The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Norwich written a couple of days before the beginning of the season on FFP and how it may feed in.

https://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2024/08/09/with-ffp-and-psr-to-contend-with-idk-how-citys-season-will-go/

[downendcity]

On 02/08/2024 at 14:50, Mr Popodopolous said:

Erm??

2021 Transaction.

When we were all debating the sale of stadia to other of the owner's companies ( initially Derby) this issue immediately came to mind.

Everyone knew that the stadium sales were paper transactions, done solely for the avoidance of ffp penalties and that when the dust eventually settled, those clubs would look to change ownership back.

I'm no accountant , but surely the transaction to change ownership back must also be at "fair value", which I would take to be at least the value applied when the previous "sale" took place, as I don't see that there has been a significant change in the football stadia market! Not only that, but I presume there must also be cost for the purchase in the club's accounts, but I question as to how this can be applied as far as ffp is concerned. 

I think I'm correct in saying that normally  the cost of buying, building or renovating ( as we did) a stadium can be excluded from ffp loss calculations. However, if this is so then in Stoke's case, if I read it correctly, they would then be able to have their cake and eat it, i.e. they benefitted from the artificial sale ( 'cause that's what it really was!) as far as ffp was concerned, and now, if the cost of "buying it back" is also allowed to be ignored they would have an ffp double whammy.

Is it wishful thinking to hope that the EFL learned a lesson from the stadium sale debacle and not only closed the sale loophole, but also ensured that on buy back clubs that did so could not enjoy another ffp benefit?

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, downendcity said:

When we were all debating the sale of stadia to other of the owner's companies ( initially Derby) this issue immediately came to mind.

Everyone knew that the stadium sales were paper transactions, done solely for the avoidance of ffp penalties and that when the dust eventually settled, those clubs would look to change ownership back.

I'm no accountant , but surely the transaction to change ownership back must also be at "fair value", which I would take to be at least the value applied when the previous "sale" took place, as I don't see that there has been a significant change in the football stadia market! Not only that, but I presume there must also be cost for the purchase in the club's accounts, but I question as to how this can be applied as far as ffp is concerned. 

I think I'm correct in saying that normally  the cost of buying, building or renovating ( as we did) a stadium can be excluded from ffp loss calculations. However, if this is so then in Stoke's case, if I read it correctly, they would then be able to have their cake and eat it, i.e. they benefitted from the artificial sale ( 'cause that's what it really was!) as far as ffp was concerned, and now, if the cost of "buying it back" is also allowed to be ignored they would have an ffp double whammy.

Is it wishful thinking to hope that the EFL learned a lesson from the stadium sale debacle and not only closed the sale loophole, but also ensured that on buy back clubs that did so could not enjoy another ffp benefit?

 

 

This is uncharted territory really.

As far as I can tell, most clubs have continued happily (well Idk about happily as the owners own both companies) paying the Rent that kicked in at the time of the Transaction. So far, so simple. The point is it has gone as normal.. Transaction, Related Fair Value Rent, paid and included in costs. Normal.

It appears that Stoke via a Share issue have repurchased the Stadium (and Training Ground)! As you rightly point out, purchase of Fixed Assets is excluded from P&S/FFP but the Rent included post Sale is not.

As far as I can see, Stoke are(were?) paying and it was included in Operating Costs some £4.7m per Year in respect of Rent on said Transaction.

That is the aforementioned potential buyback, the Transfer of Property the £86.86m.

I think UEFA have a Rule to disincentive this sort of thing.

[downendcity]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is uncharted territory really.

As far as I can tell, most clubs have continued happily (well Idk about happily as the owners own both companies) paying the Rent that kicked in at the time of the Transaction. So far, so simple. The point is it has gone as normal.. Transaction, Related Fair Value Rent, paid and included in costs. Normal.

It appears that Stoke via a Share issue have repurchased the Stadium (and Training Ground)! As you rightly point out, purchase of Fixed Assets is excluded from P&S/FFP but the Rent included post Sale is not.

As far as I can see, Stoke are(were?) paying and it was included in Operating Costs some £4.7m per Year in respect of Rent on said Transaction.

That is the aforementioned potential buyback, the Transfer of Property the £86.86m.

I think UEFA have a Rule to disincentive this sort of thing.

 The EFL were caught with their pants down over the original raft of stadium "sales"  due the loophole they, the EFL, created.

They then changed the rules on sale of fixed assets to close that loophole and you'd have thought that when so doing they might just have considered what would happen if and when clubs wanted to "buy back" their stadiums. Then again, as with so much football governance, it seems that clubs always manage to be just one step ahead of the administrators/regulators.

I suppose we now have to look forward to Stoke effectively getting an £86m benefit to their ffp position, just as they did when they sold the stadium originally!

After this the Bet365 stadium is to be re-named the FFP stadium.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 The EFL were caught with their pants down over the original raft of stadium "sales"  due the loophole they, the EFL, created.

They then changed the rules on sale of fixed assets to close that loophole and you'd have thought that when so doing they might just have considered what would happen if and when clubs wanted to "buy back" their stadiums. Then again, as with so much football governance, it seems that clubs always manage to be just one step ahead of the administrators/regulators.

I suppose we now have to look forward to Stoke effectively getting an £86m benefit to their ffp position, just as they did when they sold the stadium originally!

After this the Bet365 stadium is to be re-named the FFP stadium.

I agree with the bulk of your post.

I mean there is scope arguably..I would argue this could be challengeable, @Hxj mentioned something iirc.

As we can see there was and has been a sensitivity/dispute over Rent in the Derby case. I'd argue it is still too low now given it was £1m or less.

Stoke Profit on Disposal was £32-33m in 2021, gotta halve it as the 2 years were aggregated and halved owing to Covid.

There was a push back in respect of Fair Market Rent. Rent must be Fair Market Value..and Stoke had a minimum 15-20 year lease in there.

Sensitivity over Rent. It is clear to me that a Fair Value Rent as part of such Transactions is imperative.

Think of it another way...every £1 in Rent savings is another £1 in FFP Expenditure or closer to Compliance.

This Transaction didn't neatly fit any of the 5 Scenarios but probably closest between 2 and 3..was some to Bet365 despite already sitting on the Balance Sheet??

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wolves and FFP.

% Reinvested isn't all that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting.

Uncharted territory if true for Burnley, the £61m,.perhaps even £63.5m plus Allowables.

Promotion Bonuses are exempt at this level and not in the PL or has that changed too?

It figures on one level as Burnley made major sales in 2021-22 and some in 2022-23. Then their FFP limits to this year are not £83m but £61m or at best £63.5m.

I don't think they made many last season albeit their Accounts run until 31st July.

[Rob26]

is there more posts per page or have loads of the posts here been scrubbed? i was more than 100 pages+ on from page 83, and seems a bit dry lately compared to usual posts on this thread.

anyways just had the free ramble do a breakdown on Derby

Derby County Finances 2022/23

Don't Look Back In Anger

Swiss Ramble Aug 29   ∙   Preview

READ IN APP

It’s been a long time since I reviewed Derby County’s finances, but I have been unable to do so for the simple reason that the club did not publish any accounts for four years.

However, these have been made available for the 2022/23 season, so I thought it would be interesting to look at the state of Derby’s finances, even though the usual trend analysis is somewhat compromised by the lack of data between 2018/19 and 2022/23.

Promotion

The good news is that Derby are back in the Championship, having secured promotion by finishing runners-up in League One last season, as head coach Paul Warne once again demonstrated his ability to guide a club out of the third tier (having already done so three times with Rotherham United).

This was all the more impressive, given that this was achieved just two years after the club nearly folded.

David Clowes

However, none of this this would not have been possible without the intervention of local businessman and lifelong supporter, David Clowes, who bought the club out of administration in July 2022, splashing out well over £50m in the process.

After numerous false dawns, Clowes stepped up to save Derby from the threat of liquidation, just as it looked as if all hope had been lost, even though this reluctant hero would have much preferred to have remained in the background (and in his seat in Pride Park).

However, Clowes said, “I could not stand by as the risk of losing Derby County became all too real. I could not have looked myself in the mirror if I had not done everything possible to protect it.”

As Clowes added, his purchase “ended nine months of uncertainty and fear over the future of our club.”

Mel Morris

Derby had entered administration in September 2021 after former owner, Mel Morris, was unsuccessful in his attempts to sell the club. Morris had bought a 20% stake in May 2014, before purchasing the remaining shareholding from North American Derby Partners in September 2015 to take full control.

There was no faulting the ambition of the Candy Crush multi-millionaire, as his stated intention was “to make Derby County a perennial competitor in the upper reaches of the Premier League”, leading to unprecedented levels of spending.

However, it’s fair to say that the gamble did not work out too well with Derby going through no fewer than nine different managers between June 2015 and May 2021, as the club’s attempts to reach the Promised Land of the Premier League became increasingly desperate.

Morris certainly paid a heavy price for this failure, admitting that the club had lost him “in excess of £200m”.

In addition, according to the administrators’ report, Derby owed £36m to HMRC, £24m to US investment group MSD Holdings and £15m to other creditors, including an outstanding £5m transfer instalment to Arsenal for Krystian Bielik.

Punishments

The EFL imposed a 12-point deduction for entering administration, followed by another 9-point penalty for breaches of the Profitability and Sustainability rules. Derby would have comfortably avoided relegation to League One in 2021/22, if they had not been deducted these 21 points.

A transfer embargo had already been imposed a couple of months earlier, due to the club’s financial problems, making life almost impossibly difficult. This was only lifted in May 2023.

Other Potential Investors

Clowes had got involved after various other investors fell by the wayside, but Derby certainly had a narrow escape when the deal with Chris Kirchner, somehow the administrators’ preferred bidder, collapsed in June 2022, given that the American businessman has since been sentenced to 20 years in prison for fraud.

Other unsuccessful takeover bids came in from Spanish businessman Erik Alonso and the Abu Dhabi-based Bin Zayed Group, but Clowes looks like an altogether better option for Derby.

Takeover

Clowes paid £33m to purchase the club, including the assets and certain liabilities, as prescribed by EFL regulations, of five companies in administration: SEVCO 5112 Limited, The Derby County Football Club Limited, Derby County FC Academy Limited, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited.

In addition, the new owner spent £22m to secure the club’s stadium via his acquisition of Gellaw 202 Limited.

As part of the purchase, Clowes settled around £20m of liabilities. In addition, certain liabilities were transferred to the new company, Derby County (The Rams) Limited. These pertained to football creditors, which were transferred in full, plus unsecured creditors, which were transferred at a minimum value of 25 pence in the £1 of the balance previously held by the companies in administration.

This approach meant that Derby did not incur an additional 15-point penalty when coming out of administration.

History

Given the club’s history, it’s incredible that things got so bad at Derby. Older supporters will remember a glorious period in the early 70s, when the legendary Brian Clough and Peter Taylor led the Rams to their first ever (old) First Division title in 1972, then guided the team to the semi-finals of the European Cup, where they were controversially eliminated by Juventus.

Clough and Taylor left the club following a disagreement with the directors, but former player Dave Mackay repeated their great feat by winning the league again in 1975. Once more, they (briefly) shone in Europe, including a memorable 4-1 demolition of Real Madrid.

League Position

The last time Derby were in the Premier League was 2007/08, but that turned out to be a nightmare season, as the team only collected a paltry 11 points, winning just once and finishing rock bottom.

Following relegation, the club’s strategy of spending big in an attempt to bounce back very nearly worked, as they reached the Championship play-offs four times between 2013/14 and 2018/19, but it ended up being a case of “close, but no cigar”.

Instead, there was a steady decline after the loss in the 2019 play-off final to Aston Villa, as Derby narrowly avoided the drop to League One in 2020/21, before relegation the following year. In contrast, Villa will be playing in the Champions League this season, so this was a real “Sliding Doors” moment.

Profit/(Loss) 2022/23

After so much turmoil, the club described the 2022/23 season as a “stabilising and rebuilding exercise”, though Derby actually performed pretty well, only just missing out on the play-offs after finishing seventh in League One.

The new company, Derby County (The Rams) Limited, was incorporated on 23rd June 2022, so the accounts covered slightly more than the usual 12 months, but these are still a good basis for our financial review.

In 2022/23 Derby generated £20.4m revenue, boosted by £1.6m profit from player sales, but they had £32.6m operating expenses and £19.7m exceptional charges, leading to a £30.4m loss.

Derby’s reported £30.4m loss was actually the highest in League One in 2022/23, followed by that season’s champions, Ipswich Town £18.2m.

The deficits at both these clubs were a long way above the next highest losses, posted by Charlton Athletic £9.6m and Sheffield Wednesday £7.2m. In fairness, only one club in the Division managed to generate a profit that season, namely Exeter City – and that was just £0.3m.

However, it is worth noting that Derby’s loss was made worse by £19.7m impairment of goodwill arising from the purchase of the club. This goodwill predominately reflected the creditors that the new company was required to acquire as part of the transaction...

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's a good question! Says 5.7k Replies so I assume that is a Replies per page issue. If there were any users who were banned then their posts would disappear from it too quire possibly.

For their true loss we disregard the Impairment of Goodwill. Thanks for posting.

£17.2m Wage Bill in League One though?? In a non Promotion Bonus paying year.

Mind you it will have covered a further week or so- the latter being the Championship waged.. 

I remember reading that they were restricted budgetary wise and it definitely wasn't £17.2m.

Edited August 29 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 10/08/2024 at 13:20, Hxj said:

The simple answer to that will be no, if the property stays outside SC Football.

If the lease is terminated, ends or is changed or transferred to SC Football that would be an 'associated party' transaction and can be adjusted.

The real question is how will that impact on FFP, if the company owning the property and SC Football are grouped for FFP purposes, as the payment and receipt of rent would cancel.

In a roundabout way then, what can the League do go make sure Stoke cannot have their cake and eat it with this one.

[Hxj]

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

what can the League do go make sure Stoke cannot have their cake and eat it with this one.

The regulations are a bit 'woolly' on this.  I suspect that if SC pushed the issue they would win.  That said I think that isolation from the Bet365 group is a good thing in the long term.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Hxj said:

The regulations are a bit 'woolly' on this.  I suspect that if SC pushed the issue they would win.  That said I think that isolation from the Bet365 group is a good thing in the long term.

From memory, Stoke..

*Stoke City Property owned the Stadium and Training Ground.

*'Sold' and Leased back to Bet365.

*The Price was what it was.

*The Rent was £4.7mish per year

*Seemed to show the Rent 25 years into the future.

Think they made a £43m Profit on Disposal of the 2 by end of May 2021.

Stoke City Holdings is the consolidator of Stoke City Holdings and Stoke City Property Limited.

[Rob26]

makes you think they are looking for outside investment on stoke by doing these changes. maybe bet365 know how much longer they have using them as an advertisement vehicle, once your not allowed to put the gambling anywhere they may well wish to exit the ownership possibly

also Leiciester win their appeal ! https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11712/13209210/leicester-city-win-their-appeal-against-alleged-breach-of-premier-league-psr

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

The Gambling Rules need to come in post haste really.

[Rob26]

probs a long way off tbh,

all thats agreed is premier league front of shirt sponsorship, so they can go to the arms or elsewhere even after the voluntary ruling comes in the bpl only.

my logic was maybe being one of the companies who are probs lobbying against it that they would have a good handle on how much longer it may go on for.

may mean championship teams have a increase of front of shirt gambling sponsors, and possibly may get more since their main option is taken away from them

Edited September 4 by Rob26

[chinapig]

10 hours ago, Rob26 said:

makes you think they are looking for outside investment on stoke by doing these changes. maybe bet365 know how much longer they have using them as an advertisement vehicle, once your not allowed to put the gambling anywhere they may well wish to exit the ownership possibly

also Leiciester win their appeal ! https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11712/13209210/leicester-city-win-their-appeal-against-alleged-breach-of-premier-league-psr

 

Kieran Maguire says they're looking for external investment in Bet365 and the club is a barrier to attracting it.

[Rob26]

16 hours ago, chinapig said:

Kieran Maguire says they're looking for external investment in Bet365 and the club is a barrier to attracting it.

makes sense, who would want to own stoke :laugh: 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham fans are in a bit of a class of their own for ignorant, arrogant crowing.

Based on a 6 month x 2 extrapolation I reckon their Cost Base could've been 27.5-30m in the 6 months to the end of December.

It appears they lost £4.5m despite and including the bulk of the Bellingham cash, in 6 months.

[Mr Popodopolous]

"Won't be a one off"

Have they read into the updated 2 2-2.4 Rules that can catch newly Promoted and Relegated Clubs into the Championship alike. Plus the ARP, ARP+1, ARP+2. The Forecast Accounts bit etc.

Their half season income was about £12-12.5mish. Possibly their total income £30mish.

Their fans or some also seemed to think the £10m TV deal was doubling this season, err no that's a total failure of comprehension, £2-2.5mish increase and well Relegation yo League One is millions lower for TV.

Tbh he writes good pieces but some of them, wow..

Edited September 5 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

In any event, if the Rules are changing to the UEFA model they will be on the 70% threshold along with the rest of the League, whereas Relegated Clubs could be on 85%. If Parachute Payments remain well..

Disagrace in itself but that aside, they seem unable to grasp certain flexible and unpredictable concepts.

Edited September 5 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://archive.is/2024.09.05-114404/https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/leicester-chelsea-birmingham-psr-broken-3260075

He's got this slightly incorrect though due to the 30th June deadline when Birmingham and whoever else get Promoted.

The EFL goal is that Clubs are in line with the Regulations at all times. Prevention better than cure/punishment.

Do Birmingham fans e.g. grasp this.

Edited September 5 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I owe a small apology to Stoke... Possibly.

I was looking at their Accounts, it was stated that they only spent £10-11mish in Gross Fees as per their Post Balance Sheet Events.

I could've sworn it was or reported in varied places as being £20m??

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of some past transactions and how matters look if they never occur as the loophole shouldn't have opened.

*Aston Villa would've been about £30m in the hole to 2019. Huge ramifications for subsequent seasons too.

*Birmingham failed by £9mish in 2018, to 2019 these was a £17mish Profit on Disposal of St Andrews. £7-8m fail probably, or enabled the m to sell Adams in 2019-20 instead. Probably a chance of a fail to 2023 as well.

*Derby..ha where to begin. I won't even get into the Amortisation issue.

*Deep breath...*

*£20-25m Overspend to 2018.

*£15-20m Overspend to 2019- even after the principle of reset.

*The next year or 2 sees a huge spike in Amortisation.

I truly dread to think. It came down by £0.6-0.7m after managerial compensation.

Whether their income was slashed by the Pride Park Sale and Leaseback we'll never know, there were mixed messages in the Written Reasons.

*Reading...well well. Again dread to think.

They used club in 2018 and Renhe thereafter. One of the Stadium Sales was excluded iirc or the same entity for a full Period.

£16.3m Aggregate Lozs becomes around £32mish end then..that was Madjeski Stadium going to Renhe plus Loan Writeoffs post takeover which surely are excluded.

£11.75m could be worse except.. more like £40-41m?? Running out of Fixed Assets to sell.

As it showed but Covid.

Would've failed to 2019 without doubt and this might have made their overspend £5-10m worse by 2021 albeit they like Derby would've been restricted sooner. Perhaps a few million lower.

Probably fail the Business Plan plus outright to 2023 as well, as no Share in Fixed Assets possible.

As it goes, no Reading Accounts or Renhe Sports Management Accounts to June 2023 yet.

Sheffield Wednesday sans the Hillsborough transaction barring a Business Plan saying them right I reckon a £3-4m overspend to 2019 even after Principles of Reset.

[Mr Popodopolous]

No Fixed Asset loophole and AVFC would've been a slight to behold.

Taking out..

*Promotion Bonuses of £15mish

*£30m to Lerner

Vs

£36mish Villa Park Profit.

This constitutes a £60mish Pre Tax Loss and an overspend of around £30m.

Into 2019-20..

*TV Money quite feasibly falls £10-11m as Parachute Money into pure EFL. Was around £22m.

*There was a £10.5m Profit on Disposal of Players.

*The Loss included a £14.4m HS2 Related compensation- this fell to £2.881m.

First point is a £20-30m worsending of the 1 year position.

£60-70m hole to fill to 2019-20 even despite and including the capping of the Upper Loss Limit in the prior 2 years. At best perhaps £50-60m.

[Rob26]

probs wouldn't of over spent tho if they couldnt count them sales , to the same extent anyways

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Rob26 said:

probs wouldn't of over spent tho if they couldnt count them sales , to the same extent anyways

I dunno, because most of it seemed to be last ditch plans to comply or keep spending.

E.g. Derby and Sheffield Wednesday only suggested it in the Spring of the year they were set to fail, Birmingham did it about a few weeks before the end of their Reporting Period having already failed once, Aston Villa either proposed it post new investment in August 2018 or actually did it in mid May 2019.

Initially Aston Villa were on a trajectory to cut their Wage Bill to £30-40m as per one report, or £40-50m worth of Player Sales by March 2019. Brutal austerity was set to be enforced post the Play-off Final loss to Fulham.

Reading less clear, maybe the Land Registry will reveal all, Stoke it was reported did it in late May 2021.

Edited September 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The other BCFC are of periodic interest to me, in this respect.

The idea that they went from £18-19m to Top Non Parachute Income in a year is fanciful. That would be £37m.

It rose and rose competitively I'm sure but these were their 6 months to December 31st 2023...some key Figures.

Most of these will be Football Revenue. It is in HK$.

Most of that Profit on Disposal will be Bellingham Sell-On unless they are viewing the Sell-On as Revenue which would be weird.

That is Category by Category...

While this is the Segmented Results.

It seems to mean that despite the Bellingham money the bulk of it by December 2023, and the incease in Revenue their Costs and losses increases year on Year.

Edited September 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I should add, some Accounting standards do class Transfer Profit or similar as Revenue. We don't.

It counts once either way, whichever category you put it in.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Man United £131m Pre Tax Loss!!

Just seem the headline numbers so far.

The challenge is to get £149m, £32m and £131m down to £105m after adjustments.

They for the record claim they are compliant with FFP at UEFA level and PL level.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well, £130.724m to be precise but I reckon the Pre Adjusted 3 Year Pre Tax Loss must be pushing £312-313m.

[Rob26]

probs boils down to how much academy talent they have on the books maybe? always feel like they are on the clubs hoarding youngersters and not a stretch for someone they bought from another club to be on around or close to a million a year. do fee's for youngsters get wrote off too?

Edited September 11 by Rob26

[Mr Popodopolous]

I reckon their Allowables are..

£40m per year- that includes a doubtless costly Academy.

Additionally:

1) They supposedly had a £40m Covid Loss in 2021-22, which is a farce.

2) This Exceptional Cost linked to the Takeover, is really hard to keep track of. Initially it was £30m, think £35m was mentioned in the 3rd quarter.

Then it seems to be £40-50m?? £48m.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Closer to home, relevance for us.

Reading and their Parent Renhe Sports Management, still, still have not released Accounts made up to 30th June 2023.

As per these were due by 31st March 2024, they somehow got extended therefore 30th June 2024

We are now on 11th September 2024 and..nothing?? Nothing.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Kieran Maguire anticipates that they are fine for the Period ending 2023 but are they definitely. We know they failed the Business Plan, did they get the other bit(s) over the line by 30th June 2023.

That reminds me, you may know this one @Hxj

The Chelsea loopholes. By far the most unusual is the sale of the Ladies Team to a parent.

How would EFL Rules treat this? The Amortisation stuff probably would be meh and the Fixed Asset stuff obviously has no effect but selling a Ladies Team or other Subsidiary to a parent..any ideas?

Edited September 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://archive.is/2024.09.11-155129/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/09/11/man-utd-points-deduction-fears-313-million-loss-ratcliffe/

[Davefevs]

[Mr Popodopolous]

Seeing a Sheffield United Share Issue reminded me.

Their fiscal position, FFP maybe but other stuff had they not gone up 2 years ago. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham at the HKSE. Albeit not quite sure about these figures.

The structure does show segmented info but the company in Hong Kong own 51.72% of it.

The prior year and losses.. 

How it breaks down between Controlling and Non Controlling Interests will be useful to know.

Edited Saturday at 09:42 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

On 11/09/2024 at 16:05, Mr Popodopolous said:

How would EFL Rules treat this?

It will be an allowable transaction for FFP purposes.  Subject to the connected party rules any profits or losses on disposal will be allowable.

[Mr Popodopolous]

31 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It will be an allowable transaction for FFP purposes.  Subject to the connected party rules any profits or losses on disposal will be allowable.

I see, thanks.

Unlike the obvious adjusting out of Fixed Asset Disposal Profits and even from Summer 2023 the Reading transaction, this would fly under EFL Regs- Fair Value permitting of course.

Edited Saturday at 10:36 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

On 11/09/2024 at 18:31, Davefevs said:

come on, a few people in manchester had covid last year, that should be another 30m+ covid costs they are allowed to claim

[Rob26]

city case starts today, what do people think will happen? I'm guessing mental fine (maybe £100m) that gets hammered down on appeal/settlement

wrist slap I reckon, the charges seem like shit thrown at the wall to see what sticks, i'd expect a lot of them get kicked out with minimal evidence for them. 

just about to watch this, think its about multiple clubs etc 

 

[Hxj]

5 hours ago, Rob26 said:

wrist slap I reckon, the charges seem like shit thrown at the wall to see what sticks, i'd expect a lot of them get kicked out with minimal evidence for them. 

There is plenty of publicly available information demonstrating that fundamentally the club lied in its submissions to the EPL, some of it very damning.

I suspect far, far more than a rap of the knuckles.

 

[Rob26]

15 hours ago, Hxj said:

There is plenty of publicly available information demonstrating that fundamentally the club lied in its submissions to the EPL, some of it very damning.

I suspect far, far more than a rap of the knuckles.

 

that don't mean that loads of the charges wont fall off still, which is what I was refering to when saying they are throwing loads of shit at the wall to see what sticks.

not convinced they will get hit with something as damaging as many fans of other clubs are hoping tho, like relegation or mental amount of points deducted, if its points it's probs something that makes little difference to them, and at best only something that hits them over 1 season.

after appeal I think they still may be hit with a bit of a wrist slap, a lot of the charges have a really high burden of proof, epically the corruption ones 

if you look into the UEFA case, they alleged far lower accusations for these items you mention and could not present a single witness to prove it and city had numerous, which they did not challenge. 

this lawyer covers the charges in detail and explains the evidence, what uefa had (which is to be assumed what the bpl will be using) and what the out comes were and explains for each one if they have more or less chance, and it really sounds like an uphill battle to me, really interesting video summary 

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:04 by Rob26

[Rob26]

the dishonesty charge is the main one, because them alleging that is what opens the door for many of the other charges, you have a 6 year time bar on civil action, but if there is found to be dishonesty relating to the charges the time bar is lifted

this part was not time barred in the uefa/cas case, but they had no witnesses or anything to prove the dishonesty and city had quite a few witnesses, which at no stage did uefa have anything to challenge them with.

[Bristol Rob]

Sounds line the takeover at Reading has collapsed, worrying times for the club and the fans.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/18/efl-wants-to-charge-leicester-with-financial-rules-breach-if-club-relegated

This is basically what I said.

They can't charge them while they are in the PL but when they drop back...

[Mr Popodopolous]

The bit I would take issue with is the £83m vs £105m.