Davefevs

I agree. I suspect too that we submit accounts to the EFL based on BCH level accounts. I was unsure initially, but the more I’ve read, the more I suspect it to be true. However for pure FFP, I do wonder whether certain things have to be excluded, e.g. non-football related stuff. It is complicated though. I do know that BCFC Ltd, receive nothing from Take That, Rod, Spice Girls, Muse gigs. The other thing is that overall BCH made a loss in 17/18, so as per DownendCity’s post, Lansdown is not trying to hide stuff...he is doing it all above board. He fully understands regulation. We will see next week whether Mel Morris is quite so transparent. As above I suspect Steve Gibson suspects not.

@RIP (rams in peace) that is not strictly true Coppello. I’ve done a fair bit of looking into the accounts. Ultimately all under Steve Lansdown / Pula in some shape or form though. Bristol City Football Club Ltd and Ashton Gate Limited are two separate companies, brought together under Bristol City Holdings. BCH is purely a holding company, undertaking no trading itself. AGL own the Ground, and City (and Bears) pay AGL rent to use it. AGL have an operating profit, but ultimately made a loss last year because of depreciation of the asset and payment of interest on the loan for the ground to SL / Pula. It’s complicated. What SL / Pula / AGL have done is properly value the ground based on the “arms length’” agreement between companies with mutual ownership, e.g. must be done at market value and charge an appropriate rate of interest on the loan. Therein lies the difference between Bristol City / SL and Derby / Mel Morris....who has (allegedly) over-valued Pride Park to create a false profit figure to then offset significant losses on the football side, both companies he is interested in.... ....and Steve Gibson bloody knows it....and next Wednesday he will attempt to convince the other Championship owners of this. I very much suspect he has gained support from SL. I sense this is all about to come to a head....but no idea which side will end up winning.

If true, this is the start of the end, one way or another....either proper professional control implemented by EFL, or a Wild West “do what you want”. I honestly think Gibson is well respected, and will have allies other than Lansdown. I’ve no idea about the true value of Derby’s ground, but it appears they have taken the piss, the EFL have passed it, and Gibson is about to remind them of their rules. Wednesday extending their annual reporting period - no smoke without fire. You can imzgine support from Brentford and Preston too.

I always wondered how they’d implement the projected accounts against the scenario of selling a player in the summer to balance the books. Flawed. Birmingham proved you can undertake a transfer at any time without necessarily getting the registration recorded (Pedersen). Just got to hope Villa or Derby don’t go up.

Agree, no sell off required...their model of several top players (Hernandez etc), but willingness to supplement with young homegrown is spot on for a non-parachute club. £40m income helps though!

Yep, swings and roundabouts of that approach. Their actual accounts (when scanned in) will be interesting.

Expect SL to have MA all over this. Wonder what 18/19’s projected accounts state? 16/17’s were only £7.9m, minus the usual £5m Allowance, so on,y £2.9m loss. Vydra might just have saved them! But they are stuffed next season.

This might be interesting.

Not quite Championship FFP, but Burnley’s successful model

@Mr Popodopolous has beaten me to it this time!!! Each club must report on either a May, June or July year-end. The third years accounts are on a projected basis, submitted early (by 31/3) than financial year end to allow sanctionin the season. Having sorted out Brum for the 3 year period to 17/18, they (the EFL) now have their biggest test....how to apply sanction if a breach has occurred during the current season. They made a pigs ear of the process with Brum because they took too long. Now we know the sanctions for the value of breach, it really ought to simple to view to 2 years accounts plus the projection and enforce sanction soon after the deadline of 31/3. If I were SL I’d be telling LJ to keep fighting til the end of the season even if it looks a lost cause. Three of our rivals may get points deductions late on...whether fair or not so late in the season. I really don’t think any club gave grounds to complain over blatant overspending.

But for Villa that is for the 3 seasons 15/16-17/18, not the current 3 season rolling period 16/17-18/19, where 18/19 will be based on projected accounts.

Think Wolves we’re fine with allowances for promotion bonuses and the usual Academy, etc stuff.

Don’t they have to power to stop promotion / play-offs, I.e. not just give points deduction, which might not be sufficient?

Interesting. Gibson very respected. This is gonna get interesting.

Your 1st para is spot on. If they don’t do it, they have failed the FFP-Abiding clubs....and I do think this is part of the reason MA is now on the board.

Not on any firm ground here, but FA / PL is immaterial here. That only covers whether a player is legitimately allowed to play or not. What will matter is any documents relating to the sale. Those might be one in the same thing as the registration. But if both clubs have signed a “contract” to transfer him, then he’s Cardiff’s player, whether registered or not. Brum signed Perderson without him being registered....was still Brum’s player!!! Tragic whatever the truth. And assuming he was Cardiff’s “asset”, then anyone with any morals associated with the club should resign and hold their heads up high. Will they though!

I wasn’t a million miles out with my tiered point deduction was I !! The Birmingham decision was rediculously delayed from last season, delayed further by a conflict of interest in February. The EFL must sort this out....quickly. Birmingham’s penalties were for seasons up to 17/18. Villa appear to be just inside FFP for season’s up to 17/18. Brum, Villa, Wednesday and Derby now have submitted 18/19’s projected accounts. The EFL FFP panel have the right to act THIS SEASON on those projected accounts plus the previous seasons 16/17 & 17/18. It would be incredibly bad for any of the sides if in breach to command a play-off spot based on the (now) published table of points deductions, should they not achieve enough points minus the deduction. Imho, the Brum decision has set the precedent. I think there could be a mutiny amongst other EFL clubs if the projected accounts are NOT used THIS SEASON. I see no point in submitting projected accounts if they aren’t to be used in the season they refer to. The EFL have show one ball, they now need to show both.

Think it might require an aggravated breach to apply to next season. I guess they need to make the rules transparent, e.g. upto £3m - 3points upto £5m - 5points upto £8m - 9points upto £12m - 12points AND if in top 6, removal from Promotion or Playoff irrespective of where reduction of points places you. On top of this, aggravated (to be defined), same points punishments as above but applied to next season. So take Brum, Imagine they are £7m over in projected accounts, then 9 point deduction this season, but aggravated by Pedersen and failure to sell Adams...then 9 point deduction start of next season. I’m sure there are flaws in the above, but sone visibility of the penalties would make sense.

I guess they should position their punishments accordingly, e.g. there has been mention of applying points deductions to the current season and the next season too. I do like the simplicity of your punishment....why not go the whole hog, and relegate them regardless....like they did to Swindon.

I just hope it all comes out in the March meeting...and we see some some real tangible application of the FFP rules. It would be good to see a few of the chasing pack put back in their place, after our recent results have given them a sniff!

Ah, ok....wasn’t sure what you were including in wage reduction. I think there’s a good chance Hogan’s loan fee was 7 figures. But as you say, you’ve probably been generous elsewhere.

Re Fire Sale on relegation....this is where clubs need to be smarter with their contracts in terms if adding relegation clauses, e.g 40% wage reduction. The flip-side is recruiting players who’ll accept that clause in their contract. I guess this is where we utilised that type of clause with Nathan Baker. Very few if not any of us know his terms, but we speculate from stories that he was on approx £30-35k per week with Villa in the Prem and took a 40% cut on relegation, so £18-21k, which brought him into our “pond”. In fairness to Sunderland re Rodwell, if you ignore that £70k was a stupid amount, they had a one year suspended clause....almost an incentive that they’d only apply the reduction if they failed to get promoted back. I actually think this was quite sensible, but looks disastrous as not only did they not go back up, they got relegated again!! But three years is plenty of time to sort out your budgets, move on players, etc. That is what I think will mean they do punish the likes of Brum or Villa....if they don’t set a precedent, then it will be a free-for-all next season. Would the above include loaning Hogan out for example?

With a name like that it’s all Greek to me!!!! ?

Yes, a common mistake of not understanding the difference between cash flow and p&l / FFP.

No, just under “other costs”