Mr Popodopolous

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?

Hopefully- you'd think so! FWIW, Tax doesn't count towards FFP figures- so far as I understand it, it's measured on pre-tax profits or losses- obviously tax not paid on losses. (May well be in Italy though at clubs, weirdly).

Well quite- the accounts for the season, for this season end for Aston Villa end May 31st 2019. The transfer window opens on June 9th 2019...can't be done surely. The only unlikely workaround is if Aston Villa extend their accounting period by a month or 2- assuming it hasn't changed in the last 5 years- then that would muddy the waters. Sheffield Wednesday announced or announced publicly at least that their accounts for last season/last financial year ran until July 31st 2018 rather than May 31st 2019. Extended accounting period? That could further confuse matters.

Parachute Payments fell by £18m, profit on transfers fell though Amortisation may have dropped too...if you've pulled in sponsorships through legit means, pulling power etc- then fair enough. All good. If it's legit, can't complain- I think there are quite a few questions over it though, personally.

It could do you some good tbh. Hourihane underutilised IMO..or has been overall. Just looking in from outside of course. I think your new owners are astute, absolutely but that if rules enforced, correctly, then along with a number of sides then 'significant challenges' would be likely moving forward. On that rules point too, if the projected accounts thing had been enforced correctly by EFL...then I can't see how you could despite departures sign: Bolasie, El Ghazi, Tammy on loan in summer. Then despite half-season Bolasie loan cancellation, and some loan departures- Hogan- add Kalininc, Guilbert permanently. Then loans for Hause and Mings. All while keeping Grealish, Kodjia amongst others. McGinn? Impressive value. Affordable too- more like the model if you stay down you should be looking at.

Very interesting stuff that. A loose interpretation, without having looked into it 100% is that the value of the ground is just that...the profit of £39-40m whatever it was? That's the illegitimate bit. Agree fully, EFL should have engaged own surveyors- could it be too late to do that now and refuse to count income from it towards FFP calculations if they come to the conclusion that we all suspect? FWIW, the profit- or more likely the "profit" listed in the accounts on the sale was £39,940,387. Sale £81.1m. Therefore the value pre profit was £41,596,113. More realistic/viable? If it's the same article, they also said it would pose a significant challenge. My loose calculations are that the 3 years to 2018/19 you have a shortfall of £25-30m. Even if you backdated sale of Grealish, you would still have the problem of the 17/18 losses and the inability to use Grealish for profit on sales to offset for next season if you stayed down. I think that plus what you put, isn't an unrealistic assessment of where you're at?

There is but one precedent- but it's an unusual one and probably an exception as opposed to a rule. When AC Milan were facing a European ban this season, they went to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) last summer. UEFA had to overturn the ban- one of the things that it looked like AC Milan were successfully or looking like they may successfully lobby for was full disclosure, transparency of the accounts of PSG and Man City. Think the gist of their case was "Why are we being banned from UEFA Competitions, when those 2 sides have taken the limits and totally distorted them". CAS agreed- accounts didn't have to be disclosed but their ban was put off. They still got a punishment or a UEFA "Settlement Agreement". Specifically, see the bolded bits- that would have set a very interesting legal precedent- and opened a major can of worms moving forward! I remember posting it on the forum last year on Milan FFP thread. UEFA backed down on the European ban when ordered to produce the accounts of those 3, oddly enough...AC Milan may still have an investigation re-opened but on this I make them right. Punishment must be equally applied, equitable and clearly defined is the lesson here. More ideally all 4 would have received just punishment- but preferential treatment isn't a goer.

Projected accounts can now stop this before it happens- that's the whole point. The rules are sound IMO- but my shall we say doubt stems from the fact that the EFL as others have said perhaps possess the spine of a jellyfish- I would also add that this is combined with the fact that they are incompetent, lacking in speed and dexterity with regards to this. Which is very unfortunate, because what you need in these scenarios? Well it's exactly that- let us see if they surprise us! Incidentally, I'm not still 100% convinced that Derby are in breach- very close yes, but not in breach is my guess, by a small margin. Took a look at their accounts the other day and if not for this deal, the profit on it their losses before allowable deductions would have totalled around £25m last season- like I say factor in all allowable losses, likely sales this year bringing the operating loss down, low 2016/17 losses and they're walking the tightrope...but just about compliant IMO. Oh one more Derby note. About a week ago, it was posted that they couldn't complete signing for Graeme Shinnie owing to a soft embargo. Assumptions among Derby fans on Social media and their forum seemed along the lines of it'll be resolved by the end of last week..no news on that yet. Watch this space?

The last line stands out for sure... "The EFL which has not been invited to Wednesday's meeting" Am I reading something into nothing? Good for him- I hope all the clubs who have played by the rules or done their utmost will join him in this! Greater transparency is usually welcome,. so if it is pushed for that's generally a good thing. Let's hope this leads to something- this season for any clubs in breach....

I think having thought about it a fait bit. The team of the 3 accused I have most issue with is Aston Villa. Sure pretty well all would agree- they've made bits of effort to get in line...then wiped it with loans such as El Ghazi, Tammy, at the more expensive end. Then January signings, oh yeah and Bolasie- though that was cancelled-EFL should throw the book! Did all this and ran up all these losses despite all that parachute money- nuts! On rankings of the other 2, I was going to say Sheffield Wednesday then Derby least. Because the latter for their faults sold Messrs Christie, Hendrick, Hughes, Ince, Vydra and Weimann over last 3 seasons. That would definitely have been looked on as a positive mitigating factor. Whereas Sheffield Wednesday made some efforts but not a lot PLUS reduced transparency further (EFL will have accounts to May 2018 or whenever no doubt) by moving end to 31st July 2018 for period just gone and it being posted on CH day before accounts due to be released. They froze out Westwood and some others under Lukhay purportedly to try to move them on to reduce FFP burden but back in favour now! Perhaps Lukhay just didn't rate them who knows. They also loaned Aarons and Onomah in January I think, plus some others? Now the equation has changed. Aston Villa still top but Derby's sale of all those important players- positive efforts- have mostly been morally cancelled out by claiming about £40-42m in 'profit' from the owner buying the ground off his own club basically. Now between them and Sheffield Wednesday because of that one move I cannot split them. Both pretty bad to a similar level in their own ways- Aston Villa worst of course.

Agreed!

Took a quick read of Kieran Maguire's article on Derby... http://priceoffootball.com/derby-county-2017-18-say-youll-be-there/ A very interesting structure at that club I must say! Now the key question, key point is which results would you use for FFP calculations? If it is DCFC Limited then they would be probably within FFP for the past 3 seasons albeit not by much even without the 'profit' but if not...if it is Sevco 5112 then the equation may well change.

I still maintain that Derby just within it-- selling it for fair market rate, questionable conduct but allowed...the profit however? Should simply be stripped from their calculations. It is or was an inflation of £39-40m but they probably are walking a tight line within £1m or £2m but that "profit" should be simply disallowed. Reckon once FFP deductions taken into account, their FFP losses for the 3 years to last June 30th were £37-38m once it is adjusted for true market rate. Very close therefore but not quite over the line. Aston Villa are so far over the line it's mad. Sheffield Wednesday are over, probably closer to Birmingham than Aston Villa in terms of how much they've exceeded by but a points deduction for the last 2 and maybe Derby should be in the offing all told. Not surprised Gibson is pushing this publicly or forcefully- as the articles rightly said Middlesbrough made big cutbacks in the summer. Hope all clubs near top and bottom indeed in the whole division regardless, who stuck within rules are going to apply some serious pressure...plus those who were penalised before under the rules old or new.

Just a quirk of business. Accounts will either be up until May 31st, June 30th or (rarely) July 31st of the financial year for football clubs. Perhaps, though couldn't that in turn give some clubs an unfair advantage. Submit until May 2019 say, clubs whose financial years end at that stage full cost v revenue...whereas clubs who don't maybe missing one or even 2 months- losses and cost base lower. Anyway clubs have to submit accounts to the League in advance of their release to Companies House. Actual accounts for the season just gone in December of the existing season and projected accounts for the current season in March 2019. The very point of the latter was so that Aston Villa for example and Sheffield Wednesday, Derby could be punished in season if in breach- though I'm not convinced Derby are breaching. Close yes but close is enough to remain just that right side of the line!

It must be linked to when CL final is? 1st June in 2018 when I looked it up- 9th June is a random date though!

The thing is it all depends on financial year- perhaps that brings a loophole? Transfer window in summer opens June 1st doesn't it? Aston Villa's financial year ends May 31st so any backdated transfers shouldn't count. Complexities when Derby e.g. is 30th June or Sheffield Wednesday's 31st July! Derby I'm not so certain are in breach even without the "profit" but very close to it. Aston Villa though, most definitely!

Yeah, saw a bit of a spat developing between them on Twitter- or views bubbling away on this. Derby lot very defensive must be said! Don't know if £23m to £80m, one figure I have seen which maybe more realistic is £41m value, £80m sale. Either way it's pulling a fast one I think! Would estimate their true losses to be around £25-26 before FFP deductions- which doesn't quite leave them in breach, but in a very tight spot! Took a quick look at their Accounts and that is roughly the same ballpark as my estimates- it shows the profit on sale of stadium and I think that profit given it wasn't even a related party transaction but their bloody owner through a company should be disallowed from FFP calculations.

Leeds lost about £4.3m last season- I thought it would be in that bracket, doing the calculations myself I assumed in the range of £3-4m. They're good to go basically this and probably next season- not much to see there. The one notable thing having skim read their accounts was a rise in the wage bill to £28,090,979- and if we include as I guess we must their rises in social security etc then the full figure was £31,358,013. Turnover of around £40.7m too- very good for a regular Championship club. Oh and £18.1m from disposal of player transfers. Rising losses yes, may need to cut back a bit but can't see a firesale needed if they stay down.

Quite a few out of contract this summer there though- selling Weimann too though it wasn't a great fee, will have helped remove a bit of amortisation- every penny counts with this. Thinking they are very close but not sure whether they have yet breached yet- unlike say Aston Villa or based on their own chairman in an AGM, Sheffield Wednesday. We can only guess on projected accounts, but profit on Player Transfers for the big 2, admittedly TransferMarkt isn't perfect but it is one of the best sources. Vydra Profit- £6,750,000 Weimann Profit- £1,175,000 Vydra- Reduction in Amortisation- £2,115,000 Weimann- Reduction in Amortisation- £855,000 The only question mark over that is, as per Kieran Maguire's coverage periodically and I think Swiss Ramble has also mentioned it, Derby have a unique accounting method- legal but unique in football- whereby a residual value is applied to the player so the straight line amortisation rule may not apply in the same way. May mean a higher profit on transfers... May also mean though that when players released on a free, that instead of amortisation being removed, that whatever value the player has at that time- say £1m on contract expiry- that'd be a £1m loss on that player.

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really. If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

I think so too. Based on BBC Article, ground valued at £41m in accounts- purchased for £80m. Fair market price therefore £41m? Therefore, my interpretation of that is knock £39m off and therefore their "real" i.e. FFP figures are £24.6m losses.

That's interesting stuff, thanks- especially the bit about STCC being removed. I thought UEFA FFP had a breakeven requirement over 3 years, or is that all change again? The operating losses I am interested in there for different reasons are Chelsea and Arsenal- pre player sales, then also factoring out other one off income, one off costs etc. Chelsea because they had CL revenue and still had to have huge profits on transfers to get admittedly their record profit. I reckon their profit on transfers fallen by 40-50% this season, UEFA Europa League revenue despite improvements will be about £25-30m lower I suspect and though amortisation removed through sales and contracts that expired, plenty added too! if they don't make a return in the next 2 seasons, they could be in danger of breaching even the PL one, let alone the UEFA one, assuming the breakeven thing still exists. Arsenal because for a long time and especially 5-6 years ago under Wenger they were the UK model for FFP. By far- yet if they miss top four this year, the equation has potential to change there too and that given where they were at a few years ago, is truly unbelievable. I don't have time to do my own, certainly not at this time but here's one I saw online... CL qualification vital for Arsenal- incredible they're even in a conversation that they could have got themselves into that position given as I said, how big on FFP they were under Wenger as recently as a couple of years ago. I might do one for Chelsea later.

The other interesting take on the Derby forum which I have skim read, is that they undervalued by nearly 50% Pride Park in their accounts- if it truly is worth £80m, then how would that fit?? Either way, it looks interesting...

Exactly right. At market rates it would be permissible- e.g. £41m to purchase Pride Park said the report, whereas he via another company of his paid £80m. Subtract the difference from the profit, then £24.6m losses is my estimate. FFP is out the window if it is allowed. Like I say they may not be in actual breach, but it would restrict them somewhat if rules enforced correctly. Yep, indeed said in BBC report- just to reiterate- that Pride Park purchased for £80m, asset value £41m. If it was some billionaire who wanted to buy the ground for no discernible reason, say from Venezuela- Mr Maduro looking for a bolthole for some cash, a hedge- ethically dodgy but legal probably, definitely no connection to Derby it would surely count as a legit profit- but so blatant as not even to be a third party company but a company owned by Mel Morris is just laughable.

Smoke and mirrors time... Derby posted a £14.6m profit for last season despite only £3m in profit on player sales...staff costs up by £5.9m and whereas turnover rose only £600,000. I'm not saying they breached FFP as such- what I am suggesting is that their profit is totally bogus. Estimates online suggest that their 'true' loss was more like £24.4m- again not suggesting they breached FFP over the 3 years just to be clear, maybe just the right side of the line but maybe £40m of 'income' should be stripped out. Essentially Mel Morris purchased Pride Park through a separate company owned by him- and leased it back- if this counts as income under FFP or legit under FFP, then the whole system is ******. They haven't yet released their full accounts- still waiting on Bolton, Leeds too- WBA have submitted and they are being processed. Derby have not yet released their full accounts. Brentford released theirs, made a loss of about £3.86m though if it wasn't for profit on player sales, that'd have been not far off £19m.