Mr Popodopolous

Regards projected accounts- these posts are relatively small so can reply to them now and bigger ones on the weekend, a few thoughts.

Problem- Accounts submitted by 1st March 2019 don't cover proposed sales- ie. Grealish.

One solution might be to get a contractual undertaking that sale is pre-arranged- any breach automatic points deduction for fail FFP in whichever division- or maybe even refuse to accept such an idea of sale of Grealish unless a proper paper trail.

Problem- Accounts submitted by 1st March 2019 may not cover further revenue i.e. playoffs.

Solution- In Aston Villa's case their apparent breach was so big that playoff revenue wouldn't make a material difference to the points/loss tariff. Maybe a problem for clubs within a lower range- Promotion and playoffs about £5m? Any club within that range would have to include that as a variable within their projected accounts.

Problem- Ground can be sold to owners postseason but before accounting period closes.

One possible Solution- The projected submitted accounts take precedence for FFP purposes-, ground sales to owners that take place post 1st March 2019 therefore not included in FFP calculations for this period. May require a rule change voted for by at least 18 clubs for this though- or another aspect to the solution maybe that simply no profit from such RPTs for FFP purposes. FFP results are different to published accounts after all.

The other big solution as well as in-season punishments would be to have the EFL given unlimited powers against any club who breaches this on their return- would again require the 18/24 minimum voting rule and be a new rule moving forward- Aston Villa reps along with the newly promoted clubs will actually be at the Conference in Portugal so there may yet be one last chance to get a punishment voted on?

As for Ground Transactions involving related parties- well it's unbelievable oversight by EFL to have profit on such transactions included as positive revenue for FFP calculations. If it is a true third party transaction and all transparent, could people complain too much?

Plus moving forward, given there is a share transfer between EFL and EPL- in theory why couldn't the EFL refuse to transfer the share of say Aston Villa if it transpires that the following has occurred: a) They have won playoffs in a big FFP breach, b) A ground sale and leaseback with owners/Related parties was arranged hastily after promotion or lack of and c) A proposed Grealish sale by 31st May 2019 turned out to be bogus.

Different sites and such do suggest that points penalty can follow a side up, but others contradict this- unless there is a watertight agreement, then it could be this eras ITV Digital debacle for the EFL?

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

An EFL spokesman said:

“Championship Clubs met on Wednesday where there was a positive exchange of ideas on a number of different issues, including the League’s Profitability and Sustainability rules.  

“The long term sustainability of all EFL Clubs remains of paramount importance to the EFL Board and they will continue to work with Clubs in respect of the rules.  

“Clubs were also reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any Club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.”

Read more  

Playing devil's advocate a little, depending on which club's senior executive is quoted could have a huge bearing on the comment, as if it was, say, a Villa executive then he would say that, wouldn't he? 

As for "taking potshots .......... when on-field results go badly". I remember this sort of comment being trotted out by Leeds fans when our owner was pushing for Leeds to be punished over the spygate incident and I've seen comments from Villa fans along similar lines when their ffp position has been questioned i.e. it's sour grapes or jealousy. The issue is not that club's are aggrieved because their own results have gone against them, it is that if a club has breached ffp but escaped any punishment then  they have gained an advantage over all the other clubs clubs that have complied with the same set of financial rules. 

I am sure all clubs and fans would be more than happy to "let the authorities do their job". It is the fact that the authorities, i.e. the EFL, do not appear to be doing their job when it comes to ffp  that is causing other people to "interfere. The ulterior motive such people have is to ensure the EFL applies ffp rules properly and fairly across all clubs and ensures that any club that breaches is properly penalised - there appears to fairly widespread scepticism as to whether this is the case currently.

 

You beat me to the punch.

Perhaps it was Derby's! Or in seriousness, as you say anyone who is just happy with the status quo- that comment just sounds made up to me, I am not saying it is but it's so toadying, flies in the face of a lot of evidence that it is laughable unless in self-interest.

Where to start with the unnamed senior executive:

Quote

A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings.

It seems that they (EFL finance team) can talk a very good game. Easy to do at times- or being fair maybe this is what happens post the changes, maybe the anger at the March meeting has actually brought about serious changes- Shaun Harvey going for a start is an instant improvement. I'm open-minded on this, though a lot of course depends on the Senior Executive in question.

Quote

“Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute.

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute is owners selling grounds to themselves in a very creative manner- not just Derby, but anyone out of Aston Villa, Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday too. Reading, though for different reasons- £26.5m in that part of the country seems oddly low to me. They made a modest but barely substantial profit but I query why the value pre sale was £20m or so, Madejski Stadium that is. Shouldn't have been done of course but compared to Derby...?

What can risk bringing a competition into disrepute even more is the prospect that Aston Villa run up an FFP excess of £25-30m over 3 seasons and only get a risk of a points deduction once they've reached PL!

What truly will- or should- bring a competition into disrepute is the EFL lacking the competence to close loopholes before exploitation- namely the ground one- and the dexterity to properly enforce in-season punishments as per their own regulations!!

Quote

“We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.”

Total toadying. Laughable, PR. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind than an objective reading of the situation- I mean they may have a valid point even if it isn't one I agree with, but it's so obsequious- with ironically a slight potshot, i.e. the bolded bit.

One more interesting note- the finances of Aston Villa and Derby it seems will be on the agenda at the EFL Summer Conference. Hopefully Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday also.

That could well be a good one- question is would the Premier League play ball?

There would be quite a sale on the cards if no pp for cheats. 

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Sl takes a stand and refuses to play Villa on their return to the championship.

You can bet the EFL would be lightning quick out of the blocks to give us a 40 point deduction, thereby guaranteeing relegation, and a £100m fine, for failing to fulfil a fixture.

Oh, they would also probably suspend Bailey and Famara for a whole season!

Needs 21- hell perhaps even as their breaches were smaller and not cushioned by parachute payments without which their (Aston Villa's) breaches would have been astronomical, all 23 clubs to take a stand and tell them where to go basically. A rough estimate at this stage but I believe that stripping out Parachute Payments, Aston Villa's three year breach would have been £100m+ over the limit- ONE HUNDRED MILLION PLUS!?! I assume they would have modified behaviour significantly and obviously without PP's a lot more clubs would have failed FFP but most relegated clubs at least sell key players, sign cheaper or a mix of the 2 to try to offset some of it.

Would have to be a totally united front however- you cannot force a division to play a bunch of cheats surely?

I also read that clubs have no faith in EFL- in a Telegraph article, which rather contradicts the DerbyFan who said that owners were very impressed indeed with EFL financial professionals! Unless this took place after the reforms of course- clubs wanting a far bigger say in the new P & S regs is particularly interesting- could be good, could be bad but definitely appears to be the case that there's no confidence- and rightly so! What took them so long??

Two Telegraph articles suggest a lot of disquiet indeed.

Some key snippets from the 2 articles- key bits within key bits in bold:-

1 hour ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

My opinion for what it’s worth is that there could be various reasons why Gibson got no support from the other clubs including ourselves.

Firstly that having looked at it legally there was the conclusion that whatever had been done had broken no actual rule and concerted efforts to punish the ‘offenders’ would be futile.

Secondly that it was a case of ‘shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted’. We all know that financially this league is not a level playing field, favouring the cash rich and the ex premier League clubs consistently. Having Derby, Villa, Wednesday etc blatantly abuse the system  on top of everything else and then preventing the lesser clubs doing likewise would only tip the balance even more. Indeed the lack of support might indicate that an olive branch had been offered prior to the meeting by the EFL. Something like “okay before we do everything to close this loophole we have a period where anybody else can do likewise as each club can only do it once.”

Finally there is the possibility that a ‘plan B’ has been found that would redress the balance a little and it was merely a case of keeping their powder dry until the right moment. It would have been useful if one of the clubs sympathetic with Gibson had an astute financial expert as an owner and an employee on the EFL board. We can but hope !

Perhaps yes- a full vote by clubs surely has potential to change this though?

Yes. Aston Villa by far the most egregious however IMO. At least Derby sold quite a few players- first team and squad alike, not fringe. Sheffield Wednesday were sort of somewhere between the 2 and Birmingham ultimately paid for one window of Redknapp! Run by idiots the last and possibly the 2nd last too. Your last sentence could be interesting- Allow everyone to do it once then shut off the loophole for good. I question whether UEFA would permit such transactions, but as we know the EFL are useless.

This is my hope too. Powder dry- EFL meeting today I believe in Portugal- wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall- do we think we will see any vocal arguments between owners??

I still have no desire for us to play them if or when they return to the EFL.

1 minute ago, Coppello said:

Is this a PL points deduction once a Championship club has been promoted? There's currently nothing written in the legislation about it and I don't think the PL are that interested. They're focused on the granting of UEFA licenses to PL teams and ensuring the adherence to those rules rather than looking at the teams towards the bottom of the division. In addition, they're almost separate jurisdictions and this is why the EFL were unable to punish QPR until they went down to the Championship. There may be appetite to change this given the current situation but I haven't heard anything.  

That's the thing, I've read different things on it. Some sites suggest that there was some sort of agreement that points deductions can follow a side up. Others seem to think just a fine-= EFL certainly if reports to be believed pushing for it- PL are amoral tossers however and EFL are wildly inept which is a terrible combination for enforcement of such matters- I would suggest the FA would be the most appropriate but I don't have a huge amount of confidence in them- Prince William FA, Prince William Aston Villa fan for one!? I am sure it wouldn't impair hus judgement but I have precious little faith in them.

Ah, just paper talk then? Besides how on earth can UEFA licenses be granted when PL loss limit is £35m per season, whereas UEFA limit quite a bit lower? That bit does confuse me a bit- surely the UEFA loss limits take precedence for licensing purposes?

Do you think therefore that stiff sanctions could be imposed on Aston Villa for a 3 year beach when they return? Aston Villa fans seem adamant no rule allows it.

https://astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/were-aston-villa-well-just-pay-the-ffping-fine-but-it-would-be-nice-if-the-media-did-their-job-investigated/

Aren't they odious, the author of this piece- I don't like to generalise but.

Double relegation too good for them.

I actually am of a mind that if and when they return to Championship I have no desire for our players to have to share a pitch with the pricks. More importantly, SL to have to share a boardroom and most of all our fans to have to share a stadium.

Wonder how many other Championship clubs have similar feelings- at the very least fans and boardroom level.

It's late so I'll look properly tomorrow but one note.

Reports- maybe erroneously- suggested Aston Villa under a soft transfers embargo until 30th June 2019.

They've just announced signing of Jota. If it a straight swap with Gary Gardner all okay to a point as no cash changed hands but if not- aggravated breach.

How many points should within regs EFL dock them if they return in a year or 2? I'm going with 14.

Am assuming amoral scummers at EPL won't honour the agreement- legal action a possibility?

@Coppello you are the expert and particularly on PL FFP. Any scope for a Championship points deduction to follow a promoted rule breaker into PL?

Assumed that was a key point of harmonised FFP! A number of sources have certainly intimated it possible.

44 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I'll go have a nosy, that's another forum I like to lurk on! 

So were they wrong about Gellaw Newco 201? Did someone misread and then miscommunicate it somewhere along the line?

At least we now know that it was within the accounting period then.

Re. Hillsborough, I assumed they wouldn't have sold theirs until this years accounts anyway, 2019?

If they were intending to do the sale for the 2018 accounts then it would definitely have been done outside of the accounting period if the above quote about still being registered with the club at 17 May is true? Although I think they are still to file their 2018 ones?

I can't see in the rules where profit from the sale of fixed assets is excluded from P&S for Championship clubs, so I'm not sure why they have stated this, unless the rules, in full, are not the same as on the EFL website?

The quote I mentioned in a previous post from Mel Morris (article in the Derby Telegraph) specifically said that the sale of fixed assets was allowed in the rules.

For comparison, Reading, I believe lease their stadium? £1.1m a season, I seem to recall? Less capacity but at £50m seemingly cost around double to build in 1998 (only 1 year after Pride Park opened in 1997), down South - so more expensive rental value to counteract the capacity?

It surely can't be as simple as only the land having the value, because regardless of the limited usage of a stadium (unless you get creative with it being a performance venue) it has cost something to build and/or make improvements to, can you imagine being the person that has to tell Spurs that their new £1bn stadium is now only worth the land value. 

As the Ricoh Arena debacle shows there doesn't have to be a team in the near vicinity to attract a buyer - they were London Wasps weren't they?

Sainsbury's presumably would only have been interested in the land though (unless they wanted to branch out into the sport world? ) which maybe would have limited the value if they were the only interested party at that time?

Bolded sections I reply to.

More than likely wrong about the Gellaw Newco number- there were quite a few. Thought of getting on the Land Registry myself but it costs and I have no professional interest so...

Yeah, only just but only just is enough!

Surely it can't be backdated to the 2015/16-2017/18 accounts which is what they would be judged on? Their accounts for that period were due on Feb 28th 2019, which they then shifted back to ending on May 31st 2019- don't know when that was planned but it came up on Companies House on 27th February 2019 and they have been due since April 30th 2019- seem to be down as overdue. If there's a side who deserve the book being thrown along with Aston Villa it'd be them!

Yep- see above for their shifting accounts.

Feels wrong though, if it is to a related party and especially interesting if towards the end of an accounting period where passing FFP up for debate.

Interesting you should mention Reading! I just now looked up their sale and leaseback of ground- I assumed it was sale of fixed assets other than Madejski Stadium but it appears it was for £26.5m- by way of comparison, that is a notable difference to Derby! Whereas Griffin Park for £30m- London premium? Madejski value at time of sale was around £20m, so the profit was £6.5m- £1.2m per season feels low for rent on an asset sold on a 20 year lease tbh- the Madjeski is a 25 year lease I believe. EFL should have insisted on commercial rent arrangements for such moves if to related parties from the get-go, would a bank or a property developer be happy with such a low rate? 

Tottenham's worth £1bn is crazy even for football yet if that is what it cost. London, high end PL clubs, capacity, inflation and all of the mod cons added probably played a role, agree property prices a bit of a red herring- Ashton Gate however as per our accounts- 5-6,000 less capacity than Pride Park but many similar features. According to Ashton Gate Limited, as I think already pointed out by Coppello,  £42,548,669 at 31st May 2018, though it wasn't a fresh new build but a big redevelopment nonetheless.

My big problem with this but particularly the sharp rise for Derby is that- what would Barclays Bank HSBC realistically offer- assuming they are not linked in any way to Derby. What would a property company offer? If an unrelated company came to a valuation of £81.1m and a rent of £1.2m per season on a 20 year lease? I'd think they were mental but it's their prerogative!! I can only assume the Reading valuation was a lot closer to an open market one, given that there was a profit of only £6.5m or so.

Edit: They're (Barclays that is) Derby's bankers- didn't think that one through- just picked a bank at random! 

13 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I'm not sure what all of that means, but does it not say the registered owner is Gellaw Newco 202, and not Gellaw Newco 201?  I'm not sure why the liquidation of Gellaw Newco 201 is relevant - have I missed something?

If the date shown is the date of the search, then surely that doesn't have any bearing on when the transaction took place? Do you mind me asking which site you found it on? If that is the date of a search then I can't help but wonder why someone went looking for this information in January?  The sale was only made public knowledge (as far as I'm aware anyway, ie. I'd not seen anyone mention it previously, and I feel sure someone on our forum or Twitter would have picked up on it) when we released the accounts.

Owlstalk.

Owlstalk in that thread made reference to Gellaw Newco 201 having ownership at some stage- presumably because Sheffield Wednesday are or have been planning similar.

Okay, another post on that thread makes clear that it was within the accounting period.

10 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

Ahh, but what are your book values? And why so convoluted, just each buy your own! 

Haha, well my idea is that bit more creative though- if you're going to pull a stunt, it should be a big one. Two third parties- sounds a good one!

Will respond to all the bigger posts later- saw this on another site though presumably the date indicates the date it was searched- if the transaction occurred later than 30th June 2018 though, it's amazing the flexibility permitted in UK business laws and regs!.

Seemingly owned by Gellaw NewCo 201 Limited- which appointed a Voluntary Liquidator within a month or so. Amazing what Company, Solvency, Financial law and EFL regs permit! This was on the same site- Mel Morris likes a Gellaw Newco it appears.

On a light side note, given it appears to be in the rules.

Why don't Gibson and Lansdown do a ground swap- Lansdown purchases Riverside, Gibson does the same with AG and relevant guarantees about the future of the 2 stadia- with equivalent rent charged, given they get on so well!

No rule against...no loophole forbidding- if you can't beat them etc! 

54 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I was just very surprised that you'd openly stated that, I've been lurking on forums for long enough to have seen people getting themselves in hot water for casting aspersions on people before.

What if the EFL's valuation matches that of the club?

I don't know which club the other poster works for - you may know as a fellow fan of theirs(?) so I can't know which stadium it is they have worked on a valuation for, there may be reasons why it differs from ours? I wouldn't like to make assumptions on that as I don't know anything about how to value a stadium, the only thing I do assume is that the only people who know how they come to a valuation are the people that have all the facts of why they have done so.

I don't know what the 2013 valuation was, it doesn't appear to say, and the book value didn't appear to change either. From the notes I took it to be an exercise that had to be undertaken, as it said something about FRS 11, but maybe they didn't have to actually change the book value? Again, I don't know, I'm guessing, like everyone else is.

Maybe you're right and that was Gibson's aim, I guess only he knows, all I know is what the club (or Mel Morris) have communicated to us fans. I have no reason not to believe what they're saying, especially on things that can be proved or disproved quite easily. Until anyone comes out with anything different to what's already been said then that's all I've got I'm afraid.

You're right, we do only have Mel Morris' word for it, but given that there were supposed to be representatives from every club in the league there, and none of them have come out and said anything different, then I believe it to be true, I don't get why anyone would think any different when it's something that every club could disprove if they so wished?

What claims would you like me to provide sources on? I'll try my best to find them if you let me know. Re. The EFL approving pre-purchase, I have already provided the link to the Sky article referencing this in a previous post, yes it has obviously come from the club, so you will probably choose not believe it, but where else is that information going to come from? If it is not true then I would imagine the EFL would have come out by now and said this. It doesn't say on the article, but the information seemed to come from Rob Dorsett, he is the local Sky reporter, if the club want to put information out there, this is one of the ways they do it, one of the others being via the Derby Telegraph.

Sky Article

You can tell from the second quote that it is obviously the club who have told Sky this, otherwise why would they have seen the emails, they've not just been told about them by a third party, they've seen them, the wording is obviously deliberate.

Derby Telegraph Article

Derby Telegraph Article

Are those quotes satisfactory? Yes, you have to trust the words of Mel Morris, there are plenty of people who can come out and claim something different if they would like to, but as they don't appear to have...

You're clearly very suspicious minded, I'm just a fan of my club, any 'PR' you think I'm 'pumping out' is just me being a fan, you can believe or disbelieve that if you like, it makes no difference to me as I know who I am. 

I've been visiting your forum for some time as a lurker to see what your fanbase has to say, as I do with every club, yours is more active than most, so I lurked more often, it's an interesting way to pass the time.

I'd noticed your repeated mention of the 'double and double again' of the value in this thread, it seemed this was really irking you as you kept mentioning it and having looked through the clubs accounts recently out of interest, even though I don't understand most of it, I saw this bit was wrong from the notes underneath and when I'd seen that you had mentioned it again I wanted to point it out, if only to put your mind at rest that that wasn't actually the case.

You and others then replied to me, so I carried on replying, if I was wrong to do that then I apologise, I thought your forum might appreciate an alternative view, especially from a fan of one of the clubs that it seems are frustrating you the most re. FFP. Obviously I can only go on the information put out into the public domain, as that's all I'm aware of, like yourselves, but I thought I may be aware of things you are not as I obviously follow things at my club more closely than you would, and I watch the fans forums the club do and then subsequently put out on Rams TV, where things have been mentioned, directly, by Mel Morris and various people from the club.

It's a subject I find interesting, as most people (like myself) have a pretty strong opinion on it, even if they don't (also like myself) seemingly actually understand the full ins and outs of it - no one but the clubs involved can actually understand the clubs positions with regard to FFP, as there are so many variables, so many things can be excluded, the values of which I would assume vary wildly club by club.

I'm not worked up at all, I'd actually thought you were, hence pointing that out in the first place, and then I was just engaged in the conversation, I can leave if you'd rather this thread be an echo chamber?

I'm not openly stating that I believe they are bent or similar- simply that if the EFL reported them to their bodies, they should welcome an investigation as they clearly have done nothing wrong. Just a bit of a believer in the saying "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"- in the same way Man City claimed they welcome the investigation by UEFA then perhaps those should welcome a report to their professional bodies? I think it would be good for transparency anyway- who doesn't like transparency after all. That paragraph perhaps reads a bit flippant though- but there are sufficient questions I think for some sort of report but particularly if there are substantive valuation differences for example.

If the EFL's valuation matches the club? Then we have to go with it. It sticks in the craw but we would have to accept it for what it is. A thorough investigation by top of the range accountants, auditors, corporate lawyers and land valuers should take place though and I dare say most Championship owners would agree. I dare say most owners are very rich at this level so would gladly fund it too if they pooled resources- they certainly easily could. The same would go for Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday too incidentally if they have attempted this.

Don't know- wouldn't be prudent for them to put that sort of thing on a public forum, PL in London IIRC? Though again can't remember entirely, definitely a London club- wouldn't presume to speak for them beyond that. On valuation- and I know this aspect isn't so relevant in building valuations, land let alone stadia- you mentioned house price inflation in Derby. House prices rising- well as it goes, Leicester- which is a good comparison- has higher house prices but a lower stadium valuation. Interesting, but perhaps not so relevant. FWIW, Zoopla- Average Property Price Derby- £210,436...Leicester £232,777. Now I know property valuation has little relation to that of stadia, but Walkers Stadium valued in the accounts at around £38m yet Pride Park goes for more than double!? Bit funny no- it isn't London, Monaco or New York- with respect. Hell it isn't even Bristol (£331,554)- yet AG a fair bit less as pointed out by @Coppello . 

Well that is interesting in itself- see when Villa Park was revalued in 2016, the amount lopped off it was put into the accounts and was down as the cost of impairment. Maybe it isn't obligatory with compulsory revaluations that take place over a given time period, but it is with ones by choice.

Only Steve Gibson knows Steve Gibson's motivations. Playing the long game maybe, who knows. Or maybe Morris offered it in a mocking way- only Gibson will know his reasons but I dare say he believes in them.

A fair bit doesn't stack up with it- not pointing the finger at Derby here (for once!), but I was under the impression that as well as Gibson, my club were pretty angry over the FFP issues, so too were Nottingham Forest and it goes without saying Leeds. Are they too playing a long game- maybe canvassing support and planning an ambush in the form of a vote at this summer's EFL conference?  That would be great!  

I'll read these articles again now- thanks. Well so they did- EFL should have got in independent auditors and lawyers appointed by them before approving- look at Man City now facing a possible CL ban, to think old cases cannot be reopened is patently a view that is held on shaky ground.

Haha suspicious minded? On some things perhaps...on this- yeah. I believe that there are clubs who have been very close to the rules- and actually FWIW I have always had Derby down as being just about in compliance before any such transaction- I have claimed it on this thread pretty often in recent months. Yeah though, I believe clubs may well have flouted the regs or seriously tested the spirit of them, while we and lots more have sold players and abided and it ain't right. It is still possible with a big youth expenditure in 2015-16, that the 3 years to 2017/18 might have had you in compliance, albeit narrowly incidentally! I think it is tight either way, but my main bugbear is that I think given you sold 7 players in that period- 4 or 5 first team and the remainder squad, that if you had breached then the EFL should have applied more mitigation i.e. removed a few from any potential points penalty if guilty due to said sales. Whereas Aston Villa I'd say should have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday no real mitigations either but a smaller breach so less punishment. Birmingham got punished and should be watching this with interest.

Agreed- I from time to time will look up other forums, interesting to see perspective- Aston Villa the most odious of them all IMO at this level.

Yeah fair enough- looks inflated though, £81.1m which while not doubled and doubled again. 50%,, double maybe- something like that.

Yeah, input is good- that is the point of forums after all.

They certainly can vary club by club and it is definitely an interesting subject- why else would I make this thread after all!  Think it's interesting in itself and also interesting from a competitive advantage/disadvantage tbh.

Wouldn't say I'm so worked up as such. Passionate about it yes, and if honest quite angry at the EFL- they're a disgrace. Echo chambers are no good though, the input has helped stimulate the thread- different perspective always positive I find.

54 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

You want to report people to their Professional Bodies and you are questioning their integrity and objectivity? Why on earth would anyone jeopardise their career for that, even if they do support the club in question? Unbelievable.

The accounts and the stadium valuation are clear for everyone to see, presumably anyone with an accounting background can go through them and find out what they need to, no one has tried to hide anything, they've told people how they amortise the players, and they've told everyone how much the stadium was valued at, if people don't believe that value then there is not much they can do about that one, but presumably they will have all the evidence they need to back it up.

Steve Gibson was actually invited by Mel Morris to view the clubs accounts, with his finance people I believe, twice, and he apparently didn't even bother to reply, according to a Sky article (I think it was the one I referenced yesterday), if he was so concerned then why would he not take up that offer? And if there was anything to hide why would the club make that offer to him - anything amiss would be spotted instantly by his people?

Also according to recent articles with quotes from Mel Morris, that were released just before the final, absolutely no one voted for Gibson's proposal at the EFL meeting, not one person, including, apparently, his own representative!

Where to start...

That fits almost perfectly Pride Park description?

Ok.

Done nothing wrong, nothing to worry about I'd say- so let's get them reported to clear it all up. I think there is a lot that is very creative here so yeah I'd say so. Do I think they would truly let Derby support influence their judgement...doubt it but I believe the EFL should report them yes, especially if a valuation of an independent surveyor who maybe hired by the EFL would differ significantly to that of the ones appointed by Derby. Coppello's post about the valuation of a London stadium being significantly less than this sounded most interesting. If they get reported and they're totally on the level, then case will be laughed out of the room and all good.

The valuation is not so clear- the revaluation as of 2013 is not so clear- it states that it was revalued in 2013 but to what? The valuation is either what was sold in the 2017/18 accounts excluding depreciation or that what was sold in 2017/18 inclusive of depreciation.

Steve Gibson wanting to make sure his ducks were lined up in a row- we don't know the context of the offer, only what Mel Morris said. Was it a case of "an offer to view accounts (as presented) in return for an undertaking you drop it". Can well see Gibson's grounds for reservations here. Or maybe the "offer" was the case that Morris took the piss- "Haha, we've passed FFP and there's nothing you can do- look- look at these accounts! Stadium profit!"

Lack of votes also makes me wonder what other clubs are hiding...then again on this however, the distinct a) Lack of votes and b) Gibson's own rep not bothering, we only have the word of Mel Morris, hardly a neutral party.

Why don't you produce some sources some actual proof of some of your more recent claims- you seem to be rather passionate about this story and sometimes I wonder- are you Derby "Fan" or Derby "Something Else"?

Also where is your proof that the EFL approved the transaction pre purchase? You have none unless you can link us to it, in the public domain of course...unless of course you are "Derby Something Else"- be it employee, auditor etc. In which case you shouldn't be posting about it on a forum- should you.

I mean, you seem awfully worked up for a random fan because of one or 2 slight technical errors and you seem awfully keen to obfuscate, from the original point which is that your club overspent and used very creative accounting to (so far) get round the regs.

Yeah, quick searches will do that- that clearly was not quite the right one...then again I'm not a Chartered surveyor.

Oh and a quick search for comparison. Walkers Stadium completed in 2002 I believe, valued at May 2018 or May 31 2018- their accounts actually lay out the individual Tangible Assets you see- £38,211,000. Now I can believe it is somewhere between £40-50m given work on it but much beyond that?

If anyone has access to RICS isurv, valuation examples and methods maybe interesting- football stadia included on there incidentally.

Taking all the posts into account. £40-50m? I could believe. £81.1m...laughed out the room!

Ohhhh and an interesting Tweet.

If Aston Villa- now officially promoted- are potentially having this issue, then it follows that Derby who are still in the EFL can be hammered- or at least punished for this- if an investigation finds they merit it.

A very interesting post that @Coppello

I'll get into it all the most recent posts from you and DerbyFan properly later the most recent posts etc, but I wonder a few things on this.

1) The integrity of the surveyor- yes I have wondered this for a while, without necessarily stating it.

2) The auditors- believe you said the Lead Auditor a Derby County fan? Independence and objectivity surely must be considered in a different light with that info?

3) Not too late for the EFL or its members I should say to conduct its own review. How about interested parties- so therefore Messrs Lansdown, Gibson, Marinakis et al pool resources hire a set of bona fide top independent auditors, bona fide top independent accountants, top independent land valuers and top independent corporate lawyers to launch a genuine review into Derby's finances. Take it to the CAS in Lausanne if necessary to seek access to the fine detail of the accounts. Yes, there is precedent on this, see AC Milan at the CAS in August 2018- related to here, I suspect Gibson turning down the offer of viewing accounts was him making sure he had all his ducks lined up in a row.

I would be surprised if owners were not bang up for this, the only question is the EFL as a Governing body themselves- as you say they're very much inept as an organisation...However were it to be left with the owners, the chairmen this could be a goer! Keep Shaun Harvey away from it though- he didn't even know who owned Leeds when he was there!! I think there would be a lot and I mean a lot of owners up for this. Though not like the Birmingham situation in many ways, one way is similar- them signing Pedersen under embargo got a lot of clubs very antsy- and this move though not necessarily outside the letter of the law, has had exactly the same effect I feel. God knows how Shaun Harvey got the gig though- Clubs appointing a patsy they can run rings round??

Also think the first 2 should be officially reported to their Professional Bodies over this, to check thoroughly their integrity and judgement in this matter. EFL or the above owners should do it.

I'm not so concerned about the sign off of players in the wake that the players were worth x but sold at a loss- that assuages some of those concerns at least IMO.

The other thing too before I forget.

It is possible- and I hadn't considered this- but not to be a case of simply letting bigger clubs off, but it is possible that because clubs obeyed during the period under embargo and didn't do anything stupid- unlike Birmingham's ludicrous signing of Pedersen- that it satisfied the EFL. The fact they showed some willing in the case of Derby for example by signing loanees...and Sheffield Wednesday that they didn't try anything outside of conditions that it meant a points deduction was off the table. That might have satisfied the EFL.

If it is the case- entirely possible on their track record- then it shows how inadequate the EFL are and have been in all honesty.

Quite blatant gaming of the system though- that alone deserves a punishment I feel.

The two rules which seem to contradict each other, which means there is an element of doubt and interpretation- pulled off Kieran Maguire's Twitter.

This one suggests it IS legit.

This one suggests it is in doubt- and I would also add in 11.3.4 to that for consideration!

111.1 would help cover it

Quote

(a) Assessment of transactions with Related Party(ies) above or below fair value.

That single rule opens it up again.

Let alone the highlighted bits.

Agree with @Olé that the accounting method for players etc could be worth a look too, it definitely has the effect of kicking the can down the road.

Agree with @downendcity about the detrimental impact to clubs who have complied or worked hard to do so- at the expense of their own competitiveness.

@DerbyFan You're right about loopholes but good governance can close them before they are breached. Like I said before, I doubt UEFA would have waved this through, personally- and they are not great but they're a lot more clued up on this than the EFL appear to be.

Possible Loopholes in EFL FFP, just a few examples.

 Example- Solution

• Stadium sold to Owner or any form of related party- Make it the case that profit excluded from FFP calculations- still comes up on their accounts but not their FFP figure.
• Player sold to Chinese League club owner may have a stake in- Reading mooted to have done this with Aluko. Exclude the profit and only have their remaining amortisation and obviously wages being removed from the books.
• Loan fee with big fee to sister club- Wages maybe off book, but loan fee not counted.
• Over inflated sponsorship by related party- say £10m per season for shirts when the going rate for that club size at this level is say £2m. Simple- it may come up as £10m on published account but refuse to class it as income in FFP submissions. I think they do this already though.

Loopholes can be closed and quickly, and well too- just depends if your organisation- in this case the EFL- is run in any way adequately.

I'll read the latest posts in full later but one interesting note.

Mike Thornton- another FFP writer, specialises in Leeds but also FFP has the following interesting and pertinent Tweet- whole thread is decent but going to pull this one out.

I think he's dead wrong about Aston Villa, but he might be right on Derby- I've always had doubts about their failing of FFP as there are some grey areas. Aston Villa though, just a question of by how many million but provided you use Derby accounts as opposed to Sevco 5112 then maybe...just maybe. If excluded from calculations though, they would be right up against it- and tbh even Lampard may have hinted to this when he said other day that they would be heavily reliant on loan signings once again.

If there is sufficient provision within the rules to exclude profit on stadium- and remember in UEFA FFP regs, property revenue does not count under FFP- then there may well be sufficient doubt and vagueness to reopen this case.

Those are 2 posts- the thread itself is worth a look.

One of my takes on their ground sale from Mel Morris who owns Derby to- er- Mel Morris- is that as well as commercial development- and @DerbyFan putting other points and sides across has been interesting to read- it is to cushion the blow from their amortisation policy and to give Lampard a modest amount to spend. As opposed to an out and out epic FFP fail like say Aston Villa.

To me, a just outcome in the Middlesbrough-Derby case would be Derby paying the £39m profit to the EFL in a fine, or it being excluded from the calculations- if it's a real transaction brings them back to parity, if it is a paper one it brings them back to parity!

9 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

I mentioned earlier that I thought this could be to do with their residual values and FFP and that I expected the release of them to be into July, whilst it could still be that, at least partly, I've just seen a tweet from a local journalist saying that the protecting their value part was down to sending them out on loan or in Johnson's case him becoming quite important for us at the end of the season. If they impressed, they would at least have value for us to utilise, rather than being out of contract, and therefore having no value to us. I can see the logic given they were 'vastly reduced terms', it will be interesting to see when they get released. In Johnson's case I still expect him to stick around, unless someone makes us an offer we can't refuse.

Planning to watch some clips of Mel Morris now- your model doesn't sound like standard amortisation, the asset off the books incurring a big cost isn't usually the case? Sounds like keeping annual amortisation cost down is the upside, taking the hit the downside- not one that should be ducked through questionable asset sales from one hand to the other!

10 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

I know what you mean, some clubs have been left in a right mess with theirs, Coventry as you mentioned, I wouldn't like to be in their situation, it can't be fun not knowing where you're playing next season, every season as it now seems.

I do think the EFL can do more to help clubs who are genuinely in a mess, owner wise, that is definitely where the focus needs to be in my opinion.

As long as an owner can prove they will continue to fund every piece of business they do, fee and wages, I can't see the problem personally, although that should maybe be within reason, as fees and wages are already sky high (is it just me or has this gotten WORSE since FFP came into play? I presume as everyone wants to maximise fees due to FFP, and as wages are generally connected to the size of the fee, they naturally go up too) even if that means putting the funds for this in a holding account prior to the season. Surely it is more damaging for football as a whole when clubs go out of business (or close to) because they are spending money their owners aren't prepared to fund. Then there was the situation with Bolton and FGR to do with Doidge, that should never have been allowed to happen, I presume that really messed up FGR's budget, it was a huge amount of money for a club at their level.

Agree on EFL oversight of owners. Coventry situation seems a shocker. Many bad EFL owners.

Don't agree on FFP- if the system changes in a few years, that is different. However as it stands now, can't see why there should be exceptions or mitigating factors for clubs- supposing the other 21 compliant clubs did not wish to play the ground sale clubs- just supposing an organised joint action- then the EFL would have to act on yourselves and if proven to have done the same, Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday.

Hard to say- has it got worse because of FFP or despite it? If the rules were enforced correctly, with things like as promised in-season points deductions then we may see a different story. Another argument is that without some form of restraint the problem will be worse still- seems like limitation of losses than break even- if we want to go down that road, a breakeven requirement from footballing operations is the way to go- problem is what would it do to the Championship? Most clubs would have to have a firesale in the short to medium term but in the long term wage rationalisation would work. Simple solution- show proof of break even with zero owner investment or no license to play that season! Same goes for each and every season. There are arguments for and against FFP though granted and profit on transfers is an increasing factor which pushes wages up.

Again part 2 of that solution, clubs that look like breaking their own financial plans put in at start of season by sudden expansive player expenditure, soft embargo- no ifs, no buts, rule clear.

On the other hand, your solution also has its merits- that's for a future plan though, as of now I look at the Championship owners and they don't see the sort in many cases to take this lightly.

My idea of strict breakeven and automatic transfer embargoes- well it would financially stabilise but it would also likely wreck the 'product' though so it isn't feasible- though it is the most financially sane solution.

7 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I keep seeing other clubs fans saying this! 

He may well keep the ground if he sells us, it may depend on who buys us and whether they want the ground as part of the sale, there are lots of clubs that rent their stadium, including a lot of the big boys, so they may not care, we have a long term lease, and it's owned by a fan, I'm not sure it really matters.

Yeah, ultimately you're right. It is the case that he owns it, he is a fan- fans who own grounds even if they sell up club, don't tend to leave their club in the lurch with nowhere to play!

Banter aside it's actually not an issue I make light of.

Oh yeah just seen your academy post.

Well it's funny you should mention that. Sevco 5112 for 2017/18 season shows Academy Expenditure to be £4,624,162 and for 2016/17 to be £3,961,509. The one that is missing- is 2015/16...Derby's accounts actually are relatively transparent in some respects unlike a fair few clubs it seems, but could that missing number be squaring the circle- neither Derby County or Sevco 5112 accounts though show Youth Expenditure in 2015/16- but then your Sevco accounts for that season were made up until until 31st August 2016 so that could have affected it!

Your Global Derby accounts for that season don't show it either.

Would be amusing if Mel Morris sold you but kept the ground though- maybe you could share with Coventry!

19 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I need to check the accounts, but basically we started to spend more on players in the summer of 2015, when we appointed Clement, we bought Thorne before that, in summer 2014, but I seem to remember it being mentioned that he was basically paid for with what we earned from the Play Offs in 2014.

I've found this in the accounts for this year about how we value players:

 

I forgot to mention, things that have happened to the stadium (that I can remember) since the 2007 valuation, I've no idea how much these affect the valuation, but they have been done, and surely can only affect it in a positive way:

• big screen inside
• 2 big screens outside
• new hybrid pitch that included new full undersoil heating and all of the works and the artificial pitch perimeter (included digging it all up rather than making the pitch higher as some do, not sure when the last major pitch works was before that)
• new led perimeter boards (they're all led now, including the top of the stand facing part, I think there was also a previous set of led boards since 2007)
• new PA system (it was said at the time to be the best one you could get)
• new led floodlights
• painted the entire roof steel black (it was previously white)
• all the other painting works and general tidying up
• the club took back space that had been let out and made a new restaurant (The Yard)
• then took back what was a Starbucks and made an in house coffee shop (The Back Yard)
• full overhaul of the ticket office (I think this has been done a few times)
• we have our own Rams TV studio in the stadium (not the one for Sky)
• we use a 10 camera mix for Rams TV broadcasts, so theres been work done to make all of the camera locations - I believe this also includes basically the stuff that's in the portable vans that Sky use in a room near to the Rams TV studio - so all the camera views and all the technology that that requires
• major overhaul of the directors box area
• major overhaul of the boxes and hospitality area
• heating in the concourse
• 8 small screens (making 2 big screens of 4 each) in both the ticket office window and the megastore windows.
• new screens in all of the concourses and hospitality areas

that's just the things I can remember, and the vast majority is very recent, ie. since Mel Morris.

Re. The disciplinary commission, that's only a problem if you've broken the rules, they can investigate but if the rules are not broken they have no mandate to punish. As the EFL already okayed the sale before it happened I don't see how the commission can find we've done anything wrong, there would surely be comeback on the EFL if that was the case.

The amortisation thing is interesting, because the way I've read it it is about residual value, yet that sounds a lot like standard amortisation to me! Revaluation through the year, definitely open to abuse and manipulation as a tool.

I've looked through some of your accounts and the Net book value of "Freehold Property" by 30th June 2017 was £51.6m. Presumably that represents Pride Park and would have taken into account all of the improvements that you list- and there have been many! 

Derby 2017/18 accounts,

11. Tangible Fixed Assets. 

You disposed of under Leasehold property & improvements assets to the value of £56,205,091.

However once Depreciation factored in, this value surely drops. Under Depreciation, it said Disposals (£14,523,854). That'd be the depreciation on Pride Park I believe- unless you disposed of any other Tangible Fixed Assets in 2017/18 period.

So yes, £41-42m seems about right for Pride Park. Based on those accounts.

Possibly the EFL screwed up- again- by seemingly just waving it through and instead not putting approval on hold while they conducted a thorough investigation, plus hiring truly independent surveyors and valuers.

11 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

Am I missing something, how can 5+5+5=14, and (3)+(5)=(9)? 

Am assuming it was after rounding it up or having rounded it up or down, as in a number £x rather than £x.y- would have to look at the figures in all depth though to work out whether it should be rounded up or down.

1 hour ago, DerbyFan said:

I'm not saying we don't need to get our costs under control (I won't say overspent, as that means spending more than the rules allow in my eyes, and we haven't done that) I know this, the club knows this, they've been saying it for the past few years, which is exactly why we've been selling people (yes we have also been buying people, but the club obviously feel they can do this and who am I to think we can't, they're the ones in control of the finances, and they obviously want us to remain competitive) I guess it being my club, I see the comments they make where as you don't, and you assume that they think they can carry on as they are, they don't, Mel Morris has said himself, multiple times, that we need to make cuts to our costs, he went into it in quite some detail during one of our fan forums that was available to view on Rams TV. He went into how much of the wage bill was being used on players that were not playing, and how much we would lose of that amount this summer, I can't remember the figures now, but it was interesting.

We apparently made cuts to the academy last summer, I know that's FFP exempt, but it shows that we realised we needed to make cuts, the funny thing is, this has been a fantastic year for the academy, the U18's won the league, and then the national title, and as such are now in next seasons U19 version of the Champion's League, the UEFA Youth League, so maybe streamlining it has helped with the output, maybe it led to more focus from everyone involved. It does however, show that making cuts doesn't have to have a bad effect on the output.

My point is though that that is not what the rules state, so we cannot be punished on what you, or anyone else for that matter, thinks they should state. They simply don't, and therefore it is not against the rules, it can be changed so it is against the rules in the future, but for this season and every previous season, everyone knew exactly what rules they were working to, and they worked within them, or they knowingly didn't and knew that as such they could be punished accordingly in the case of Birmingham.

QPR weren't punished retrospectively, everyone knew they were going to be punished, they tried to put it off for as long as they could by taking it via the legal route, they knew, and everyone knew, what was coming, they couldn't have a points deduction, because that was simply not in the rules at the time, they could only be punished on the rules that they broke at the time, with the punishment that was in the rules at the time, even though everyone knew for future breaches points deductions would be relevant. Also, in case you don't remember, it was us that they beat in the Play Off final that year, they broke the rules, we didn't (that was before we started to spend anything significant, Mel Morris bought into the club the day before the final if I remember rightly, he took a gamble buying at, I believe, somewhere between what the club would have been worth if we went up and what it was worth when we stayed down) they got the riches by winning that game and we didn't. I've seen your posts in this thread suggesting before the Play Off final that both us and Villa should have been stripped of it because we 'broke the rules' and it should have been someone else that had the chance to go up. Well if that was the case this time, then that should have been the case last time, and that would have been us, the team that didn't cheat the rules, the team that finished in third in the league (I saw something I think in this thread about another time when it defaulted to the team that was next in line, hence us being in third were next in line), that would/could in the case of a game against another team that didn't breach the rules have gone up and got the riches of the Premier League and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation now.

But we didn't, we had to suck it up and get on with it, which is exactly what we did.

Of course Martin would have been available for sale, but you can only sell someone if there is a buyer, there wasn't as his wages are said to be high, therefore no one wants to buy him, or pay his full wages, and he went out on loan instead. Yes this is a problem the club caused, but once done, it cannot be fixed.

In the case of George Thorne, there was no way he ever should have been worth less than we spent on him, he was a fantastic player, the best defensive midfielder in the Championship by a mile, he got injured (ACL - not the leg he'd done before, I seem to remember) I think it was 3-4 days after we bought him, in a pre season friendly. Then he finally came back and played most of the season after, and was having a good season and in the last game (before the Play Offs that we were in) an Ipswich player makes a horrendous challenge on him and snaps his leg in two. Such awful luck for both him and us (it definitely affected us for the first game of the Play Offs, and we lost heavily and although we put in a hell of a fight in the second leg, dubbed 'Istanhull' by our fans, it was too much to come back from) he came back during the season before the one just ended, and he just didn't look the same player, it was such a horrible thing to see, him looking a shadow of himself, I'm not sure he will ever be the same, too many terrible injuries, we ended up loaning him out to Luton in January, and then a few days later Jones goes to Stoke, and so Thorne plays only a few minutes in his time there. So we'll have to make a loss on him, a loss that should never have happened, but it will, so we'll have to deal with it, but it just shows you how you cannot take for granted what you will get for a player, and as such it's really hard to deal with something like that when it comes to FFP. Then there's Will Hughes, he should have gone for a lot more too, but again, an ACL in the first game of the season under Clement, both him and Bryson (also his knee, also the same game) were out for most of the season. It was those two injuries that made us panic into buying Butterfield and Johnson, probably not helped by having Clement, a rookie manager, having to deal with such a crazy situation, that no one could have predicted happening, on the first day of the season. Not saying that we as a club deserve sympathy for any of this or anything, just saying how best laid plans can change in a single moment, and what you think you'll get for someone doesn't always come to fruition, that can happen regardless of what value a player is at on the books, especially in Georges case where it was as soon as we bought him that he got his first major injury (of the two in his time with us).

Anya will more than likely incur a loss, Davies a very small one (unless we've put his value down to £0 already, as we only paid around £500k, his release clause at Hull), Carson - I'm sure theres some debate on whether he came on a free or for a small fee, either way, it won't be a lot as he came from relegated (at the time) Wigan.

I agree you are moving in the right direction- that much is fairly clear in some respects- like I say you're in some ways not flagrantly in breach- see those player sales- but in other ways you are. I would have had more respect and more expectancy of leniency- not being let off but leniency- if you had used those player sales in your defence i.e. an EFL hearing.

Perhaps you should use your academy more and put a bit of a self-imposed embargo on signings then- it sounds quite promising. In fact maybe you should have had a greater ratio of academy players vs signings this last couple of seasons. I do believe, possibly wrongly though, that Waghorn and Marriott on lower wages than Vydra and Weimann- but again both? Just one IMO. That would have been another way to show willing and prove it.

Hmm, you might want to read those rules in depth- there is scope for flexibility there! EFL commission has such powers- taken from another forum but here goes:

21 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 Judging by some of the criticism oaths forum of our own club's transfer activity - selling key players and not spending big in January on a top striker - it shows that many of our fans still don't fully understand or "get' ffp and the effect it has on a club's operation, and we know that it has taken SL 5 years to change the club's way of operating in order to be able to comply with ffp requirements.

For club's like Derby, Wednesday and Villa, it is therefore hardly surprising that they do not want to accept limitations that will adversely affect their aim  of gaining promotion back to the premier league, which is what ffp does. As a result,  if, as seems the case with Derby and their stadium sale, they will only see it from a selfish point of view ( perhaps understandably) and will argue every which way to justify the course of action taken, no matter every argument given to the contrary.

 

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!