The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

My amended and updated- better formatted- Stoke City accounts based on two scenarios. Caveat, we don't know how the potential stadium sale will be accounted for, indeed we don't know the final profit or loss for 2020/21!

EFL accept the £30m Impairment in addition to the typical Covid losses

EFL don't accept it- and insist on inclusion then addback within the £5m x 2 as the basis for assessment

That's my latest workings @Davefevs I certainly like your format too, think black and white as mine are is perhaps a bit samey but unsure what colours look best for it.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Very detailed….nice.

[chinapig]

Kieran Maguire covered the "sale" of the Stoke stadium in yesterday's podcast, the point being that because they "sold" in May it still counts towards FFP.

But he didn't cover the impairment issue, which was disappointing. If I used Twitter I would ask for his comments. But I don't so I won't.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Swiss Ramble and Nottingham Forest- roughly aligns with our figures Dave- a million or two here and there maybe variable but roughly aligns.

 

[ExiledAjax]

On a bit of a side note, and perhaps a mere curiosity given how much has changed since 2020, but Fair Game has released figures that suggest over half of the top 92 clubs were technically insolvent in 2020. Of 85 clubs who filed accounts for 2020, 44 (52%) were technically insolvent. Bury and Macclesfield – now both defunct – were among the seven who did not file accounts, alongside Bolton, crisis-hit Derby County and Southend United who are now in the National League.

Technical insolvency is a simple balance sheet insolvency test that adds up all a company’s assets and takes away its liabilities. A negative figure means that liabilities outweigh assets, and the business can be described as technically insolvent. For football clubs assets include the stadium, training ground and player registrations. Liabilities include all the club’s debts due.

The data was compiled by Fair Game’s football finance experts led by Dan Plumley, Senior Lecturer in Sport Finance at Sheffield Hallam University, and Mark Middling, Senior Lecturer in Accounting at Northumbria University.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6047aabc7130e94a70ed3515/t/6220bc80c9dcdf6893986766/1646312576320/EPL++EFL+Balance+Sheet+Equity+Figures+2020.pdf

City were one of 7 Championship clubs deemed to be solvent at this point.

[Davefevs]

I’ll update my tables later.

[Davefevs]

My view of Boro.  No issues with accounts just published, but another loss of £30m+ this season, starts to put them close.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not done a table for Middlesbrough yet but yeah, agreed- no issue to 2021, I also think unlikely they will have an issue to 2022- Assombalonga dropping off unless Impaired at some point in the last 3 years is £3.7-3.8m in amortisation savings on him alone. Fletcher £6.5m/4...also went- again if no Impairment, this reduces amortisation by a further £1.6m or so. Varied other departures too, range of cost savings and profit on disposal- yes some expensive sounding loanees in too. Surely Assombalonga and Fletcher- especially the former- were major earners too? That helps.

I think more likely is that they MIGHT have an issue to 2022/23 if they don't win the playoffs (Fulham and Bournemouth top two IMO barring any deductions), but surely if so they will sell players if required and show a bit of restraint on the other side of it- Gibson has done this before and they have a range of saleable assets. Wilder isn't a manager who needs a huge budget either. Spence widely rated at £10-15m joined on a free, so barring some sort of compensation based sell on clause to Fulham it's £10-15m to offset losses if required from him alone.

They are rare fwiw, but not unheard of- Man City got a % of the Sancho fee last summer.

Might also add, would be astonished if Gibson steered Middlesbrough onto the FFP rocks given his anger in 2019 and the impact it has had- plus the fact he was pursuing Derby as recently as 6 weeks to two months ago until the accord with Mel Morris.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Agree with all of that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Was having a quick browse of one of the Middlesbrough forums and an interesting bit came up.

Something about Revaluation of fixed assets/properties. Quite how this is treated in terms of P&S I'm unsure- although my base assumption is that it wouldn't count towards P&S/FFP.

Because it is strictly speaking Profit or Loss Before Tax (before we get onto the usual allowances plus Covid allowances)- Tax, in addition to Other Comprehensive Income (in this instance Tax back then the Unrealised Surplus on Property Revaluation minus Tax on this (Other Comprehensive Income)- unsure where in the FFP regs or the FFP reporting form it appears.

Gibson- great owner in his own right, plus he stood up for the side of right in the Derby case especially and FFP more generally and I wish more clubs had joined him in this regard- I know we have been keen on it, Nottingham Forest too reportedly- Barnsley too but more public facing statements etc.

That said, I wonder how exactly this item is treated under P&S.

The Unrealised or Realised valuation change feels more like an equity adjustment although by no means cut and dry.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Was having a quick browse of one of the Middlesbrough forums and an interesting bit came up.

Something about Revaluation of fixed assets/properties. Quite how this is treated in terms of P&S I'm unsure- although my base assumption is that it wouldn't count towards P&S/FFP.

Because it is strictly speaking Profit or Loss Before Tax (before we get onto the usual allowances plus Covid allowances)- Tax, in addition to Other Comprehensive Income (in this instance Tax back then the Unrealised Surplus on Property Revaluation minus Tax on this (Other Comprehensive Income)- unsure where in the FFP regs or the FFP reporting form it appears.

Gibson- great owner in his own right, plus he stood up for the side of right in the Derby case especially and FFP more generally and I wish more clubs had joined him in this regard- I know we have been keen on it, Nottingham Forest too reportedly- Barnsley too but more public facing statements etc.

That said, I wonder how exactly this item is treated under P&S.

The Unrealised or Realised valuation change feels more like an equity adjustment although by no means cut and dry.

I saw it below the P&L before tax, so ignored it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I saw it below the P&L before tax, so ignored it.

Yep same tbh. Ignore my bit about Aston Villa, I misremembered.

I digress, there doesn't as I thought appear to be anything on here in respect- for P&S purposes anyway- of a revaluation adjustment.

Aston Villa did though having checked just now, use an odd accounting treatment for it- "Exceptional Operating Income"- problem there is that there was also an "exceptional" Operating Income of £3m in 2017/18 (which many presumed to have been HS2), and again in 2019/20- all classed as exceptional, all classed as compensation deed for freehold land or somesuch. Finally if gaining compensation for land to be disposed of, I rather thought there should be evidence of said disposal ie in the same way that if a player or a Tangible Asset is sold, there is a removal from the Balance Sheet- especially in the case of the latter.

If it's more than once it's recurring and no longer exceptional!

Edited March 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Small FFP update, not specifics more to look out for and try to extrapolate perhaps...

This includes both clubs at this level right now, clubs who were at this level but went up last season and those who went down. In alphabetical order. I won't include a range of subsidiaries if it's multilayered, merely the club and probable parent entity. 

Accounts for 2020/21 due at end of March 2022

1. Birmingham City
2. Blackburn Rovers
3. AFC Bournemouth
4. Fulham- Unsure whether to use Fulham Football Leisure or Cougar Holdco London Limited.
5. Huddersfield Town
6. Peterborough United
7. Sheffield United- or should we use Blades Leisure Limited
8. Watford- Or should we use Hornets Investment Limited
9. West Brom- or is it WBA Holdings or Group?

We of course all know about Derby- although the June orders from November last year seem to imply that they need to publish by the due date- not to CH but make arrangements to publish for last season, 31st March 2022 for accounts made up to 30th June 2022! Publish if in administration, submit to CH if not!

As for Birmingham, we can kind of track their progress via the HKSE although it doesn't translate perfectly with certain items, in respect of Blackburn- or should we use Venkys London Limited, which is the reporting entity for P&S? VLL sits above Blackburn but it runs from 1st April to March 31st...a problem could it arise with this rule? I've discussed on here before and a consensus appears to be not but surely if VLL sits above Blackburn Rovers it is the parent and therefore de facto should be the FFP reporting entity? Blackburn are hardly big villains in any event but if we're getting technical and pedantic...?

I'm not alleging any particular chicanery or Land Registry questions either.

Quote

(b) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset

The Venkys London Limited accounts as stated run from 1st April-31st March. Therefore, this Accounting Reference Period very much covers (most of) 2021/22. It sits above Blackburn.

As we can see because Blackburn did it by the book as of now, there is no entry in the Venkys London Limited accounts for the sale and leaseback of the Training Ground.

Surely accounts that start 1st April and run through to the following March can constitute the Reference Period that covers the 2021/22 season? Seems a weird structure or an unusual anomaly anyway.

Logic dictates surely that when it appears in VLL, it will appear in the accounts from 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022 which will be out either next year or towards the end of 2022...and surely that covers 2021/22 which as we have seen adjusts it out! Of course Blackburn Rovers could be the FFP entity.

Think was sold 28th June 2021...but club or VLL as the FFP entity? The lack of alignment of 12 month periods makes it tricky! The EFL wording of that regulation isn't the best...

Sheffield Wednesday and Swansea due to release end of April and Stoke appear in no hurry!

Then there's Everton...if they drop it could be an FFP disaster, we all know how the League try to judge things these days..

Reading we know about but it is notable that Renhe Sports Management accounts have arrived at CH and this might be the FFP reporting entity, definitely the parent of Reading- Fixed Asset sales aside there aren't usually vast differences however.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Plus, an interesting post from the Derby forum- especially the snippet I am set to post. Good poster and I wonder how true this is...

Quote

The EFL have followed the rule book since Parry came in. Unfortunately, the entire situation needed someone to take a pragmatic approach. An approach Parry's predecessor took time and time again, as evidenced by actively helping other clubs pass P&S by telling them about the stadium 'loophole' (first identified by us).

I always had suspicions, that Parry's predecessor was up to this sort of thing but it's quite a claim! Surely tantamount to borderline corruption, corruption or pragmatism you decide!

I don't particularly agree that a more pragmatic approach was required- arguably coming to the Settlement did constitute a pragmatic approach in any event, an alternative would have been for a club in Insolvency to be dragged to Disciplinary Commissions trying to fight it, either one to cover the whole 6 years or one per period in breach back to back all the while under the Professional Standing embargo!

Or a further Disciplinary Commission to settle other issues that Derby were arguing about before an inevitable one for the FFP breaches themselves...imagine that with Professional Standing remaining in play when basically insolvent/surviving off borrowed money?! Or to have it all hanging over a new owner with the EFL still going for the throat.

The -9 and remaining of the season Business Plan with 3 more suspended and the June orders in November, combined with an easing of some of the conditions of Embargo and a potential easing of more, well it struck me as being reasonably pragmatic all told!

There was no 3rd way that would have been acceptable I believe.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I always had suspicions, that Parry's predecessor was up to this sort of thing but it's quite a claim! Surely tantamount to borderline corruption, corruption or pragmatism you decide!

Wow, I'd say favouritism at best. Any way you slice it, it skews competition. You tell everyone or no one , otherwise it's unfair competition.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Wow, I'd say favouritism at best. Any way you slice it, it skews competition. You tell everyone or no one , otherwise it's unfair competition.

 

 

Remember it's just a claim on a forum albeit from a pretty credible poster on DCFCFANS but it is astonishing letting it sink in. Favouritism at best, if not basically corrupt.

IF true of course. I have always had this suspicion though that he advised clubs in breach but then surely qualified accountants would scour the regulations, notice (at that time) that stadia- and Fixed Assets in general could theoretically be sold and leased back because no rule at that time prevented it or more specifically inclusion within FFP calculations.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Remember it's just a claim on a forum albeit from a pretty credible poster on DCFCFANS but it is astonishing letting it sink in. Favouritism at best, if not basically corrupt.

IF true of course.

Seem to recall there being rumours that the Purslow (Villa) had been a consultant on FFP initially with UEFA and when the Stadium Sales were removed from PL FFP, the copy and paste by Harvey conveniently left it in PFS….and who took advantage of that?  Villa.

Might seem far fetched, but was the rumour.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Seem to recall there being rumours that the Purslow (Villa) had been a consultant on FFP initially with UEFA and when the Stadium Sales were removed from PL FFP, the copy and paste by Harvey conveniently left it in PFS….and who took advantage of that?  Villa.

Might seem far fetched, but was the rumour.

Vaguely recall something about this. Purslow indeed helped to set it up at the UEFA level, although Aston Villa came the season after Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and possibly Reading (granted the Sheffield Wednesday transaction was botched to say the least but notionally arose pre Villa).

The UEFA regs were clearest from the off in this respect- all Tangible Fixed Asset sale profits or losses adjusted out of FFP calculations. Easy!

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seem to recall there being rumours that the Purslow (Villa) had been a consultant on FFP initially with UEFA and when the Stadium Sales were removed from PL FFP, the copy and paste by Harvey conveniently left it in PFS….and who took advantage of that?  Villa.

Might seem far fetched, but was the rumour.

Parry also told Kieran Maguire that offsetting the sale of fixed assets against FFP was included at the insistence of the Premier League.

You have to wonder what their motivation was.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Parry also told Kieran Maguire that offsetting the sale of fixed assets against FFP was included at the insistence of the Premier League.

You have to wonder what their motivation was.

Mmmm, yeah, that would have more legs that my “story”.  Give relegated clubs an even bigger “get-out” than just receiving PPs.

[1960maaan]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Remember it's just a claim on a forum albeit from a pretty credible poster on DCFCFANS but it is astonishing letting it sink in. Favouritism at best, if not basically corrupt.

IF true of course. I have always had this suspicion though that he advised clubs in breach but then surely qualified accountants would scour the regulations, notice (at that time) that stadia- and Fixed Assets in general could theoretically be sold and leased back because no rule at that time prevented it or more specifically inclusion within FFP calculations.

I'm no accountant , and forensic dissection  would have taken place. But is there a a difference between an accountant saying, I think I've found a loop hole, and a member of the governing body saying here's a Map to it ?

I still think any Club that hasn't used the loop hole, and is anywhere near FFP trouble, should be given the leeway the ground sales afforded the ones that did. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Mmmm, yeah, that would have more legs that my “story”.  Give relegated clubs an even bigger “get-out” than just receiving PPs.

Plus of course, £22m extra subject to equity in higher loss limits per PL season! Granted Covid has complicated matters to say the least however that was the case although with no equity it remains at £5m regardless of division.

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I'm no accountant , and forensic dissection  would have taken place. But is there a a difference between an accountant saying, I think I've found a loop hole, and a member of the governing body saying here's a Map to it ?

I still think any Club that hasn't used the loop hole, and is anywhere near FFP trouble, should be given the leeway the ground sales afforded the ones that did. 

Agreed, an undoubted difference. There's no proof to the claim and would be close to corrupt, unfair competition etc if true.

I thought this for a time, but the problem is that as we have seen it is also applicable to Training Grounds, Land and probably other categories too- where do you draw the line!

My initial thoughts were a) Switch to the UEFA system of all Tangible Fixed Assets adjusted out and go after the Clubs who did it especially the large profit ones for one reason or another or b) Let everyone do it once and then shut the loophole.

I'm comfortable with the loophole being shut and punishments are steadily being worked through. Aston Villa fans would deny it to the end of the earth but given the EFL approach from 2019 and the precedent set, think the EFL would come under enormous pressure from member clubs to find something they object to in the period to 2019. If they return of course.

Doesn't even have to be loss limits in itself as a starting point, but misconduct relating to how compliance was achieved!

IF you can make a misconduct charge stick then compliance also becomes questionable loss limit wise. As we've seen with Derby and Sheffield Wednesday, accounts are not signed off as such for FFP purposes.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Two lines.

Reading

Renhe Sports Management accounts- the parent of Reading. As I thought, the losses are roughly £3m higher than the club, may make a spreadsheet some time...it's not necessarily impacting on FFP- we knew Reading's issues anyway pretty much but could shed some light on exactly how the £18m overspend was reached.

Stoke

Debt < £160m now- but it should not impact FFP beyond existing limits and contributions. Equity limits are equity limits, whether that's actually a sensible approach from a solvency perspective is a different matter and arguable but surely the debt to equity conversion only takes them up to the max anyway- the maximum Upper Loss Threshold that we assume they are working at anyway!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60847179

The reason that the Stadium and Training Ground returned to Bet365 ownership- it's a fig leaf, to redevelop it- :laugh:! Could have done it anyway, mentioned keeping all Properties within one management company- could have done that anyway, the Stadium at the very least already sat on the Bet365 Balance Sheet, albeit Group, Consolidated whatever!

Edited March 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Quote

The debt reduction follows the Club’s recent announcement that a £20m five-year redevelopment programme at the bet365 Stadium and Clayton Wood training ground is to get underway this summer.

More than £4million will be invested in facilities ahead of the 2022/23 season, including the installation of 8,400 seats.

Other work to be carried out this summer includes the complete transformation of Delilah’s Bar into a contemporary sports bar, installation of new toilet facilities in the Tile Mountain and South Stands, refurbishment of the Players’ and Stanley Matthews Lounges and installation of a new synthetic, all-weather pitch at Clayton Wood to be used by first-team, Academy line-ups and women’s side.

Massive fig leaf.

https://www.stokecityfc.com/news/2022/march/23/club-statement/

Just like Mel Morris was going to stick a roof, was it a retractable one can't remember- on Pride Park for events! Not that the roof was the basis for valuation, more the case that once it was in his possession he could crack on with making it a fully fledged events venue too.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/31532-roof-over-pride-park/

That's not to say that these two venues might not be redeveloped- no, they certainly can be but a) The stadium already sat on the Bet365 Balance Sheet prior to 'sale' unsure about Clayton Wood, and b) Infrastructure expenditure is entirely exempt from FFP/P&S anyway.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Put together the Reading accounts via Renhe Sports Management.

Pretty odd, there must be some major item excluded for P&S as using the Reading-Renhe-Renhe-Renhe as the basis has them just under or £2-3m over to 2021...granted the stadium was sold twice, exclude one of those- and possible the Grant in £10m of Other Operating Income was linked to this, exclude both of those or maybe the 2nd Profit and you get to the £18m overspend!

May also have included a) Impairment of Goodwill in 2017/18 incorrectly, b) Overestimated academy expenditure, c) Overestimated Women's Football Expenditure- how exactly to calculate it, hard to say.

The easiest way to go from that to that though is to exclude one of the Stadium sales- the 2017/18 Reading to Renhe and the £10m grant, possible that the grant enhanced the Profit on disposal but was otherwise classified?

Reading or Renhe is also very important because if it is the former, the reset means they cannot exceed a £13m FFP loss this season, whereas with Renhe it may add I dunno, £6-12m to their headroom for THIS season depending on precise estimates- next season if it is £13m or above this season, reset to £13m probably- or maybe it'd mean only able to make an FFP loss of £7m if they made one of say £19m this season.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The take of some Stoke fans on FFP- apparently they did all they could and were not looking for loopholes!

@chinapig @Davefevs@downendcity@Hxj@ExiledAjax@Port Said Red

Apparently, A 3 year 75% surge in stadium valuation using the same methodology, reportedly an extremely low carrying value as per Kieran Maguire- hence the reported £66m profit on disposal, and an attempt to write off £30m in amortisation to Covid isn't seeking loopholes?? Could someone explain this to me! I get that there are elements of good faith too but come on..!

Good meme though...the EFL I am sure will be all over it with a fine toothcomb.

I say elements of good faith, but there could have been more- do Wilmot, Ostigard (loan), young Brighton winger loanee, Sawyers (loan), Vrancic and Surridge in the summer...

...Then Ostigard out and Surridge out, Harwood Bellis in (loan), young Villa loanee, Lewis Baker and Maja (loan) sound like doing all you can to comply...or doing all you can to avoid the consequences of a breach!!

Edited March 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The take of some Stoke fans on FFP- apparently they did all they could and were not looking for loopholes!

@chinapig @Davefevs

Apparently, A 3 year 75% surge in stadium valuation using the same methodology, reportedly an extremely low carrying value and an attempt to write off £30m in amortisation to Covid isn't seeking loopholes?? Could someone explain this to me!

Good meme though...the EFL I am sure will be all over it with a fine toothcomb.

A bogus claim imo. More a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Then over valuing the stable.

Doing everything you can would involve managing your finances properly in the first place by not constantly signing more players leading to a bloated wage bill. Much like us in fact.

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A bogus claim imo. More a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Then over valuing the stable.

Doing everything you can would involve managing your finances properly in the first place by not constantly signing more players leading to a bloated wage bill. Much like us in fact.

I agree with that last bit tbh- although I think our approach has been more in keeping with the spirit of the rules from perhaps this season onwards.

A very pricy stable indeed.  Anyway about us, we appear to have this season cut the wages by £6m is the estimate I've seen and amortisation by £5-6m which is good...notable in fact. Some of the players Stoke have loaned and signed don't exactly scream austerity.

My list

Quote

Wilmot, Ostigard (loan), young Brighton winger loanee, Sawyers (loan), Vrancic and Surridge in the summer...

...Then Ostigard out and Surridge out, Harwood Bellis in (loan), young Villa loanee, Lewis Baker and Maja (loan) in Jan

I don't include players such as Bonham Fielding, Jagielka on frees e.g. as they seem in keeping with austerity or cuts.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I also note that:

a) The FFP Upper Loss Limit to 2021 was £55.5m, whereas to this year it's £39m.

b) This also coincides with the Parachute Payments being replaced by Solidarity Payments, another squeezing of headroom.

c) Whatever profit if it passes EFL analysis on the Bet365 is a one off gain that won't be repeated if it's accepted in the manner that Stoke would like and

d) Their starting point for the £39m test will probably be worse LAST season ie the combined average as set against 2018/19 when their FFP Loss was probably £7-8m.

Their Covid Impairment also needs adding back or reallocation over the time span. Doesn't fit with the EFL's requirements.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The take of some Stoke fans on FFP- apparently they did all they could and were not looking for loopholes!

@chinapig @Davefevs@downendcity@Hxj@ExiledAjax@Port Said Red

Apparently, A 3 year 75% surge in stadium valuation using the same methodology, reportedly an extremely low carrying value as per Kieran Maguire- hence the reported £66m profit on disposal, and an attempt to write off £30m in amortisation to Covid isn't seeking loopholes?? Could someone explain this to me! I get that there are elements of good faith too but come on..!

Good meme though...the EFL I am sure will be all over it with a fine toothcomb.

I say elements of good faith, but there could have been more- do Wilmot, Ostigard (loan), young Brighton winger loanee, Sawyers (loan), Vrancic and Surridge in the summer...

...Then Ostigard out and Surridge out, Harwood Bellis in (loan), young Villa loanee, Lewis Baker and Maja (loan) sound like doing all you can to comply...or doing all you can to avoid the consequences of a breach!!

Will be “interesting “ to see at what price Mel Morris sells Pride Park to Derby’s eventual new owner, and there would be absolutely no takers for a bet that it would be at the valuation used when it was “sold” by DCFC to MM.

At the time of that (more than dubious) valuation/sale figure we read all sorts of reasons bullshit justifying the validity of said valuation. I mentioned at the time that one of the problems was that there is no open market for football stadia where the vendor selling to an unrelated buyer, as exists with the housing market,  and that accordingly, the scope for valuation jiggery pokery was/is huge.

Well, we now have the nearest thing to an open market for Pride Park , as Morris will have no sway or influence as to value, other than his negotiating ability with the buyer of DCFC. Arguments that it is a forced sale due to DCFC administration are bogus, because it is Morris that owns PP, not DCFC, and Morris does not have to sell. It could be argued that Morris is in a strong position , as any buyer of DCFC needs PP - there’s not another similar stadium on the market anywhere in Derbyshire - as far as I am aware.

However, despite this, Morris knows that if DCFC goes to the wall PP is a pretty worthless white elephant, so the sale price will be well below the ffp sale valuation.

If so, then surely it should cause the EFL to vigorously question Stoke’s ( and any other club going down this route) valuation methodology and justification as it could be argued that he MM sells PP to the new owner of DCFC it will establish an open market value from which all other stadium valuations should be determined.

P.S. I suspect it will hole Stoke’s stadium valuation below the water line.

P.P.S If DCFC goes bust, it is possible that the value of PP could be higher than it was previously valued, as it could be redeveloped for another use, but I can’t see other clubs using redevelopment value of their ground if the club goes out of business, as justification for ffp valuation of there stadium!