The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now I'm not pinning anything on this. Not at all.

However rumours in the Saturday papers that Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday may all face points deductions for breaching FFP. Unclear if it would be for this season, or next season.

Would also depend on size of losses, their conduct after a breach discovered, whether they made genuine efforts to offset. Aston Villa should if in breach at the numbers posted online have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday punished but seemingly with lower losses and Derby the hardest to gauge because of their big sales in recent years. Also Marriott and Waghorn who effectively replaced Vydra and Weimann, would surely have been on lower wages than the ones they replaced.

All IMO of course.

 

Now I've not yet read the EFL judgement in full but I don't know if this is official or an estimate based on likelihood, using Birmingham as a template. Saw it on Kieran Maguire's feed, @ploehmann

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now I'm not pinning anything on this. Not at all.

However rumours in the Saturday papers that Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday may all face points deductions for breaching FFP. Unclear if it would be for this season, or next season.

Would also depend on size of losses, their conduct after a breach discovered, whether they made genuine efforts to offset. Aston Villa should if in breach at the numbers posted online have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday punished but seemingly with lower losses and Derby the hardest to gauge because of their big sales in recent years. Also Marriott and Waghorn who effectively replaced Vydra and Weimann, would surely have been on lower wages than the ones they replaced.

All IMO of course.

 

Now I've not yet read the EFL judgement in full but I don't know if this is official or an estimate based on likelihood, using Birmingham as a template. Saw it on Kieran Maguire's feed, @ploehmann

I would be amazed if any further points deductions are made this season.

But that is based entirely on me thinking... surely they would have done them all at the same time.

If they did apply points deductions, then this division is going to be a strange one this season  - especially if Bolton don't get a new owner.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Bristol Rob

[Mr Popodopolous]

27 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I would be amazed if any further points deductions are made this season.

But that is based entirely on me thinking... surely they would have done them all at the same time.

If they did apply points deductions, then this division is going to be a strange one this season  - especially if Bolton don't get a new owner.

I mean, the idea of club projected accounts for the existing season in March should have that base covered.. 

In reality I agree though- given how long it took the EFL for a relatively straightforward case like Birmingham, for a breach to the prior 3 seasons to May 2018?

Makes me wonder if though the rules are sound, the EFL have the basic competence and dexterity to enforce them in a correct and more importantly timely manner.

Still one article said cut off date for sanctions is 26th March 2019 so we'll see...

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I mean, the idea of club projected accounts for the existing season in March should have that base covered.. 

In reality I agree though- given how long it took the EFL for a relatively straightforward case like Birmingham, for a breach to the prior 3 seasons to May 2018?

Makes me wonder if though the rules are sound, the EFL have the basic competence and dexterity to enforce them in a correct and more importantly timely manner.

Still one article said cut off date for sanctions is 26th March 2019 so we'll see...

Price Of Football suggested on the weekend that Villa might just be within the limits.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Price Of Football suggested on the weekend that Villa might just be within the limits.

I read the piece in q and it appeared to be for the 3 seasons until last season.

I reckon that without a legitimate and accepted exceptional item being in this seasons accounts? That they'll be £20-30m over in the period covering their 3 years at this level.

Will show my workings later and yes some assumptions lie within.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Price Of Football suggested on the weekend that Villa might just be within the limits.

If that's the case I need the name and address of Villa's accountants so I can get them to do my next tax return!

[Mr Popodopolous]

55 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If that's the case I need the name and address of Villa's accountants so I can get them to do my next tax return!

I believe it to only be the limits for 15/16-last season, which is roughly where I thought they maybe.

The limits to this season- these pose the huge challenge. Think after FFP deductions, they have smashed it- lost somewhere between 60-77% of their 3 limit this season alone!

Still going to do my calculations but if they have breached it, and them especially given their arrogance, I hope they get points removed this season. Can't get away with it.

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now I'm not pinning anything on this. Not at all.

However rumours in the Saturday papers that Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday may all face points deductions for breaching FFP. Unclear if it would be for this season, or next season.

Would also depend on size of losses, their conduct after a breach discovered, whether they made genuine efforts to offset. Aston Villa should if in breach at the numbers posted online have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday punished but seemingly with lower losses and Derby the hardest to gauge because of their big sales in recent years. Also Marriott and Waghorn who effectively replaced Vydra and Weimann, would surely have been on lower wages than the ones they replaced.

All IMO of course.

 

Now I've not yet read the EFL judgement in full but I don't know if this is official or an estimate based on likelihood, using Birmingham as a template. Saw it on Kieran Maguire's feed, @ploehmann

I wasn’t a million miles out with my tiered point deduction was I !!

5 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

I would be amazed if any further points deductions are made this season.

But that is based entirely on me thinking... surely they would have done them all at the same time.

If they did apply points deductions, then this division is going to be a strange one this season  - especially if Bolton don't get a new owner.

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

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.

Agree, the projected accounts thing must be enforced.

By rights, if I was Barnsley or Burton who were well within FFP? Fuming! Birmingham in breach for the 3 years and eventually this was delayed by nearly a year.

Well done BTW on the sliding scale- pretty close indeed. Will look at them both later but it seemed on point.

[downendcity]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree, the projected accounts thing must be enforced.

By rights, if I was Barnsley or Burton who were well within FFP? Fuming! Birmingham in breach for the 3 years and eventually this was delayed by nearly a year.

Well done BTW on the sliding scale- pretty close indeed. Will look at them both later but it seemed on point.

My understanding is that under the new rules projected accounts were required so that offending clubs could be identified, punished and penalised during the same season in order to avoid the farce that existed previously, whereby a club could gain promotion as a result of breaching ffp, by which time it was too late for the EFL to do anything about it.

For the new rules to have any credibility they must be applied across the board and to all clubs.This is crunch time for ffp in my opinion, and the reason why I think they must punish offending clubs hard. It's not so much punishing clubs for the sake of punishing them, or because we don't like the club, but because it is the only way that clubs will realise they must comply going forward and that means running their financial affairs the right way. 

Until now, I feel that there are some big clubs that have taken the view that they will worry about ffp issues when they arise, so have continued to spend as they see fit to give them the best competitive edge. That is treating the other clubs, that are trying to ensure they comply, with complete contempt and unless offenders are addressed and properly punished, the other clubs would be entitled to think that ffp is not worth the paper it's written on.

Parachute payments mean that there will always be clubs with a huge financial advantage in the championship. The correct application of ffp will at least ensure that there is a little bit more of a level playing field for clubs lie us.

 

[Davefevs]

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

57 minutes ago, downendcity said:

My understanding is that under the new rules projected accounts were required so that offending clubs could be identified, punished and penalised during the same season in order to avoid the farce that existed previously, whereby a club could gain promotion as a result of breaching ffp, by which time it was too late for the EFL to do anything about it.

For the new rules to have any credibility they must be applied across the board and to all clubs.This is crunch time for ffp in my opinion, and the reason why I think they must punish offending clubs hard. It's not so much punishing clubs for the sake of punishing them, or because we don't like the club, but because it is the only way that clubs will realise they must comply going forward and that means running their financial affairs the right way. 

Until now, I feel that there are some big clubs that have taken the view that they will worry about ffp issues when they arise, so have continued to spend as they see fit to give them the best competitive edge. That is treating the other clubs, that are trying to ensure they comply, with complete contempt and unless offenders are addressed and properly punished, the other clubs would be entitled to think that ffp is not worth the paper it's written on.

Parachute payments mean that there will always be clubs with a huge financial advantage in the championship. The correct application of ffp will at least ensure that there is a little bit more of a level playing field for clubs lie us.

 

That was the exact reason for the projected accounts.

I fully agree, it has to be implented without fear or favour. As per the sliding scale that seemingly is the formula that I found earlier.

I would expect Aston Villa for example to get more hammered than Derby say as their losses seem to be higher and Derby selling the players they sold shows an effort of some sort, whereas Aston Villa have done nothing of the sort.

[Davefevs]

Interesting. 

Gibson very respected.  This is gonna get interesting.

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That was the exact reason for the projected accounts.

I fully agree, it has to be implented without fear or favour. As per the sliding scale that seemingly is the formula that I found earlier.

I would expect Aston Villa for example to get more hammered than Derby say as their losses seem to be higher and Derby selling the players they sold shows an effort of some sort, whereas Aston Villa have done nothing of the sort.

There's only one thing about the sliding scale of penalty.

Suppose a club knows it is running close to the ffp limits at the end of season two of the three year cycle, but goes for broke by paying a big fee and big wages for a striker in the summer window. The amortised fee and wages total £4m, which is enough to take them £4m over the ffp limit. According to the sliding scale you posted, this would result in a a 5 point deduction, but if the strikers goals meant that the club had a 6 point cushion at the top of the table at the end of the season, then even with the points deduction they would still gain promotion. They would have gained promotion by cheating if the rest of the division was compliant.

By the same token, suppose another club has worked diligently to keep within ffp and sold key players to do so.In the third year of the three year cycle they are struggling near the foot of the table, as they have only a young and inexperienced squad, but at the start of the season their main sponsor goes bust so they  do not receive any of that sponsorship income for the final season. With the sponsors income they would be inside ffp limits, but without it they end up £200,000 over the limit. The sliding scale 3 point penalty is enough to relegate them as they were just 2 points above the drop zone.

In the case of the relegated club, they breached because of factors outside of their control, whereas the promoted club gained advantage by consciously breaking ffp limits, but in so doing gained enough points advantage so that the ffp point deduction was no penalty at all. The impact of the bigger points deduction is nothing compared to that of the lesser points deduction and disproportional to the reasons for each club breaching the ffp limits.

For this reason, and even though I can understand the problems it could/would cause, the only way I can see ffp offenders being properly and family punished is by each case being considered on it's own merits. Why should any club gain promotion if they have  breached the financial limits to which the rest of the division have adhered ?

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, downendcity said:

There's only one thing about the sliding scale of penalty.

Suppose a club knows it is running close to the ffp limits at the end of season two of the three year cycle, but goes for broke by paying a big fee and big wages for a striker in the summer window. The amortised fee and wages total £4m, which is enough to take them £4m over the ffp limit. According to the sliding scale you posted, this would result in a a 5 point deduction, but if the strikers goals meant that the club had a 6 point cushion at the top of the table at the end of the season, then even with the points deduction they would still gain promotion. They would have gained promotion by cheating if the rest of the division was compliant.

By the same token, suppose another club has worked diligently to keep within ffp and sold key players to do so.In the third year of the three year cycle they are struggling near the foot of the table, as they have only a young and inexperienced squad, but at the start of the season their main sponsor goes bust so they  do not receive any of that sponsorship income for the final season. With the sponsors income they would be inside ffp limits, but without it they end up £200,000 over the limit. The sliding scale 3 point penalty is enough to relegate them as they were just 2 points above the drop zone.

In the case of the relegated club, they breached because of factors outside of their control, whereas the promoted club gained advantage by consciously breaking ffp limits, but in so doing gained enough points advantage so that the ffp point deduction was no penalty at all. The impact of the bigger points deduction is nothing compared to that of the lesser points deduction and disproportional to the reasons for each club breaching the ffp limits.

For this reason, and even though I can understand the problems it could/would cause, the only way I can see ffp offenders being properly and family punished is by each case being considered on it's own merits. Why should any club gain promotion if they have  breached the financial limits to which the rest of the division have adhered ?

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

[Mr Popodopolous]

54 minutes ago, downendcity said:

There's only one thing about the sliding scale of penalty.

Suppose a club knows it is running close to the ffp limits at the end of season two of the three year cycle, but goes for broke by paying a big fee and big wages for a striker in the summer window. The amortised fee and wages total £4m, which is enough to take them £4m over the ffp limit. According to the sliding scale you posted, this would result in a a 5 point deduction, but if the strikers goals meant that the club had a 6 point cushion at the top of the table at the end of the season, then even with the points deduction they would still gain promotion. They would have gained promotion by cheating if the rest of the division was compliant.

By the same token, suppose another club has worked diligently to keep within ffp and sold key players to do so.In the third year of the three year cycle they are struggling near the foot of the table, as they have only a young and inexperienced squad, but at the start of the season their main sponsor goes bust so they  do not receive any of that sponsorship income for the final season. With the sponsors income they would be inside ffp limits, but without it they end up £200,000 over the limit. The sliding scale 3 point penalty is enough to relegate them as they were just 2 points above the drop zone.

In the case of the relegated club, they breached because of factors outside of their control, whereas the promoted club gained advantage by consciously breaking ffp limits, but in so doing gained enough points advantage so that the ffp point deduction was no penalty at all. The impact of the bigger points deduction is nothing compared to that of the lesser points deduction and disproportional to the reasons for each club breaching the ffp limits.

For this reason, and even though I can understand the problems it could/would cause, the only way I can see ffp offenders being properly and family punished is by each case being considered on it's own merits. Why should any club gain promotion if they have  breached the financial limits to which the rest of the division have adhered ?

That is a good point that- each case on its own merits, with the points deduction sliding scale as a guide, a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

Maybe one option.

Surely the £4m could class as an aggravated breach though, or no points added back on for good behaviour? Because if you know you are going to breach and do it anyway, it'd be seen as deliberate, based on that graphic I saw by @ploehmann I think it was?

@Davefevs Gibson and Lansdown doesn't surprise. Nottingham Forest too in a way- because Marinakis for all of the claims about him in Greece, or the fact he can be quite trigger happy with managers...I've always considered he may well be respectful of FFP. He kept Olympiakos sufficently compliant to get into CL each year, read online that under their prior owner/President...it would certainly not have been the case!

The Evening Post article has one error though- Wolves were close to the 3 year FFP limit, but promotion bonuses do not count towards costs, nor do other promotion costs- they were probably a couple to a few £mn off breaching it. Whether that aspect needs looking at, who knows but they did not breach it most likely.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

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

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Interesting. 

Gibson very respected.  This is gonna get interesting.

Up till now I think many have thought that the EFL's problem might be a club taking them to court over a "harsh" points penalty and the EFL ducking out to avoid any such problems.

If SL's group builds up a head of steam, the EFL's bigger worry could come from the rest of the clubs taking action if they feel an offending club has been treated too leniently!

If it does come to legal action perhaps Sl could employ a different solicitor from the one he used to fight the Ashton Vale case!

Edited March 25, 2019 by downendcity

[Mr Popodopolous]

Dunno how well this comes out but here are some estimates for Aston Villa- based on calculations of transfer profit, parachute payments and yes some guesswork- e.g. how much their FFP exclusions maybe, based on a mix of averages combined with what their accounts do indicate.

Transfermarkt is used for Contract lengths and fees- possibly a bit of rounding involved but if you can get it in £ then it's a useful enough source.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

Projected accounts , can anyone tell me how it works .

Say Villa's projected accounts include player sales, maybe £35m , and they then predict they will be within FFP. What if they get promoted, they could then do the exact opposite. What I'm trying to say, is what is stopping a club from putting in optimistic ( call them that to be kind) projected accounts, then after promotion they turn out to be way off ? 

[Guest Rapax]

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I believe it to only be the limits for 15/16-last season, which is roughly where I thought they maybe.

The limits to this season- these pose the huge challenge. Think after FFP deductions, they have smashed it- lost somewhere between 60-77% of their 3 limit this season alone!

Still going to do my calculations but if they have breached it, and them especially given their arrogance, I hope they get points removed this season. Can't get away with it.

Villa's allowable losses are £61m as the three year period still includes a part of the season in the Premier League. Price of Football confirms the loss for FFP purposes is £58.6m, so they've not breached FFP. 

 

Neither have Sheffield Wednesday or Derby, only Birmingham have, as the EFL confirmed. They'll all have to fo something different if they dont get promoted.

Why anybody would believe garbage in the Mail or the S*n I don't know.

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Rapax

[Major Isewater]

On 08/03/2019 at 14:12, downendcity said:

One thing that appears obvious when looking at Villa's situation is how parachute payments enable a relegated club to "fund" attempts to gain promotion straight back to the prem thereby gaining a massive advantage over many championship clubs.. I know this probably sounds like teaching granny to suck eggs, as you will all know that already.

However, the reason I mention this now, is that there has been an understandable concern that when it comes to a "big" club, like Villa, the EFL will duck out of hitting them really hard, especially when it comes to points deduction. 

My thinking is that any club relegated from the prem knows the implications of ffp in the football league, and even though it means some major re-adjustment ( wages in particular),  parachute payments give them additional money over 3 years to help manage that readjustment, so they don't have to hold a fire sale in the summer following relegation. With parachute payments I cannot see how any club cannot, in a 3 year period, bring their finances in line with the requirements of ffp, as every other club in the championship has to do.

If they choose to use parachute payments to maintain an expensive playing staff, but without the same level of income they enjoyed in the prem, then they know the potential consequences should they fail to gain promotion and then fall foul of ffp assessment, as looks to be the case with Villa.

The danger of letting Villa off lightly ( assuming they breach ffp of course) is that it creates a precedent for every other relegated club to use parachute payments to fund a 3 years assault on promotion on the basis that relegation and the ultimate loss of parachute payments will somehow be looked upon as a reason for the financial problems.

 

Parachute payments are all that is wrong with football today . 

There is little incentive to balance the books when you reach the summit because trying to stay in the Prem is everything.

Going down with the ‘ safety net ‘ of three years payments  just encourages those clubs to keep throwing more money at a promotion tilt in the hope that they go back up before they hit the skids.

Great for those who do but very bad news for the unsuccessful clubs .

Then there is the ‘ knock on ‘ effect where clubs are going broke just trying  to compete with these former Prem clubs in the Championship.

If the EFL and the Prem are really interested in the game as a whole , which I doubt , then they would find a more balanced solution . FFP  is like trying to put out a volcano with a bucket of water.

30 minutes ago, Rapax said:

Villa's allowable losses are £61m as the three year period still includes a part of the season in the Premier League. Price of Football confirms the loss for FFP purposes is £58.6m, so they've not breached FFP. 

 

Neither have Sheffield Wednesday or Derby, only Birmingham have, as the EFL confirmed. They'll all have to fo something different if they dont get promoted.

Why anybody would believe garbage in the Mail or the S*n I don't know.

 

I won’t believe it until I’ve read it in the Post. 

[Davefevs]

47 minutes ago, Rapax said:

Villa's allowable losses are £61m as the three year period still includes a part of the season in the Premier League. Price of Football confirms the loss for FFP purposes is £58.6m, so they've not breached FFP. 

 

Neither have Sheffield Wednesday or Derby, only Birmingham have, as the EFL confirmed. They'll all have to fo something different if they dont get promoted.

Why anybody would believe garbage in the Mail or the S*n I don't know.

 

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. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Projected accounts , can anyone tell me how it works .

Say Villa's projected accounts include player sales, maybe £35m , and they then predict they will be within FFP. What if they get promoted, they could then do the exact opposite. What I'm trying to say, is what is stopping a club from putting in optimistic ( call them that to be kind) projected accounts, then after promotion they turn out to be way off ? 

They submit them in the existing season- maybe March- and looking at Aston Villa they haven't even made £35m in incoming fees, reduced amortisation and probably wage reduction combined- let alone transfer profit! The two transfer periods will have already been accounted for by the time the projected accounts submitted I believe.

1 hour ago, Rapax said:

Villa's allowable losses are £61m as the three year period still includes a part of the season in the Premier League. Price of Football confirms the loss for FFP purposes is £58.6m, so they've not breached FFP. 

 

Neither have Sheffield Wednesday or Derby, only Birmingham have, as the EFL confirmed. They'll all have to fo something different if they dont get promoted.

Why anybody would believe garbage in the Mail or the S*n I don't know.

 

Dave beat me to the punch but that's the 3 years to last season- reckon Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday at the minimum will be in breach for this season, that is the 3 years from 2016/17-2018/19 and maybe Derby but that is a bit less clear.

 

50 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Parachute payments are all that is wrong with football today . 

There is little incentive to balance the books when you reach the summit because trying to stay in the Prem is everything.

Going down with the ‘ safety net ‘ of three years payments  just encourages those clubs to keep throwing more money at a promotion tilt in the hope that they go back up before they hit the skids.

Great for those who do but very bad news for the unsuccessful clubs .

Then there is the ‘ knock on ‘ effect where clubs are going broke just trying  to compete with these former Prem clubs in the Championship.

If the EFL and the Prem are really interested in the game as a whole , which I doubt , then they would find a more balanced solution . FFP  is like trying to put out a volcano with a bucket of water.

I won’t believe it until I’ve read it in the Post. 

Don't agree- reluctantly would class them as a necessary evil and all that crap.

They do two things- if you don't have parachute payments then what incentive is there for a newly promoted side to even try? None because falls of £100m-£7-8m in TV income puts most clubs into admin. Secondly, well the first and the second cross over- I'd reform parachute payments but I don't know if there is a strong case for scrapping them in full. The other thing is they used to be pretty modest perhaps 10 20 years ago- now they're huge especially in years 1 and 2- which I agree creates a big distortion.

31 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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. 

You beat me to it but yes! This will be the big test especially if Aston Villa finish in the top 6.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Grey Fox]

A'm starting to like this fair play rule.

Should the FA have the balls to manage it properly surely this must lead , in the Championship at least, to pressure for clubs over a period to cut the rediculous level of player wages and associated costs such as agents fees, encourage the use of youngsters from the academies, and basically make the clubs more secure, avoiding future Bolton's?

 

And if they can get rid of all our play off rivals............

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

A'm starting to like this fair play rule.

Should the FA have the balls to manage it properly surely this must lead , in the Championship at least, to pressure for clubs over a period to cut the rediculous level of player wages and associated costs such as agents fees, encourage the use of youngsters from the academies, and basically make the clubs more secure, avoiding future Bolton's?

 

And if they can get rid of all our play off rivals............

Ironically, Bolton probably aren't in 3 year breach, yet their issue is cash flow- or skint basically, whereas the 2 Birmingham clubs, and possibly Derby and Sheffield Wednesday the issue is the reverse.

However, that unusual case aside? I fully concur!

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest Rapax]

54 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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. 

Accounts are up to February each year. This season will fall into next year accounts and so on.

[downendcity]

14 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

A'm starting to like this fair play rule.

Should the FA have the balls to manage it properly surely this must lead , in the Championship at least, to pressure for clubs over a period to cut the rediculous level of player wages and associated costs such as agents fees, encourage the use of youngsters from the academies, and basically make the clubs more secure, avoiding future Bolton's?

 

And if they can get rid of all our play off rivals............

You would hope that would be the case.

However, the danger is that it would skew even more the disparity between the relegated clubs enjoying huge parachute payments and the rest that do not.

[Guest Rapax]

The EFL have stated that only Birmingham breached the rules. Their Judgment mentions their conduct as they're also the only ones stupid enough to ignore the EFL too.

Nobody else has breached. They'll all have to cut costs if none of them go up, likely wages I expect given what POF has for their average player pay.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Rapax

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, Rapax said:

Accounts are up to February each year. This season will fall into next year accounts and so on.

Where do you get that timescale from?

Clubs have to submit projected accounts to the EFL in order to enable the possibility of punishment in the existing season...

By March, clubs will roughly know their incomings and outgoings over the course of a season.

Pay particular attention to the bits in bold.

Quote

 

16.17

The Future Financial Information shall:

16.17.1

be prepared in accordance with the accounting principles adopted in the preparation of the Championship Club’s annual accounts (except where the accounting principles and policies are to be changed in the subsequent annual accounts, in which case the new accounting principles and policies should be followed);

16.17.2

be approved in writing by the board of directors of the company to which they relate;

16.17.3

include in the explanatory notes thereto principal assumptions and risks; and

16.17.4

include for comparison profit and loss accounts for the period covered by the Annual Accounts and interim accounts submitted pursuant to Regulation 16.2 and 16.11, a forecast for the current financial year and a balance sheet as at the date of the interim accounts submitted pursuant to Regulation 16.11.

 

 

 

Quote

2.8.1       the Club shall provide, by 31^st March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the 2006 Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information;

 

Quote

 

Clubs’ Financial Records

16.1

All Clubs shall keep their financial records in accordance with the provisions of The Football Association Rules and The League may arrange for an inspection of all such books.

16.2

Each Club shall submit a copy of its Annual Accounts (as defined in Regulation 16.3 below) to The League, but in any event:

16.2.1

by no later than 1st March following the end of the financial year to which those Annual Accounts relate (in the case of a Championship Club); or

16.2.2

by no later than the date on which the Club is required to file its accounts at Companies House (in case of League One and League Two Clubs).

16.3

For the purposes of this Regulation 16, Annual Accounts means the annual accounts in respect of the Club’s most recent financial year (such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditor’s report (if any) on those accounts.

16.4

If the Club considers it appropriate, or The League so requests, the Annual Accounts required to be submitted in accordance with Regulation 16.2 shall relate to the Group of which the Club is a member.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, Rapax said:

Accounts are up to February each year. This season will fall into next year accounts and so on.

@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. 

[Major Isewater]

42 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@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. 

Would be a miracle if the EFL actually did something that might help little old Bristol City , more likely they will hold off until it becomes clear that a more fashionable club will benefit.

Chip on my shoulder ?

Damn straight .

Think Diedhiou’s ‘ spitting ‘ incident, Bailey Wright being sent off after having been fouled, you get the picture.

 

[Busterrimes]

12 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Would be a miracle if the EFL actually did something that might help little old Bristol City , more likely they will hold off until it becomes clear that a more fashionable club will benefit.

Chip on my shoulder ?

Damn straight .

Think Diedhiou’s ‘ spitting ‘ incident, Bailey Wright being sent off after having been fouled, you get the picture.

 

Major, you are confusing EFL and FA there. The two incidents you mention were dealt with by the FA not the EFL

[Major Isewater]

2 hours ago, Busterrimes said:

Major, you are confusing EFL and FA there. The two incidents you mention were dealt with by the FA not the EFL

Thank you for your clarification but we all know that the end result is the same.

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is interesting.

Saw this graphic after Bournemouth's results announced- these presumably are operating results before player trading etc. PL the gravytrain? Not quite always...Graphic provided by Kieran Maguire. Yet the wage control on a number of those is fine and more than fine...presumably Player Cost comprises Wages + Amortisation as a % of Turnover.

This comes in a time of record TV deals plus with 2 of those clubs who made operating losses having benefits of CL football- Chelsea and Man City. Now the latter will be in the CL for a long time to come, but the former- they posted a record profit, yet underlying numbers may not be so great. Arsenal too- of late a posterboy for FFP- could actually be heading towards tricky waters if they don't reach CL again this season.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Not quite Championship FFP, but Burnley’s successful model

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Burnley showing the way for those outside the elite! I reckon (subject to wealth of owners) If they wished they could really push the boat out next season if they survive, if they really wanted to try and have a crack at getting close to Wolves then they could- bravo to them!

Huddersfield made about £25-30m in profit last season too. It either hasn't been invested well or much on the pitch though but they are all about trying to be as sustainable as possible.

2 good models- think the latter (Huddersfield) spent a decent amount on helping add infrastructure etc, something like £20m on a training ground announced this season- they remind me in terms of the benefits of an unexpected promotion to Blackpool, but the difference is they have a superb owner who is a fan and should be in a good place for years to come. Plus they have a better and bigger ground with facilities than Blackpool already in place.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[SinéadB]

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bear in mind promotion bonuses don't count...that will surely have been factored into the wages.

Plus Infrastructure Investment etc don't count towards FFP- it looks bad but wouldn't surprise if they were just the right side of the line. They've been or have started building a new training ground- again doesn't count towards FFP losses. 

Also, Fulham Leisure and Fulham FC accounts while broadly similar aren't identical- the real one to look out for according to Kieran Maguire is what appears to be their holding company- Cougar Holdco London Limited. When they release and Fulham FC release, the full picture will (well should hopefully) become apparent!

Edited March 29, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Results for Bolton, Brentford, Derby, Leeds and WBA due today.

Or maybe more likely submitted today and filtering out in the next day or 2.

Sheffield Wednesday's were due the end of February but they got a 2 month extension of their accounting year so the end of April the new due date- mustn't be good news...

Edited April 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

WBA lost £7.5m last season according to news slipping out, but their accounts not yet published in full.

Now they shouldn't be in trouble until next season at the earliest due to a load of factors- all depends how much the owners are willing to put in. That loss though was a huge downturn though from a profit of £39.7m in 2016/17.

[downendcity]

On 01/04/2019 at 09:08, Mr Popodopolous said:

Results for Bolton, Brentford, Derby, Leeds and WBA due today.

Or maybe more likely submitted today and filtering out in the next day or 2.

Sheffield Wednesday's were due the end of February but they got a 2 month extension of their accounting year so the end of April the new due date- mustn't be good news...

I thought that all clubs are required to provide projected accounts for the 3rd year for ffp by 31st March.

If they are projected accounts it doesn't matter when the club's accounting year end is and the EFL should by now have received all clubs accounts. If a club has not submitted the required financial information by the deadline should that not incur some sort of penalty ( as would be the case if you or I don;t submit tax returns by the HMRC deadline) and if a club breaches ffp, and is late submitting accounts, could the EFL apply additional penalty e.g. a fine?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I thought that all clubs are required to provide projected accounts for the 3rd year for ffp by 31st March.

If they are projected accounts it doesn't matter when the club's accounting year end is and the EFL should by now have received all clubs accounts. If a club has not submitted the required financial information by the deadline should that not incur some sort of penalty ( as would be the case if you or I don;t submit tax returns by the HMRC deadline) and if a club breaches ffp, and is late submitting accounts, could the EFL apply additional penalty e.g. a fine?

 

Yeah true- I just meant from our perspective it'd be difficult to find out. 

Likely they have to submit projected accounts to the EFL and actual financial info ahead of Companies House stuff- it's quite confusing IMO but either way even if the EFL have it, it's not good for transparency. Probably get fined by Companies House.

[Coppello]

On 27/03/2019 at 09:51, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is interesting.

Saw this graphic after Bournemouth's results announced- these presumably are operating results before player trading etc. PL the gravytrain? Not quite always...Graphic provided by Kieran Maguire. Yet the wage control on a number of those is fine and more than fine...presumably Player Cost comprises Wages + Amortisation as a % of Turnover.

This comes in a time of record TV deals plus with 2 of those clubs who made operating losses having benefits of CL football- Chelsea and Man City. Now the latter will be in the CL for a long time to come, but the former- they posted a record profit, yet underlying numbers may not be so great. Arsenal too- of late a posterboy for FFP- could actually be heading towards tricky waters if they don't reach CL again this season.

When the most recent TV deal was announced, the Premier League introduced a short-term cost control element to the FFP reporting. This basically meant that, if a club had wage costs of over £67m, these costs could only be increased by £7m year-on-year. This doesn't sound a lot when you consider it works out as £135k per week but this threshold can be supplemented by the Company's Own Revenue Uplift (CORU).

This can be calculated as the average player trading profit from the past three years OR uplift in commercial revenues. This was put in place to dissuade clubs from splashing all of the additional TV money on wages. In reality, the rules are very easy to get around and is one of the reasons why you're seeing clubs have an official tractor sponsor or the signing of other odd commercial deals. Since this was introduced, no Premier League club has failed this test and it is being removed next year. 

In addition, if a Premier League club wanted to obtain a UEFA license to enter a European competition, it can only make a loss of £105m over the past three seasons. Again, this is quite a difficult threshold to breach and does not necessarily put off many clubs. 

With Premier League TV revenues stalling, I think we've hit the ceiling and we will not continue to see wage and transfer records broken year after year. When the broadcasting rights are put up for auction in a few years, the market may be shook up again but I think international TV companies are becoming less interested.. Current FFP rules are very far from penalising a lot of clubs and therefore we will not see a huge change in the figures seen above over the next few years. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Smoke and mirrors time...

Derby posted a £14.6m profit for last season despite only £3m in profit on player sales...staff costs up by £5.9m and whereas turnover rose only £600,000.

I'm not saying they breached FFP as such- what I am suggesting is that their profit is totally bogus. Estimates online suggest that their 'true' loss was more like £24.4m- again not suggesting they breached FFP over the 3 years just to be clear, maybe just the right side of the line but maybe £40m of 'income' should be stripped out.

Essentially Mel Morris purchased Pride Park through a separate company owned by him- and leased it back- if this counts as income under FFP or legit under FFP, then the whole system is ******. They haven't yet released their full accounts- still waiting on Bolton, Leeds too- WBA have submitted and they are being processed. Derby have not yet released their full accounts.

Brentford released theirs, made a loss of about £3.86m though if it wasn't for profit on player sales, that'd have been not far off £19m.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[CyderInACan]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Essentially Mel Morris purchased Pride Park through a separate company owned by him- and leased it back- if this counts as income under FFP or legit under FFP, then the whole system is ******

Now that would be a shocker if that was allowed! No different to Pula Sports (or whatever it's called) paying £50m for naming rights to AG!

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Now that would be a shocker if that was allowed! No different to Pula Sports (or whatever it's called) paying £50m for naming rights to AG!

Exactly right.

At market rates it would be permissible- e.g. £41m to purchase Pride Park said the report, whereas he via another company of his paid £80m. Subtract the difference from the profit, then £24.6m losses is my estimate.

FFP is out the window if it is allowed. Like I say they may not be in actual breach, but it would restrict them somewhat if rules enforced correctly.

Yep, indeed said in BBC report- just to reiterate- that Pride Park purchased for £80m, asset value £41m. If it was some billionaire who wanted to buy the ground for no discernible reason, say from Venezuela- Mr Maduro looking for a bolthole for some cash, a hedge- ethically dodgy but legal probably, definitely no connection to Derby it would surely count as a legit profit- but so blatant as not even to be a third party company but a company owned by Mel Morris is just laughable.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The other interesting take on the Derby forum which I have skim read, is that they undervalued by nearly 50% Pride Park in their accounts- if it truly is worth £80m, then how would that fit??

Either way, it looks interesting...

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Coppello said:

When the most recent TV deal was announced, the Premier League introduced a short-term cost control element to the FFP reporting. This basically meant that, if a club had wage costs of over £67m, these costs could only be increased by £7m year-on-year. This doesn't sound a lot when you consider it works out as £135k per week but this threshold can be supplemented by the Company's Own Revenue Uplift (CORU).

This can be calculated as the average player trading profit from the past three years OR uplift in commercial revenues. This was put in place to dissuade clubs from splashing all of the additional TV money on wages. In reality, the rules are very easy to get around and is one of the reasons why you're seeing clubs have an official tractor sponsor or the signing of other odd commercial deals. Since this was introduced, no Premier League club has failed this test and it is being removed next year. 

In addition, if a Premier League club wanted to obtain a UEFA license to enter a European competition, it can only make a loss of £105m over the past three seasons. Again, this is quite a difficult threshold to breach and does not necessarily put off many clubs. 

With Premier League TV revenues stalling, I think we've hit the ceiling and we will not continue to see wage and transfer records broken year after year. When the broadcasting rights are put up for auction in a few years, the market may be shook up again but I think international TV companies are becoming less interested.. Current FFP rules are very far from penalising a lot of clubs and therefore we will not see a huge change in the figures seen above over the next few years. 

 

That's interesting stuff, thanks- especially the bit about STCC being removed.

I thought UEFA FFP had a breakeven requirement over 3 years, or is that all change again?

The operating losses I am interested in there for different reasons are Chelsea and Arsenal- pre player sales, then also factoring out other one off income, one off costs etc.

Chelsea because they had CL revenue and still had to have huge profits on transfers to get admittedly their record profit. I reckon their profit on transfers fallen by 40-50% this season, UEFA Europa League revenue despite improvements will be about £25-30m lower I suspect and though amortisation removed through sales and contracts that expired, plenty added too! if they don't make a return in the next 2 seasons, they could be in danger of breaching even the PL one, let alone the UEFA one, assuming the breakeven thing still exists.

Arsenal because for a long time and especially 5-6 years ago under Wenger they were the UK model for FFP. By far- yet if they miss top four this year, the equation has potential to change there too and that given where they were at a few years ago, is truly unbelievable.

I don't have time to do my own, certainly not at this time but here's one I saw online...

CL qualification vital for Arsenal- incredible they're even in a conversation that they could have got themselves into that position given as I said, how big on FFP they were under Wenger as recently as a couple of years ago.

I might do one for Chelsea later.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[CotswoldRed]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Exactly right.

At market rates it would be permissible- e.g. £41m to purchase Pride Park said the report, whereas he via another company of his paid £80m. Subtract the difference from the profit, then £24.6m losses is my estimate.

FFP is out the window if it is allowed. Like I say they may not be in actual breach, but it would restrict them somewhat if rules enforced correctly.

Yep, indeed said in BBC report- just to reiterate- that Pride Park purchased for £80m, asset value £41m. If it was some billionaire who wanted to buy the ground for no discernible reason, say from Venezuela- Mr Maduro looking for a bolthole for some cash, a hedge- ethically dodgy but legal probably, definitely no connection to Derby it would surely count as a legit profit- but so blatant as not even to be a third party company but a company owned by Mel Morris is just laughable.

Surely if that's allowed then SL has massive scope to spend as he wishes once he's massaged the numbers to suit his agenda. 

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Smoke and mirrors time...

Derby posted a £14.6m profit for last season despite only £3m in profit on player sales...staff costs up by £5.9m and whereas turnover rose only £600,000.

I'm not saying they breached FFP as such- what I am suggesting is that their profit is totally bogus. Estimates online suggest that their 'true' loss was more like £24.4m- again not suggesting they breached FFP over the 3 years just to be clear, maybe just the right side of the line but maybe £40m of 'income' should be stripped out.

Essentially Mel Morris purchased Pride Park through a separate company owned by him- and leased it back- if this counts as income under FFP or legit under FFP, then the whole system is ******. They haven't yet released their full accounts- still waiting on Bolton, Leeds too- WBA have submitted and they are being processed. Derby have not yet released their full accounts.

Brentford released theirs, made a loss of about £3.86m though if it wasn't for profit on player sales, that'd have been not far off £19m.

This might be interesting.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This might be interesting.

 

I think so too.

Based on BBC Article, ground valued at £41m in accounts- purchased for £80m. Fair market price therefore £41m?

Therefore, my interpretation of that is knock £39m off and therefore their "real" i.e. FFP figures are £24.6m losses.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Surely if that's allowed then SL has massive scope to spend as he wishes once he's massaged the numbers to suit his agenda. 

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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.

Quite a few out of contract this summer there though- selling Weimann too though it wasn't a great fee, will have helped remove a bit of amortisation- every penny counts with this.

Thinking they are very close but not sure whether they have yet breached yet- unlike say Aston Villa or based on their own chairman in an AGM, Sheffield Wednesday.

We can only guess on projected accounts, but profit on Player Transfers for the big 2, admittedly TransferMarkt isn't perfect but it is one of the best sources.

Vydra Profit- £6,750,000

Weimann Profit- £1,175,000

Vydra- Reduction in Amortisation- £2,115,000

Weimann- Reduction in Amortisation- £855,000

The only question mark over that is, as per Kieran Maguire's coverage periodically and I think Swiss Ramble has also mentioned it, Derby have a unique accounting method- legal but unique in football- whereby a residual value is applied to the player so the straight line amortisation rule may not apply in the same way. May mean a higher profit on transfers...

May also mean though that when players released on a free, that instead of amortisation being removed, that whatever value the player has at that time- say £1m on contract expiry- that'd be a £1m loss on that player.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Quite a few out of contract this summer there though- selling Weimann too though it wasn't a great fee, will have helped remove a bit of amortisation- every penny counts with this.

Thinking they are very close but not sure whether they have yet breached yet- unlike say Aston Villa or based on their own chairman in an AGM, Sheffield Wednesday.

We can only guess on projected accounts, but profit on Player Transfers for the big 2, admittedly TransferMarkt isn't perfect but it is one of the best sources.

Vydra Profit- £6,750,000

Weimann Profit- £1,175,000

Vydra- Reduction in Amortisation- £2,115,000

Weimann- Reduction in Amortisation- £855,000

The only question mark over that is, as per Kieran Maguire's coverage periodically and I think Swiss Ramble has also mentioned it, Derby have a unique accounting method- legal but unique in football- whereby a residual value is applied to the player so the straight line amortisation rule may not apply in the same way. May mean a higher profit on transfers...

May also mean though that when players released on a free, that instead of amortisation being removed, that whatever value the player has at that time- say £1m on contract expiry- that'd be a £1m loss on that player.

Yep, swings and roundabouts of that approach.

Their actual accounts (when scanned in) will be interesting.

[CotswoldRed]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

I'm less thinking a big gamble, just the ability to throw the odd million or 3 just to get contracts over the line etc. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by CotswoldRed

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If it's allowed then FFP- I don't see how it'd have any credibility at this level really.

If that was the case, then yes I dare say he could roll the dice without fear of punishment- this ruse will have to be knocked down by the EFL or I don't see how the EFL have any credibility, and more importantly perhaps, a solid legal position moving forward.

IIRC EUFA/FIFA jave a special unit that looks at things like stadium naming rights to ensure clubs don't indulge in "creative accounting" to improve their income for ffp purposes. Did;t they pick up Man City when one of their owners other companies allegedly "paid" a huge amount to name their stadium?

If so, then surely the EFL must adopt a similar approach in order to avoid any danger of something like the Derby situation enabling a club to circumvent ffp. As you say this is essential if ffp is to have and retain credibility, and especially when we all thought the biggest test of credibility was whether the EFL would have the balls to punch clubs with points deduction.

Given that SL has championed that proper punishment is given for ffp breaches, I would hope he will be equally diligent in ensuring that the EFL address what Derby seem to be attempting with this manoeuvre .

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Leeds lost about £4.3m last season- I thought it would be in that bracket, doing the calculations myself I assumed in the range of £3-4m.

They're good to go basically this and probably next season- not much to see there.

The one notable thing having skim read their accounts was a rise in the wage bill to £28,090,979- and if we include as I guess we must their rises in social security etc then the full figure was £31,358,013.

Turnover of around £40.7m too- very good for a regular Championship club.

Oh and £18.1m from disposal of player transfers.

Rising losses yes, may need to cut back a bit but can't see a firesale needed if they stay down.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Leeds lost about £4.3m last season- I thought it would be in that bracket, doing the calculations myself I assumed in the range of £3-4m.

They're good to go basically this and probably next season- not much to see there.

The one notable thing having skim read their accounts was a rise in the wage bill to £28,090,979- and if we include as I guess we must their rises in social security etc then the full figure was £31,358,013.

Turnover of around £40.7m too- very good for a regular Championship club.

Oh and £18.1m from disposal of player transfers.

Rising losses yes, may need to cut back a bit but can't see a firesale needed if they stay down.

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!

[Olé]

On 02/04/2019 at 15:39, Mr Popodopolous said:

The other interesting take on the Derby forum which I have skim read, is that they undervalued by nearly 50% Pride Park in their accounts- if it truly is worth £80m, then how would that fit??

Either way, it looks interesting...

One of the Beesotted (Brentford fanzine) guys just tipped me off on this, as I asked why the Derby fan group twitter was being so rude to them during their game on Saturday.

Apparently the Derby lot didn't like Beesotted's view that selling the stadium wasn't a good idea (based on their own experience with Ron Noades years back) and an FFP con.

The way he tells it, Mel Morris sold it to himself to wipe out Derby's FFP loss. At a value of £80m for a stadium valued at €23m in 2013. Turning a £50m loss into a £14m profit.

If they lost £50m in a year they'd have broken FFP already. Derby fans think they'll buy it back if they go up, Beesotted asked what if you don't, as Derby hasn't got players to sell.

Odd situation but I will read your contributions on this thread to understand better as I haven't had a chance to keep up with this before!

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Olé said:

One of the Beesotted (Brentford fanzine) guys just tipped me off on this, as I asked why the Derby fan group twitter was being so rude to them during their game on Saturday.

Apparently the Derby lot didn't like Beesotted's view that selling the stadium wasn't a good idea (based on their own experience with Ron Noades years back) and an FFP con.

The way he tells it, Mel Morris sold it to himself to wipe out Derby's FFP loss. At a value of £80m for a stadium valued at €23m in 2013. Turning a £50m loss into a £14m profit.

If they lost £50m in a year they'd have broken FFP already. Derby fans think they'll buy it back if they go up, Beesotted asked what if you don't, as Derby hasn't got players to sell.

Odd situation but I will read your contributions on this thread to understand better as I haven't had a chance to keep up with this before!

Yeah, saw a bit of a spat developing between them on Twitter- or views bubbling away on this. Derby lot very defensive must be said!

Don't know if £23m to £80m, one figure I have seen which maybe more realistic is £41m value, £80m sale. Either way it's pulling a fast one I think!

Would estimate their true losses to be around £25-26 before FFP deductions- which doesn't quite leave them in breach, but in a very tight spot! Took a quick look at their Accounts and that is roughly the same ballpark as my estimates- it shows the profit on sale of stadium and I think that profit given it wasn't even a related party transaction but their bloody owner through a company should be disallowed from FFP calculations.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[WarksRobin]

The outgoing EFL chairman was on R5L earlier (saying nothing in particular and just taking up airtime) but he did mention that no Championship teams are currently at risk of points deduction for breach of  FFP. The reason given was that most clubs’ FY is after the end of the season so there is still an opportunity for clubs to raise funds by selling players which is “normal business”

[Lanterne Rouge]

4 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

The outgoing EFL chairman was on R5L earlier (saying nothing in particular and just taking up airtime) but he did mention that no Championship teams are currently at risk of points deduction for breach of  FFP. The reason given was that most clubs’ FY is after the end of the season so there is still an opportunity for clubs to raise funds by selling players which is “normal business”

Well, that makes a complete nonsense of the whole `projected accounts` thing. So, if Villa for instance just say `we`ll sell Grealish for £35m in the summer` the EFL will accept that and when they go up and say `**** you, he`s staying` they can do nothing about it. Also, how can clubs sell players when the transfer window is shut - I don`t think it re-opens until July 1st?

What a kick in the teeth for all us clubs staying within the rules.

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Red Right Hand said:

Well, that makes a complete nonsense of the whole `projected accounts` thing. So, if Villa for instance just say `we`ll sell Grealish for £35m in the summer` the EFL will accept that and when they go up and say `**** you, he`s staying` they can do nothing about it. Also, how can clubs sell players when the transfer window is shut - I don`t think it re-opens until July 1st?

What a kick in the teeth for all us clubs staying within the rules.

100% agree.

I thought the whole point of projected accounts being used for the third year, was to avoid the situation that applied previously, i.e. clubs like QPR and Bournemouth could breach ffp  and gain promotion, but because the breach was not confirmed until their financial year accounts were produced, it was too late for any action to be taken by the EFL as the clubs were already by then premier league clubs.

All clubs have effectively had 3 years notice of the ffp rules that now apply. Proper financial management, administration and control should enable any club to identify that they are running close to, or outside of ffp limits well before the end of the third year and I would have thought such issues should be clear at the end of year two. If so, and if player sales are needed to avoid a breach, then they then have 2 transfer windows to remedy the situation.

To be "in discussion" with the EFL at this stage, when  breach is already known, about selling players in the future is farcical at best, and a complete slap in the face for all the clubs that have acted responsibly up until now.

If this is proven to be the case, and if we see any similar underhand actions in favour of clubs like Derby should they also breach, it would smack to me that while the EFL are very bold about penalising clubs with points deductions, they are only prepared to do this for lesser clubs or where it will not affect a club's strong chance of promotion or contending the play offs. If so, then ffp will be dead in the water and I hope that SL rallies support from other clubs, so that if the EFL was worried about the threat of legal action from clubs like Villa or Derby, should they be hit with a sever ffp penalty, it would be nothing compared to the legal action from 10-15 clubs that have been playing the game by the rules.

[Davefevs]

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. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

The thing is it all depends on financial year- perhaps that brings a loophole?

Transfer window in summer opens June 1st doesn't it? Aston Villa's financial year ends May 31st so any backdated transfers shouldn't count. Complexities when Derby e.g. is 30th June or Sheffield Wednesday's 31st July!

Derby I'm not so certain are in breach even without the "profit" but very close to it. Aston Villa though, most definitely!

Edited April 14, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[bcfctim]

Is it the case then that different clubs have different financial years on which they base their accounts? Given we're all operating in the same system and under the same restrictions, transfer windows, regulations etc, I struggle to see why that should be the case?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the date of the opening of the summer transfer window as the transition point to the next season, and have all clubs within our league system be required to file their accounts for each year up to that point?

That way you wouldn't have the potential issue with backdated transfers as registrations wouldn't come into place and contracts wouldn't be made official until after then.

And I'm no financial expert by any means but I don't see why that would be a difficult thing to enforce. Just have it as a basic requirement for a 'company' to be registered with the league they must file their accounts by a certain point, up to a certain point.

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Transfer window is 1st of July I believe, as most player contracts go to 30th of June

 

Edit- I was wrong, opens on 9th of June

It must be linked to when CL final is? 1st June in 2018 when I looked it up- 9th June is a random date though!

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, bcfctim said:

Is it the case then that different clubs have different financial years on which they base their accounts? Given we're all operating in the same system and under the same restrictions, transfer windows, regulations etc, I struggle to see why that should be the case?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the date of the opening of the summer transfer window as the transition point to the next season, and have all clubs within our league system be required to file their accounts for each year up to that point?

That way you wouldn't have the potential issue with backdated transfers as registrations wouldn't come into place and contracts wouldn't be made official until after then.

And I'm no financial expert by any means but I don't see why that would be a difficult thing to enforce. Just have it as a basic requirement for a 'company' to be registered with the league they must file their accounts by a certain point, up to a certain point.

Just a quirk of business. Accounts will either be up until May 31st, June 30th or (rarely) July 31st of the financial year for football clubs.

Perhaps, though couldn't that in turn give some clubs an unfair advantage. Submit until May 2019 say, clubs whose financial years end at that stage full cost v revenue...whereas clubs who don't maybe missing one or even 2 months- losses and cost base lower.

Anyway clubs have to submit accounts to the League in advance of their release to Companies House. Actual accounts for the season just gone in December of the existing season and projected accounts for the current season in March 2019.

The very point of the latter was so that Aston Villa for example and Sheffield Wednesday, Derby could be punished in season if in breach- though I'm not convinced Derby are breaching. Close yes but close is enough to remain just that right side of the line!