsible- they backloaded the losses. £80m-£39m. That's breaking the 3 year losses by £41m. SUBTRACT £20m for promotion bonuses etc. That's an overspend of £21m. Because promotion bonuses don't count as expenditure under FFP. Rightly or wrongly? SUBTRACT about £8m of their profit in Steve Morgan's final season. Mix of parachute payments and player sales. Overspend down to £13m. Allowable costs. Think there's been good infrastructure investment, academy, depreciation etc. Think £4-5m per year for a typical Championship club not unreasonable. These don't count towards FFP expenditure as it's seen as 'good investment'. Reckon their 3 year FFP losses were £37-39m. Maybe at a push, £40m. Think SL could do a few things and all by the book at that. We can spend reasonably this summer IMO. Or be under no pressure to sell if we don't wish to, FFP wise.

Mad though it sounds, I believe Wolves complied- just. You add profit onto allowable losses. Maybe £8m profit in 2015/16. Then a purported £20m in bonuses and fees due on promotion...if no promotion, nothing paid. Then deductible costs- youth, infrastructure, depreciation and amortisation of non-footballing assets, Community. Say £4-5m per season. For sure they would've needed some good sales had they lost in the playoffs..in Neves, Cavaleiro and Costa to name 3 though they were some good ones to sell. Could've turned a profit on Ruddy, Bennett and Douglas too if necessary. No fairytale though, that's for sure. Mix of capitalising on 15/16 profit, utilising Mendes- and his manager with a La Liga and CL based CV- and by the looks of it moderate to big wages with large bonuses and yes gambling. Albeit with easily saleable assets as an insurance policy.

Thanks- bit of a hobbyhorse of mine. ? Purslow seems to have gone from confident of compliance to admitting it's a challenge... Bit of both IMO. Different debate. For the record though. Reid and Bryan? Academy boys. So was Gibson at Middlesbrough. Taylor at Leeds and Vieira. Believe Christie, Hendrick and Hughes at Derby all were. Burke and Brereton at Nottingham Forest. Murphy at Norwich. Evading FFP? To me, it's cheating- pure and simple.

Okay. On a train so limited battery but to summarise. EFL FFP regs have submitted accounts in order to enable in-season punishment. Birmingham were punished for the 3 seasons to LAST season. The period covering 2015/16-2017/18. The whole point of clubs submitting projected accounts in March is so they can be assessed live and in-season. By rights Birmingham should've been docked points LAST season with Burton or Barnsley staying up. When it affects the top with financial stakes it is worse still. You surely are in breach. Sheffield Wednesday well it's highly likely they are and Derby may very well be though that's the hardest to unpick. The reason I'm particularly angry is that we sold Flint, Bryan and Reid last summer..squad players in Magnússon and Djuric also departed helping with cost reduction. We've done fine, absolutely but it's beside the point. Birmingham should've sold Adams, you should've sold Grealish already IMO or others to raise £20-25m in offsetting losses. Derby tbh have already sold quite a few but are right up to the limit. Sheffield Wednesday? Should surely have sold any of Bannan, Forestieri but especially Reach. Signing Onomah and Hector season long loan plus in January Lazaar, Aarons and on loan is that sticking to the regs?? Plus Iorfa permantly. Middlesbrough sold Gibson, Traore, Bamford and loaned Braithwaite- though with Pulis in charge they wouldn't have got best out of them anyway. The alternative to bringing it in line through sales should be hard embargoes and points deductions fairly quickly implemented. Oh yeah. Also firmly believe our necessary restructing and cutbacks contributed to the slow start.

If the ruled with projected accounts as submitted by the club were enforced correctly, you likely would have been out by £25m. For the 3 years to THIS season. That'd be a 12 point deduction, 3 points for aggravated breach and one off for admitting it probably.

That's true. Probably a better example. I suppose my Bolton v Aston Villa example was to highlight that a club can have one but not the other- but Bolton's case was/is pretty unusual. FFP didn't save them, in fact it is highly likely that they didn't breach it in this cycle...

He has, was giving an example of a case where a side could be FFP compliant but wrecked financially or vice versa. I'll rephrase that then- when Anderson ran Bolton, they were FFP fine but in trouble in real cash terms. Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday amongst others- likely to be the opposite!

Interesting twist: https://offthepitch.com/a/bitter-championship-battle-over-clubs-breaking-ffp-goes It's behind a paywall though- so only the first snippets are available...?

They have a rich set of owners so the black hole- so long as the owners stay committed- will be for FFP IMO. Bolton have the opposite issue...not enough cash to break FFP even if they wanted to, but a dodgy/skint- dodgily skint- owner in Ken Anderson. In general though, agree with the post fully.

Agree- it's beyond a joke. Obscene sums it up to a tee! The only workarounds I can think of are- ones that maybe classed as legit that is: Grealish sale pre-arranged, regardless of promotion- maybe that could be shifted into accounts for this year for £25m or so. Say arranged in Feb, taking effect as soon as window opens. Still pretty dubious though- if they'd wanted that they could legitimately have sold him for £25m in Jan and offered to let him continue to kick on for half a season of continued development on a loan back. Dicy but legit. Certainly not unheard of. OR If somehow they get a large sum as the final tranche of HS2 Compensation- HS2 compensation seems like it's gone nowhere fast but you never know- if they got say £25m this season that'd get them just over the line. The £3m I assume was HS2 but it still seems a bit up in the air. Beyond that? 21 point deduction and embargo seems in order I'd say, based on the formula. Or 12 points at the bare minimum, would have to look up the formula in full again. £15m could be possible, if Aston Villa really want to go for it on youth development as part of a new strategy then it's possible to believe it was legit- still a bit of a stretch though IMO. Then again, there is an argument that says HS2 compensation shouldn't count towards FFP. Because if training ground expenditure etc doesn't, why should income from the admittedly unfortunate Bodymoor Heath HS2 thing count as FFP income? Club income yes...but not FFP. Plus wow look at this... http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things. ?

Promotion denied would be the only fair solution of course. The interesting thing about the Grealish sale of course is that just say they sell and backdate, stay down- that helps to alleviate the rolling period to this season, but then leaves them with an enormous hole...losing well I dread to think how much! Parachute payments gone albeit wages down- having to find a whole new set of profits on players just to stay compliant...straight- hard not soft- embargo and big deduction would surely be about right? This Swiss Ramble Graphic shows just how tight a spot! It would mean they could lose only £4m next season in this scenario plus FFP allowable exclusions. Let's assume they backdate a Grealish sale of £25m. Means they lose £35m in 2 years and then the next year in FFP terms can only lose, £4m...meanwhile Parachute Payments fall by £17m. Factor out the Grealish sale too. Means they need to find £52m from somewhere just to comply for the 3 seasons to May 2020.

There is a scenario in which it could happen, but not like this. Agreed- not desirable by a majority of clubs. What clubs have to hide in terms of youth development expenditure and other exempted areas though...well it does beg the question a bit?