Mr Popodopolous

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.

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. Or 2. 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 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!

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!

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.

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!

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. 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.

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: That to me, combined with related parties rules, fair market value, the quite likely anger of 20 or more Championship rivals- that gives enough scope for a review and punishment if found guilty. I particularly like the "Order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may see fit". That gives ample scope to deduct points, refuse to register new signings etc. In fact as they see fit! ? That was unlucky granted, losing to a side who broke it in such an egregious way as QPR, Nonetheless the old rules had major flaws...the new rules offer scope to demote from playoffs so this should've happened IMO. I think the other one you refer to was when Swindon a while ago got denied promotion out the 2nd tier after winning the playoffs for financial irregularities and actually demoted down to 3rd tier- assuming the next highest side went up. The old rules were badly flawed- like history, can't necessarily judge by standards of today. QPR should've had a harsher punishment undoubtedly. Can't fix it, but still did it- therefore should be punished I'd say. That sounds bad but then we've had a loanee get injured first game on loan, other loanees get injured for the whole spell early in a game- it is bad but it is sadly a part of the game. Hard on the player and the club though and definitely can affect financial positions- but then you sell some more, or you show more restraint in the market- maybe use Martin and only sign one out of Waghorn and Marriott or better yet loan Martin out and only sign one of those 2, or sell Bogle- who would definitely have buyers. It's tough but there are still choices that can be made to mitigate! Now how exactly does your player valuation model work? As in who decides it...the club? Well that's not open to abuse at all - to me such an outlier of Accounting amortisation of players model should be overseen by a proper external body- I would say the EFL but I have little faith in them! Like I say if you expect the other 20 or so Championship clubs- maybe 21, 22 to just take this on the chin then I don't see why they would! PPS Swiss Ramble has broken down your position somewhat. Unsure what the wages adjustment means or is being adjusted for, but it shows you would have been £6-7m over without the owner selling the ground to himself. Can well see why Gibson is going after Derby given there was one point in it. 6 point deduction then one year rulings, assessments for the remainder of the period.

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!

I don't think much of the EFL- the fact they bottled in-season penalties on Birmingham in 2017/18 and Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday this season shows what they are all about- Shaun Harvey is not terribly capable, our own Mark Ashton IMO would have seen to it that the right punishments would have been handed out in a timely manner. I think it simply flummoxed a less than capable organisation- Birmingham's case was nailed on, look how long it took them to get sanctioned! We'll see- no smoke without fire. If you aren't then you should be while EFL investigate properly. Would make sense...I believe you can sign within certain conditions loans and frees under a soft embargo but it's a good holding position I think to prevent major signings. The rules also refer to "Fair Market Value" and related parties- this will perhaps form part of Gibson's legal argument. I would also consider putting the golden share in EFL as a matter on table for clubs that take it to an external court personally- put that to a vote of member clubs, see how you like that! In short, the risk of suspension of membership from the EFL. Putting aside that nuclear option, the other way of looking at it is that if infrastructure expenditure does not count towards expenses, nor should income of this nature count towards income. Now it isn't wholly a view I agree with, but the clause should read "Third and unrelated party or sale of a ground as moving to a new one" Words to that effect but much more legal language etc. Do you think the other 21 clubs at this meeting in June in Portugal are going to take it well from yourselves, Sheffield Wednesday and though they have gone up, trying to push for the deductions for Aston Villa? Tell me why they should...I'd be furious if I was a chairman who had played by the rules and the spirit as most had. Or for that matter, Birmingham getting punished as they did. Yes, for FFP purposes. Johnson seems a decent player in any case agreed. The situation you are in- and why are you in it? You overspent! Badly...to me you should be docked 10-11 points as per the formula, EFL has provision to punish historic breaches within the rules- well if they bother to enforce that is. UEFA does I know that. These rules are based to varying levels on UEFA's. If they have nothing in the regs about it, that is another huge fuckup on their part but they must have as QPR got punished for offences in 2013/14. Not punished enough granted, but they were punished. Wonder if Carson, Davies, Anya, Thorne, Martin will incur a loss- well Martin won't but he should therefore be up for sale- pure profit and wages off? Depreciation- like I say going to look through 10-15 years of accounts. Is this work done, or work that is and has been in the pipeline? To me planned work, counting as current value is a bit odd. I struggle though to understand why you refuse to accept- you've overspent and you've been looking at any and every loophole to try to get out of it. From Sevco 5112, to this, to the residual value- I struggle to see your argument other than it just being a technicality. Sevco 5112 Limited takes non footballing wages off the wage bill, does it not? On the related party thing- so what Morris did basically? To me a stadium sale with a large profit fits that bill perfectly- if accounts adjusted, then you're in breach. If you're in breach it'd be points off? It is just a way of funnelling income from the owner to the club- whether actual or paper as far as I can see. For example, I'd remove £30-35m based on that. https://www.mikethornton.xyz/new-ffp-tests/ The rules themselves are mostly pretty sound- it's the morons who cannot enforce them with sufficient rigour or speed that brings about these issues.

EFL should've sent an independent valuer before passing it IMO. I am and have been consistent on this...I struggle to believe it is £81.1m legitimately. Who said anything about listening to me- EFL should appoint independent valuers to these matters- do you think UEFA would have accepted it? Not sure. I understand the independent valuer argument, but I'd want a 2nd opinion in the circs... Hmm...I think you'll find that they can. IF EFL were to put it to a vote of clubs then I could see it going wrong for you! EFL need to get it to a vote- Leeds got punished under a rule that wasn't even a rule in place at the time and yours is IMO a lot more damaging towards the competition as a whole. EFL could reverse this if they get it right, disallow the profit- if you're under a soft embargo it would suggest this is still a live matter. Well you should have put more up for sale then- why sign Waghorn and Marriott? One would suffice! Had a quick google for Sam Rush- "Respective differences settled", doesn't sound like you got the £6.8m you were hoping for I would assume, but we'll see what the accounts say. You sell Bogle, you only sign one of those 2 strikers- you don't sign both- there are solutions, you just didn't look hard enough- compare it to our transfer activity and that of Middlesbrough to name 2!! Forgot about Jerome fair point, but you would still have been in breach- that's on yourselves and nobody else. However I do put you and have put you in a different category to out and out flagrant breachers like Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday and in some ways Birmingham- you have sold players, you have moved in a positive direction but it's quite simple- if you can't afford within the regulations, then you can't buy- therefore buying one and one only out of Marriott or Waghorn would have been a good start. Bogle sold? Maybe- would have to look at the figures in more depth. We could easily have flouted and purchased Assombalonga in Jan- had he been up for sale. Big chunk of wages yes, and you do seem to have a useful academy but you're overlooking an operating loss, you're overlooking your accounting methods in which unlike the bulk of clubs has players on straight line amortisation, you seem to sign players and there is a residual revaluation- chances are those 10-11 if no fee received will all be at a loss , but this will be superseded by savings in wages. I don't doubt you are moving in the right direction but punished you should be and if clubs vote on it and it is watertight, punished you would be. If it is truly £81.1m- then I'm a Dutchman. I find it laughable- EFL should have appointed an independent land valuer and got them in there right away. Same as for any club who wants to sell a ground but especially to a related party. £50m rather than £41m maybe a more realistic value but depreciation had it under £50m until recent revaluation. Will look through 10-15 years worth of Derby accounts later and try to work out depreciation rate- it was somewhere between 2-10% for Pride Park according to your accounts. A list would be good- done under the old regs perhaps, before this became a thing- good reasons behind it in order to separate out the club and ground in event of bankruptcy but I certainly don't think most clubs rent their grounds. Regarding this case, well let's say you had sold it to for example Barclays Bank- and you had got £81.1m and leased back? I and many others would have been a bit annoyed likely but accepted it for what it was- a legitimate, arms-length non-related third party transaction. Oddly I would have no problem with that- you would be taking a risk on your ground short or even medium-long term but you take the risk then it's legitimate IMO- if no connection. If it goes wrong, that's life. You gamble, you can win or you can lose! If it goes right, you reap the rewards- if it goes right you can buy ground back...incredibly reckless but if you do that, well risk-reward and no conflict of interest. You didn't do that though did you? No- you sold it to a company owned by Mel Morris...would Barclays have paid £81.1m for Pride Park? Doubtful! Interesting- Derby related- tweet. Any ideas on this one @DerbyFan ?

Thank you for the response. I struggle to believe it would be £81.1m, that's my view- if an EFL appointed independent valuer came to the same conclusion, I suppose that would change the picture somewhat. Yes, loopholes are a fact of life- good governance can severely clamp down on these though- which leads me onto my next point... The EFL...an organisation headed up by Shaun Harvey is questionable. To me it isn't a legitimate profit unless sold to a bona fide third party- and Gellaw NewCo 203 Limited most definitely is not. We are easily in a position to do the same- so too are Middlesbrough financially I expect, in fact so would a lot of clubs- SL was a chartered accountant he could easily, easily have done this! Could have come up with it standing on his head I reckon- it's so blatant that it shouldn't be allowed though and I assumed he like many other owners who could also took the view that it just wouldn't be allowed- it's ridiculous- not even any great attempt to conceal! You have sold players, you are still in deficit- here's an idea, cut the wage bill! Same goes for Aston Villa in spades and quite likely Sheffield Wednesday...Birmingham also. Parachute payments are a different matter and though I don't believe they should be done away with, they definitely need reform. Did we transfer AG to the club and then sell to Steve Lansdown or a company that he has a stake in? Did we bollocks! We instead sold Flint, Bryan and Reid- 3 key players, we also sold Messrs Magnússon, Djuric and Engvall- 2 squad players and one who never made it but it helped bring down costs, amortisation and the like. Did Middlesbrough sell the Riverside to SG? I could go on! We also sold Kelly right near the end of our financial year- an England U21 international LB who also can play and indeed in medium to long run will likely play there- only signing one out of Waghorn or Marriott maybe an idea? Or selling Bogle in 2018/19- either of those would have moved you significantly towards the right direction if not reached compliance. Technically your accounting period until 30th June 2019 so you still have time to be legit- get Bogle and Waghorn out that door but be quick! Or put up ticket prices, or further push on with commercial revenue- gained legitimately of course. Pride Park- cost £28m to build, completed in 1997...about £50.12m in 2017/18 prices according to an inflation calculator. Doubling and doubling again may have been a slight technical misunderstanding on my part- happy to correct that. I've always had a gut feeling that you might have scraped FFP so it came as a surprise to see you failed it or would have done without this sale. Then there is the matter of Newco 5112- non football staff paid on that- funny feeling that even with the stadium sale if the Newco 5112 Limited were your FFP figures you might have failed regardless. 'Revaluation reserve'- that sounds interesting, will look closer on that. Premier League seems a law unto itself- they pay lip-service to FFP although not necessarily STCC- time will tell on that. EFL in terms of FFP in the Championship[ do less so but if I was in there, I would be very serious on it. Would have to find rent but to me, if owned by a related party then rent should be at market rate- why after all would a true, 3rd unrelated party charge a low rent in most cases after all?

Let's hope so...but if Mel Morris a Derby fan and cares about the city of Derby- which I believe to be true incidentally on both counts, I fear it maybe wishful thinking. Would be great though! Based on 2017/18 season, their turnover would be slashed- down by £13,198,070- or 44.56%. To comply with existing FFP in that great scenario, firesale?

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!

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.

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.

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?

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. 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?