Mr Popodopolous

5 minutes ago, 29AR said:

That is ridiculous in the extreme..., £10m on an £81m asset is a 12.5% yield. £4m would be much more realistic though

That is what some posts on sites suggested- I'd say somewhere between £4-5m perhaps. Seen 8% with a  quick search, so that would be about £6.488m per season/year.

Definitely not £1.1m!

30 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

If the valuation was £55m in 2007, then surely it's entirely possible it could have gone up to that amount in the 11 years from then to the sale? There has also been a lot of work done to the stadium in the last few years, that while not increasing the value by that amount solely, does still add value.

There has also been talk locally, and I see Sky picked up on it in a recent article, of a roof being added to the stadium, to create a better venue for events. Sky Article

Derby is without a proper events venue at the moment, our Assembly Rooms has been closed for over 5 years now due to a fire in the plant room, those years since have seen a lot of wrangling over whether to replace it with something more suitable for larger events, at a higher cost, or to refurbish what is there, which is essentially too small, at a lower cost. It has been decided that it will be refurbished.

 We have an 'arena', right next to the stadium in fact, however, this is a velodrome and completely unsuited for events outside of this, there have been a lot of recent complaints about the sound quality in the (small) fixed seating block above the track, but it has been a case of making do, for now.

I believe all of this may have influenced the decision to look at using the stadium as an events venue, and may have influenced the purchase by Mel Morris, to make sure this happens for the sake of the city, as it is not only the club he cares about, he is from Derby and wants the best for the City of Derby also, especially if as is rumoured, the club is sold, either partially, or fully to another party.

Struggle to see it myself- saw a breakdown of that said same £55m valuation minus depreciation on Twitter somewhere- £41m or so I can believe, but not £81.1m which I believe was the sale price. Just doesn't seem that plausible to me. Maybe work done takes it back to £55m.

Well fair enough on that point, but surely that would be a future projected valuation- if the work hasn't been done yet, how can that be the present valuation?

Yeah, I can believe that Mel Morris wants the best for Derby i.e. the football club and the city. He is from Derby and according to Wiki an actual fan so I don't doubt that.

I have severe doubts about £81.1m price at the time of sale.

I understand too people always look for loopholes but EFL should govern it a lot better...should have and should. As for yourselves and other clubs who have purportedly done the same...why is it so hard to stick to the regulations- if you have to sell players, then so be it like a LOT of clubs! Your wage bill too...higher than Wolves in 2017/18 once promotion bonuses stripped out for them- though they had an "interesting" business model admittedly. It's cheating the competition IMO and yeah I can imagine clubs aplenty will be furious.

Any rent for Pride Park should be set at a market rate- according to sites I have read that is anything between £4m-£10m per season. However it is seemingly £1,1m which is a nonsense- EFL should insist that leasebacks are set at true market value. Perhaps cheats can be a bit strong but it's not right- it can't be right.

Were it down to me on FFP, I'd be handing out soft embargoes while investigating and getting clubs into EFL hearings left, right and centre- including in-season deductions.

40 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I have no idea why you keep referring to the stadium valuation being £20-21m in 2013, and therefore doubling to the £41m book value at the sale and then doubling again to the sale value of £81m. The stadium was valued in 2007 by King Sturge LLP at £55m. The £20-21m you mention is referring the historical cost of the stadium. Look back through further sets of accounts and you will quite clearly see this stated. It was revalued in 2013 'as required under FRS 11' by Jones Lang LaSalle, but unlike with the 2007 valuation there is no mention of said value in the notes, and the book value did not change, apart from the expected depreciation.

Okay then, I don't see how it could have gone up to £81.1m...maybe doubled and doubled again a technical error from me but the profit should be disallowed for FFP purposes owing to it being a related party. Only way it should be accepted IMO is if you had sold it to a bank, or a property developer or similar unrelated to your club, to your owner, to your owners family, to any other companies owned by your owner, your owners family, your owners business associates to name a few- indeed UEFA regs on this offer provision for this very scenario. 

EFL should have hired their own independent valuer also. As they should for any other clubs who have done it.

I think you've made the move in part to buy time for contract expiries amongst other things owing to your fairly unusual model- lot of players out of contract will save on wages but will take a hit as you amortise differently.

To me, any club doing this unless it is to a true and genuinely verifiable third party are cheats. Pure and simple- cheats.

If I had my way, you and Aston Villa would have been demoted from the playoffs and Birmingham would have received their deduction in-season, as the rules seem to allow for so they would have got the relegation that they merited in 2017/18.

In fairness, with yourselves there are mitigating factors- you sold Grant-Christie-Hendrick-Hughes-Ince-Vydra-Weimann in 3 seasons. 4-5 first teamers, 2-3 squad players?

Nonetheless, I guess you needed to sell more or to cut costs further on wages or sales- hope the EFL have a vote and punish clubs who did this if the vote wins. You are in a separate category to those who complied though and those who broke FFP and made little efforts.

I believe Derby despite an £81.1m gross transaction have no taxation liabilities on their £14m "profit" in 2017/18 reporting period/season- owing to offsetting it vs past losses.

Yep, I was right- they paid no tax in financial year 2017/18! Maybe I got the reason a bit wrong but seemed they paid zero tax last season. Possibly because Sevco 5112 their holding company made a small loss even after the transaction.

10 minutes ago, Olé said:

Just seen that - EFL well and truly losing control now!

 

One compromise solution here- obviously such sales need to be backdated and retrospective punishment applied.

Failing that though...let every club do it once and then shut off the loophole for good. EFL have a lot to answer for though- MA in Shaun Harvey's position- he would have seen this was enforced and do so well...going to be a very interesting end of season Conference/meeting indeed in Portugal!! To be a fly on the wall eh?

25 minutes ago, Sniper said:

I've come to hate their arrogance, self entitlement, and bellendish behavior all season belittling every other Championship club. They really are a vile set of supporters. The sort of people I'd cross the road to avoid.

I'm very much looking forward to them getting smashed every game next season, and get relegated back where hopefully they will self implode with the financial importance they seem to think is a divine right because they are so superior, and disappear up their own shite pipe without a trace.

Yeah- the worst I have seen certainly.

I hope they come back down, straight back down and get a points penalty either this season or held in reserve for their return- think EFL FFP rules suggest historic breaches can be punished- UEFA going after Man City sets an interesting benchmark in this respect.

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

"Although the releases were dated May 30, they came into effect back in the middle of the month and with it already known that one of our arms had rebranded itself as NSWE Stadium Limited, that had already kick started further speculation that we were planning to following the lead of Derby when it came to their stadium sale and lease back deal.

With promotion secured I assume this might not now be a path we follow – but the structure is clearly in place if we want to."

So had promotion not been secured I wonder why this would have been the path they would probably have followed? 

Well quite.

There was an excellent window of opportunity to close this loophole- they might actually do it in any case to spend more still in PL?

13th May 2019 was when name was changed for this, therefore paving the way for it to be done- EFL and the useless bastard Shaun Harvey asleep...again! Ample time to change the rules between Derby and that.

On the Derby front, the company who purchased it was Gellaw Newco 203 Limited- Companies House says it was incorporated on 18th June 2018...EFL should've been wise to this at the time, the transaction would have been done in 12 days therefore as Derby's accounts ran until June 30th 2018.

I also notice that NSWE Stadium Limited- previously known as Recon Football Limited until 13th May 2019 had an "Audit Exemption subsidiary accounts" . Could all be legit and not suggesting any wrongdoing- seems applicable with company and accounting law etc.

One more note on Derby.

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/stadium-transformation-plan-revealed

This, combined with commercial revenue showing its potential, it being completed in 1997 and and Mel Morris wanting to make the most of the commercial facilities minus depreciation is why I believe it could have risen from £20-21m in 2013 to £40m or so in 2017/18. Never in a million years what it went for though!

Rumours that Birmingham now looking at the same in terms of stadium sale and leaseback!?

Birmingham fans on their forum aren't exactly optimistic about it though!

https://astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/cheers-steve-gibson-is-crying-again-major-changes-behind-the-scenes-at-aston-villa/

Aren't a substantial minority of Aston Villa fans odious?

One note on this- they should be docked points in PL, but failing that?

Simple- follow the formula used on Birmingham and dock points according to that- historic breaches are breaches nonetheless, none of this fine nonsense- doesn't matter if they are up for 1 year or for 10 years, they should be in no doubt that a punishment- and using the Birmingham formula that is 11-21 points- should await them on their return.

Soft embargo too.

Dunno if clubs would need to vote on it though?

Other end of the table, but Reading may also be under an embargo of some description.

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think this could be the pertinent point.

EFL aware of Brum’s difficulties in May 2018.  What did embargo and hand-holding them actually do to their accounts?  Nothing!  They ultimately post a loss in the ball-park they projected (you imagine).  So the embargo and hand-holding is about trying to correct them going forwards....it can’t possibly resolve their annual accounts unless they sold Adams early last summer.  That obviously didn’t happen....he’s still at Brum now.  In effect, they let Burton and Barnsley be relegated whilst they sorted out the mess.

That is what they’re now doing with Villa.  Soft embargo whilst they sort out out their sale and lease-back, whilst privately hoping they get promoted...the Prem won’t deduct points, they’ll apply a fine at worst, which is covered by the £100m+.  Had they lost to Derby, I’m pretty sure the ground deal would’ve been sped-up to fall into this year’s accounts and negate any further sanction.

All in all, the projected accounts should be a trigger for taking action in the season, when all they are really being used for is a trigger for the EFL to start helping a club (depending on their size) to get around sanction.

 

Agreed...the one possibility with Birmingham is they could have sold and sold well in the month or 2 until June 30th as it would have been included in their accounts- say sold well I don't know who was a real saleable asset for them a year ago, but if they had sold some, Adams was okay but not spectacular a year ago- was only 2018/19 he really kicked on, and Stoke had sold Butland in that period, then that would have likely resolved their issues- they were banking on a big sell on fee for Butland in particular I believe. Should have been applied in-season as per their own regulations however!

Better be quick about it, sale and leaseback- Aston Villa's accounts run until 31st May 2019, though what odds they shift the reporting period to 30th June or 31st July 2019? I am fairly sure I read somewhere there was an agreement between EFL and EPL to enforce EFL sanctions in PL, but is it worth the paper it's written on?  EPL won't want to dilute their "brand" in any possible way- an outside body maybe useful in the medium to long run to get a grip...£35m losses combined with huge TV money means it is virtually impossible now to fail FFP as a PL club and that suits them just fine!

Fully agree- I think EFL are a mix of cowardly and incompetent though- they missed the boat somewhat with Birmingham- and have possibly made a rod for their own back. These things can still be changed, and the 2 in the Championship who have sold ground could yet be punished- Aston Villa we'll see- but it would require a full vote IMO.

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Think you might a bit overqualified for the EFL Mr P!

Haha, I think many on here could be also classed as that- those who post on this thread for one and many more besides!

31 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The argument I get Re FFP on twitter from Villa fans is Christian Purslow wrote the FFP rules, so they’ll be alright.  From what Copello states that probably enough for the EFL guys to not bother looking at Villa’s projected submission.

What I do find worrying is talk that they are under soft embargo....that must mean they are in trouble, in which case why haven’t the EFL docked them points / stopped them going up?

The other interesting angle- other than favouritism to "big" clubs of course, is that maybe the EFL only wish to punish the most blatant of breaches e.g. Birmingham and QPR heavily, to keep the "product" more attractive. Less money to spend on wages, means less bigger names, less players- it can still be done of course but the EFL are likely walking a tightrope. Serie B is quite a bit harsher on financial breaches though it is unclear if it's FFP or outright irregularities! Dunno if Germany still has the license requirement. As for EFL I mean if rules bent a bit, and especially if it is a "big" club look the other way and whistle. I also wonder if they messed up projected accounts legally by not punishing Birmingham in 2017/18...9 points slapped on a year earlier would surely have sent them down.

Birmingham's misfortune was through being too honest in a sense, and yet their fortune was the EFL seemed unwilling or unable to do projected accounts as submitted by Birmingham themselves in March 2018!! Precedent set- for the in-season punishments at least?

By way of comparison to a 2nd tier which while not as big as this League, go on Wiki, 2017/18 and 2018/19 Serie B...note how many points deductions etc! Think 2 clubs even got demoted TWO divisions from Serie B to D for financial irregularities.

Quote

 

Championship clubs are concerned that the Premier League will not impose a points deduction on Aston Villa if they are found to have breached profit and sustainability rules.

Villa, who were promoted to the top flight after beating Derby County in Monday's Championship play-off final at Wembley, are among a number of clubs — Derby included — currently operating under a soft transfer embargo while the English Football League continue to assess their P and S submission.

Officials at Villa Park have insisted they will be compliant with financial fair play regulations despite reports of heavy losses.

 

+4

•  

The Football League is investigating Aston Villa, who are under a soft transfer embargo

 

+4

•  

Aston Villa secured promotion to the Premier League via the Championship play-offs

RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• John Terry reveals he feels like a youth team player again...Keep hold of loan starlets, recreate managerial magic and...Aston Villa set to bid for Joe Lolley with £10m Nottingham...'All the boys deserve to be there': Steve Clarke names four...

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Share

162 shares

 

 

But Sportsmail understands high-level discussions are currently taking place between the EFL and the Premier League - discussions being led by the Football League's interim chair Debbie Jevans, amid concern that there could be lack of consistency in applying the appropriate sanctions.

In March an independent panel concluded that Birmingham City should be hit with a nine-point deduction by the EFL after incurring losses of nearly £48.8m between 2015 and 2018 — and therefore breaching the £39m three-year limit — and clubs would certainly like to see consistency should Villa also be found to be in breach.

But insiders believe poor communication between the EFL and the Premier League has led to 'a disconnect'. 

'The rules are supposed to be aligned across the leagues but there is a concern that the interpretation of those rules is different,' said one source.

 

+4

•  

Championship clubs fear a lack of consistency if Villa escape punishment for FFP breaches

Sportsmail understands there would be a reluctance among senior Premier League officials to hit a newly-promoted club with a points deduction, and so making it all the more harder for them to survive in the top flight.

However, what concerns the clubs, and is likely to be the point being made by the EFL, is the message the Premier League will be delivering if they don't agree with a points deduction for a club that breaks financial rules to reach football's promised land with its television riches.

'The winner of the Championship play-off final lands a £170m jackpot so if the only punishment if you are then found guilty of breaching the regulations is a fine, you take that gamble,' said one club official. 'Because the worst that then happens, if you fail to get promoted, is you start the new Championship season with a points deduction.'

 

 

26 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Re the Villa story, suggesting championship clubs wanting the premier league to apply a points deduction if Villa are found to have breached.

There may be something obvious I've missed, but I thought one of the main purposes behind the new ffp rules was that by requiring clubs to provide projected accounts in year 3, it would enable a breach to be identified and appropriate punishment given during the same season.

If so, I can't for the life of me work out why Vila's situation still seems uncertain. Has the EFL not received Villa's accounts, to enable the requisite ffp checks to be undertaken, because if so then that has to ring alarm bells? If they have received  all the account information, then either Villa are within ffp, or not. If the former, then all the EFL has to do is confirm this to be the case, even if we are not too happy with the decision. If the latter, then it really is a can of worms and I would have thought serious questions should be asked of the EFL's governance.

 As for the suggestion about championship clubs hoping that the premier league will apply a points deduction should Villa have breached ffp. That smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, as I presume the prem can only deduct points for next season, by which time Vila will already be benefitting financially from promotion to the premier league as a result of cheating.

If the EFL want ffp to continue, then they really need to get their act together. They need to address the loophole Derby has exploited and get experts to look at the ffp rules to identify any other areas clubs could look to exploit and amend the rules as necessary. They also need to grow a pair, and ensure that the rules are applied and penalties given notwithstanding which club is involved, as I think many fans currently feel that Villa got off the hook because of who they are.

Agree with all of this- an organisation headed up by Shaun Harvey though, can we expect anything better, look how they messed up the Birmingham one, how slow it was, never mind such wizardry as interpreting projected accounts and punishing accordingly in 2017/18! I always think back to what @Coppello wrote about someone from EFL finance department on here and it makes me pretty pissed off.

A soft embargo and an appropriate points deduction could see them come straight back down, but you are right the money aspect is ill-gotten gains as far as I'm concerned- not in a legal sense I hasten to add, but ethically, morally.

Now Birmingham are on one season account submissions until the 2017/18 period is spent and I assume that will be a precedent moving forward...therefore rationally they should also cut the overspend threshold by a third- bet they won't though! 

13 hours ago, downendcity said:

Ive wondered whether this might be the case Mr P - it would explain the apparent lack of support earlier in the year.

Some clubs might be finding it too much of an uphill battle to try and control their finances in order to stay within ffp and still remain competitive. Others might have owners frustrated by the financial constraints ffp brings and which prevent them using their money to boost their on field fortunes.

In either case, it might be that by keeping their powder dry, while seeing clubs like Derby and Villa seemingly "getting away with it" and benefitting as a result, they feel that clubs and the EFL will give up on ffp, thereby allowing clubs to run their financial affairs as they please.

I wonder if quite a few are planning on doing a Mel Morris and selling their grounds to related parties.

I would say giving it up could pose a problem, not just from a financial POV. In the highly unlikely event that a club outside the top flight wins FA Cup, or Carling (whatever it's called now!) or a relegated club wins either, if EFL has no FFP rules, would they get a UEFA License? Not sure- this is an outside possibility. More realistic perhaps is if a club goes up and then gets into Europe the same season and is in 3 year breach as per the rules of FFP when there were none at this level, again UEFA would be well within rights well IMO anyway, to refuse a license during that period for said club. Wouldn't expect some of the short termist foreign in particular- but not exclusively- owners to think this far ahead though...

I can't see a majority voting to scrap it though. I'd like to see a vote this summer tbh, on whether to punish Derby and when they choose to release their accounts if they have done the same, Sheffield Wednesday. EFL should grow a pair literally put it to a formal vote of clubs and particularly those in the Championship- if there is no majority then so be it!

Interesting story as it goes, just found it- not even read it!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7088131/Championship-clubs-fear-Aston-Villa-avoid-points-deduction-breach-FFP-rules.html

16 hours ago, BCFC11 said:

I’m still totally baffled as to why not 1 Championship club gave Steve Gibson their backing? There must surely be more to it than the obvious loopholes Villa/Derby have used for him to receive no support over this?

I think a few may have done- there are rumours that Bristol City and Nottingham Forest are also keen on, supporting this legal case.

Unless you mean the March/April meetings? I remember talk of SL being keen on it, on seeing these rules enforced correctly and Nottingham Forest too- seems to be a bit of a split in the League though...some clubs were actually pushing for a relaxation of the rules from what they are now!

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Part of the reason FFP was brought in was Platini (great footballer - awful administrator) wanting to break England’s dominance of the Champions League, allowing a French team a chance.  Spain then dominated, but it is going full-circle with English clubs again.  Platini couldn’t stop Sky, and PSG fail again.

The lower league versions in this country, I'm not convinced have been rigorously applied either, and it’s all becoming a bit of a farce.

If Gibson’s lawsuit fails to have any impact on the rules and Villa’s ground sale swells their coffers, then I think it’s time to admit defeat, and either accept there are those taking advantage of the rules and there are those who aren’t.  Not sure where SL will sit...unchanged I suspect, playing by the rules....but expect FFP to die a death.

Is an interesting one. When it was first mooted, FFP, I remember it was part of some grand idealistic reform, so it was said.

Not just French, I seem to recall his vision was a reformed CL- a seriously reformed one and I seem to recall straight knockout in a huge competition of 256 sides.

Maybe combining the 2 European club competitions- was a wide range of ideas, seem to recall these in mid to late 2000s.

PSG and their failings...think they've got significant cultural failings. Great players, some good managers but lacking something... their collapse v Man Utd was astonishing and I think the star players there hold a lot too much sway. Something rotten, sub-elite in the culture the DNA almost there IMO.

It's looking that way. This season was an acid test really. I suspect though that if an EFL club were to win FA Cup or League Cup and no FFP rules, then a UEFA License would be doubtful.

I also think though from a Platini viewpoint he wasn't keen on monopolies or near monopolies... he got votes from smaller and middle ranking European Leagues for one.

I remember he made some changes to CL...possible clash or sign of clash between UK and European types of capitalism?

More laisse faire v interventionist, Platini looking at pushing the latter in CL. Think more to it though than he just wanted a French side winning it or going far.

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It would do it but I see no evidence that the clubs have the guts to act. Or that they are particularly bothered. I'd love to be proven wrong but they had a chance and chickened out.

The fact remains that the clubs are themselves the de facto governing body but show no inclination to govern when the chips are down.

Bitterly disappointing but not surprising. The business of football stinks from a combination of dishonesty and incompetence, and worse.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Especially about the business of football.

I also think this issue won't go away though- a simple majority vote of the clubs, absolute democracy in action there.

I just don't see the remaining 21, 22 clubs accepting the status quo, how on earth can they. More to the point, why should they?

Maybe FFP will be scrapped in the Championship because letting 2-3 clubs get away with taking the piss is plainly untenable.

People like to and rightly so slate FIFA and UEFA, but are our own football Governing bodies really much better?

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I know I keep repeating myself but the other clubs have already let Derby get away with it so they are in no position to tell Villa they can't do the same.

Unless Gibson succeeds in his action we may as well wave FFP goodbye as other clubs will now come up with different scams knowing they are likely to get away with it.

 

Emergency meeting or announcement that the playoff promotion of whoever wins today will be subject to a review and a vote by the Championship 24 would do it. That'd be a game changer.

Do the EFL understand the seriousness of all this- clubs going to the court system as they appear to have lost faith in the Governing body, is pretty drastic escalation of the stakes!

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

My understanding is that the PL and EFL are two very different beasts.

QPR were punished on relegation, Leicester chose to pay the EFL a fine as a premier league club. Not sure about Bournemouth.

So my guess is that if found guilty, the EFL will let then know what the five is and they can either pay it, or dispute it.

I have read in places that sanctions ie points deductions or embargos can follow a side up- whether it'd be enforced though...

Kieran Maguire thinks fines only but in reality they should. Not in the PL's interest though, is it.

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

According to Kieran Maguire, he thinks Villa have already sold their ground and leased it back.

I saw it too Dave.

I read a figure on some comment on an article that Villa Park sale maybe £200m...TWO HUNDRED!?

 Clubs and the EFL have to be really firm if they've done the same...think the question of "EFL Golden Share" needs to come onto the table. It really does.

Are the rest of the League owners going to take this on the chin? I'd be stunned if they did...some very rich men indeed amongst those owners, and in some cases- Marinakis being one- influential in their own nations to some level.

32 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Honestly, I think nothing will come of this and they will be allowed to get away with it. Or at least the promoted team. If they let one get away, they can't then punish others so it's all or nothing and EFL don't have the backbone to stand up to the bigger clubs spending above their means. 

They afterall, probably see these big clubs as a draw for viewers to watch the EFL leagues. Hence why they get the lions share of sky action. 

All the clubs doing things the right way will be left questioning why bother doing things the right way when you can get away with murder to achieve the grand prize of promotion and a bottomless pit of money.

Interesting- but this could be seriously challenged at a number of levels.

Nor only our courts but the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). 

July or August 2018, AC Milan banned from UEFA competition. Their legal defence was that PSG and Man City especially weren't banned, plus Inter.

Though I looked at their losses and they were far more restrained than the petro clubs in their building days.

Anyway I digress- the point was they were treated in a fundamentally different manner- CAS sent UEFA back to drawing board for AC Milan.

Hence, unequal treatment can set a precedent. Here maybe it can compel EFL to produce Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday accounts..

Then EFL may have little choice but to allow some kind of parity.

That could be consistent punishment. Or allowing all other clubs to do this once before shutting the loopholes off.

56 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I wonder what Gibson’s motives / objections are:

• Fair play?
• Financial compensation for Boro and financial ruin for Derby (assume they might then sue valuer)
• Derby denied promotion should they achieve it
• Adjustment of Derby’s FFP submission, resulting in embargo, points deduction, etc
• Loophole closed

Would've thought Mel Morris could pay off the second, but 1and 3-5 absolutely. Solid objectives IMO.

Perhaps a 6th..deterrence. Lots of owners will be watching with interest. May even be involved on the quiet.

As if I owned a club that made sacrifices- ie player sales for one, maybe restraint in January- or even both and saw this unfolding I would absolutely be!

36 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Steve Gibson has more balls than the EFL for being prepared to put his head above the parapet. 

I fear that Derby's will be able to defend their position on the basis tha they have not "broken" EFL rules in the strictest legal sense. 

However, as it is a civil action brought by one club against another it will be interesting to see if they for Derby under the "fair dealing with other clubs" (not sure of exact wording) part of the rules. 

If it achieves nothing else it will cause the EFL maximum embarrassment and might cause many to question why a club Is taking action for something the EFL should be addressing. 

The stream of twitter comments from fans only further reinforces the feeling that too many fans still don't get it. They see it as sour grapes and fail to appreciate the serious issues involved. 

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It will force the issue - and I reckon a next action against the EFL for not following their rules.

The worm is turning.

Yeah- got a good feeling about this.

I wonder if EFL might in a bid to save their own skin suddenly enforce the in-season punishments and have the playoffs replayed...it's highly unlikely but people do funny things when up against it- as EFL may yet be:

Demote the two finalists, scrub the results?

Leeds-Bristol City

West Brom-Middlesbrough

I would have thought, but maybe the rules don't have sufficient scope good faith, abuse of a dominant position- as pointed out by @chinapig the other day and market rates, vs doubling of rates could cover a lot of this anyway- still thinking it's also a question of willingness and indeed competence to enforce as well as loopholes being exploited.

5 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Yeah talking play offs. 

I don’t see how we’d prove we’d suffered a loss selling key assets, but that just may be my failing and someone better could make the argument.

The reason I think we’d struggle to prove loss is simply victim of our own success. Yes we sold those players, but we improved our standing and achieved a transfer surplus. We can’t say we did in a fire sell, we sold them all for very handsome fees and replaced them cheaper. We can’t quite say we sold Reid for FFP, he was in last year of contract, if we had an agreement with Flint to let him go as mooted, again not FFP. If Bryan expressed a wish to leave, again not FFP. 

If we were 7th, definitely. If it was a case against Villa and Derby and EFL, definitely, as is, we’d be better off paying into Gibson’s fighting fund I think. 

Smacks of West Ham v Sheff Utd a bit. I think cash settlement. 

Not just us though- there are many clubs who have sold or restrained spending to try to stay in-line with it all.

That is why I think as many clubs as possible is a good way forward- it is gaining an advantage through manifestly unfair, means. A points deduction would have settled the issue for Derby and Aston Villa. Out the playoffs? Their hard luck, for not adhering to the regs correctly.

Technically I think the EFL have the power to stop promotion. Any punishment they see fit, nothing is off the table- as per their own rules. Whether it is at all realistic is a different matter.

Could it I wonder lead to a chance the playoffs getting replayed- or is that too late in the day?

Or Derby, indeed Aston Villa stripped of promotion and a playoff final between Leeds-WBA as a) The losing semi finalists b) The fact they complied c) The next 2 highest ranked compliant sides?