The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Coppello said:

I think we're agreeing with the same point haha. I understand Derby (or more likely the owner) used a surveyor to value the stadium and obtain a report. This would prove to the auditors that the transaction was conducted at the market price. However, the value of the stadium on the accounts would've been kept at the historical cost i.e. the cost of construction (and capital expenditure since then) less depreciation charged over the last twenty years or so.

In their defence, using an historical cost to calculate the profit is not something that I have a problem with as it's completely legitimate from an accounting perspective. The issue I have is that the surveyors valuation of £81.1m and the consideration that this what the stadium is valued at. As others have discussed on here previously, this should be adjusted to a market value or an arms-length transaction. I'd be surprised if another surveyor valued the stadium at 50% of the £81.1m used as the sales price. 

Let's be honest.

If it looks like bs and smells like bs, it almost certainly is bs.

In fact, that could describe the way the EFL seems to be handling ffp at the moment!

[martnewts]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

If Villa ( or any team) is given wriggle room by using the "we will sell Grealish in the summer" to sidestep an ffp breach,  then what is to stop a team buying the best players in the division, paying massive wages and busting ffp by £30m and securing promotion, but then telling the EFL that they will  will sell 4/5/6 players for £40m in the summer window?

It makes a complete mercury of the whole excercise. Also, if they are not going to address ffp and issue punishment for breaches within the 3rd season of the 3 year cycle, what was the point of requiring projected accounts in the third year? 

I wonder whether the EFL thought that with the new rules clubs would not risk breaching ffp limits and incurring the penalties now available and had not considered how they would deal with clubs breaching, and especially bigger clubs in and around the promotion stakes. It looks to me that we are on the verge of a massive fudge in order to not rock the boat.

I dont think that accounting rules would permit the sale of a player being back dated into a previous accounting period unless the contract for the sale was dated before the end of the accounting period and that date was during a valid transfer window. If projected accounts to 31 May 19 are included projected player sales revenue then surely that would fail on both counts . 

 

[downendcity]

30 minutes ago, martnewts said:

I dont think that accounting rules would permit the sale of a player being back dated into a previous accounting period unless the contract for the sale was dated before the end of the accounting period and that date was during a valid transfer window. If projected accounts to 31 May 19 are included projected player sales revenue then surely that would fail on both counts . 

 

I agree Martnewts, but with some of the posts alluding to this, it does make you wonder at the skullduggery that might be used, and allowed by the EFL, for club's to sidestep punishment under ffp.

I hoped and thought that Birmingham's points deduction demonstrated that with the new ffp rules and penalties the EFL was tackling the issue head on. As time goes by I am increasingly feeling that they are all talk and little, or no action and that big clubs are too clever for the EFL.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

40 minutes ago, martnewts said:

I dont think that accounting rules would permit the sale of a player being back dated into a previous accounting period unless the contract for the sale was dated before the end of the accounting period and that date was during a valid transfer window. If projected accounts to 31 May 19 are included projected player sales revenue then surely that would fail on both counts . 

 

Well quite- the accounts for the season, for this season end for Aston Villa end May 31st 2019.

The transfer window opens on June 9th 2019...can't be done surely.

The only unlikely workaround is if Aston Villa extend their accounting period by a month or 2- assuming it hasn't changed in the last 5 years- then that would muddy the waters. Sheffield Wednesday announced or announced publicly at least that their accounts for last season/last financial year ran until July 31st 2018 rather than May 31st 2019. Extended accounting period? That could further confuse matters.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[WarksRobin]

On 24/04/2019 at 14:27, Coppello said:

This morning I had a meeting with an independent surveyor who were conducting a stadium valuation. The consultants who I spoke to had worked on the valuations of a number of Premier League and Championship grounds, none of which were Pride Park. I discussed the valuation of £80m with them and they could not fathom how they reached that figure.

The ground valuations are commonly made through the depreciated replacement cost method i.e. what would it cost to build a replica stadium and then depreciate over the number of years the stadium has been in existence to account for wear and tear. The stadium is built on an industrial estate away from the City centre and therefore the land value is pretty low. A stadium such as Craven Cottage would have a decent valuation given the location and property prices in the area. 

They estimated that the valuation should be lower than this and I believe that the independent valuers report should be scrutinised. The Football League should engaged their own surveyors to conduct a valuation. This would then help to determine whether the transaction occurred at an 'arm's length'. 

 

Built on remediated  landfill as I understand it so the land is of limited use and value. 

[Grey Fox]

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

[downendcity]

34 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

Ah, 

well,

no,

but,

yes,

because 

the taxman has rules and severe punishments available to come down hard on anyone who tries to do anything dodgy to fiddle their figures and wriggle their way out of their liability.

Football has rules and severe punishments available, but there the similarity seems to end!

Edited April 25, 2019 by downendcity

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

Indeed we did but I think that was under the previous loan regime when you could loan players for periods shorter than a season

Yes, you had the usual half and full season loans, but also the emergency loan system (up to 93 days).  Matt Smith was an emergency loan.

[BLRed]

Quick thought on Derby, yes they escaped ffp issues by selling their stadium to a company owned by their owner. given their stadium is now not owned by the club itself, they rent it, does that mean that they can't count match day revenue towards income meaning they will eventually succumb to ffp anyway?

surely their match day revenue goes to the company that owns the stadium? Am I being stupid?

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Quick thought on Derby, yes they escaped ffp issues by selling their stadium to a company owned by their owner. given their stadium is now not owned by the club itself, they rent it, does that mean that they can't count match day revenue towards income meaning they will eventually succumb to ffp anyway?

surely their match day revenue goes to the company that owns the stadium? Am I being stupid?

You’re not being stupid....but however Derby structure their various businesses they will cover off / include match day income.

No real difference to City, where Ashton Gate Ltd own the ground.

[Coppello]

3 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

You've asked a short but bloody difficult question @Grey Fox. The answer is most probably but there's a difference between taxable profit and accounting profit. The taxable profit doesn't get published and is hard to work out. But it is very likely they'd pay quite a lot of tax on the sale of the stadium. 

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, BOSRed said:

Quick thought on Derby, yes they escaped ffp issues by selling their stadium to a company owned by their owner. given their stadium is now not owned by the club itself, they rent it, does that mean that they can't count match day revenue towards income meaning they will eventually succumb to ffp anyway?

surely their match day revenue goes to the company that owns the stadium? Am I being stupid?

No - when it comes to ffp, and having the wool pulled over your eyes by clubs, that honour goes to the EFL.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

So if Derby are reporting a profit, will they pay tax on that figure? 

Hopefully- you'd think so!

FWIW, Tax doesn't count towards FFP figures- so far as I understand it, it's measured on pre-tax profits or losses- obviously tax not paid on losses. (May well be in Italy though at clubs, weirdly).

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 24/04/2019 at 19:20, Pabloavfc said:

Yeah. I can see his point but now reading what he actually wanted, I can see why he didn't have a majority behind him

There is a scenario in which it could happen, but not like this. Agreed- not desirable by a majority of clubs.

What clubs have to hide in terms of youth development expenditure and other exempted areas though...well it does beg the question a bit?

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 24/04/2019 at 22:30, Davefevs said:

All we can really hope for now is that neither Villa or Derby get promoted via the play-offs.  None of the top 4 are in danger of breaching FFP, nor are we, so I hope the final promotion place comes from within the 5 (top 4 and us).

We will then get to see how the extent of Villa and Derby’s projected accounts manifest into actual accounts over the summer (even if we don’t see them published ourselves til much later).

Imagine for a second the hypothetical situation that Villa would bust the limits, but included the projected selling of Grealish for £25m before the end of their accounting year (again lets keep this hypothetical) to show intention to the EFL to not take the piss out of FFP.

You then get several scenarios and considerations of Villa not going up:

1. they do in fact sell Grealish for £25m and they fall into line within the 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season.  Sounds fine, but EFL need to decide whether in the spirit of FFP.  [What is to stop any team spending £200m to buy promotion, but sell those players if they don’t go up?]  However, the EFL should also be on guard that the next 3 year rolling period includes huge losses from the first two seasons, that requires more cost cutting than selling one player.  They would need to go on regular monitoring and embargo of some sort.
2. they sell Grealish, but buying clubs know Villa are desperate and only stump up £15m.  Villa now in breach for 3 year rolling period to 18/19 season.  Straight embargo and points deduction to start 19/20 season based on scale set in Brum points deduction.  Same as 1. Re next 3 year rolling period.  
3. they don’t sell Grealish.  I dread to think, maximum punishment possible???

In the above scenarios, Grealish has been used as their security.  What if they won promotion through the play-offs?

1. they still have to sell Grealish for £25m.  Toughski Shitski!  They now fall into a Prem guidelines....still seems outside the spirit of FFP imho
2. Promotion denied
3. promotion denied

I just can’t see 2 & 3 above happening.

None of the first 4 of the 6 scenarios really satisfy the spirit of FFP.  They’ve taken a gamble of over-spending, knowing that punishment can’t really take place within the season they’ve taken the gamble in.

Anyone any bright ideas.

Promotion denied would be the only fair solution of course.

The interesting thing about the Grealish sale of course is that just say they sell and backdate, stay down- that helps to alleviate the rolling period to this season, but then leaves them with an enormous hole...losing well I dread to think how much! Parachute payments gone albeit wages down- having to find a whole new set of profits on players just to stay compliant...straight- hard not soft- embargo and big deduction would surely be about right?

This Swiss Ramble Graphic shows just how tight a spot!

It would mean they could lose only £4m next season in this scenario plus FFP allowable exclusions. Let's assume they backdate a Grealish sale of £25m. Means they lose £35m in 2 years and then the next year in FFP terms can only lose, £4m...meanwhile Parachute Payments fall by £17m. Factor out the Grealish sale too. Means they need to find £52m from somewhere just to comply for the 3 seasons to May 2020.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

£15m FFP Exclusions seems high too.

Thanks for posting.  What it does show is that they are £25m over the FFP threshold for the 3 year rolling period ending this season.  A breach of somewhere near this magnitude much be in the projected accounts submitted in March.

Its obscene...unless of course they’ve been allowed to factor some huge “income” stream in before the end of their financial year.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Aren't they getting a chunk of money selling land for HS2?

Couple of million isn’t it????

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

£15m FFP Exclusions seems high too.

Thanks for posting.  What it does show is that they are £25m over the FFP threshold for the 3 year rolling period ending this season.  A breach of somewhere near this magnitude much be in the projected accounts submitted in March.

Its obscene...unless of course they’ve been allowed to factor some huge “income” stream in before the end of their financial year.

Agree- it's beyond a joke. Obscene sums it up to a tee!

The only workarounds I can think of are- ones that maybe classed as legit that is:

Grealish sale pre-arranged, regardless of promotion- maybe that could be shifted into accounts for this year for £25m or so. Say arranged in Feb, taking effect as soon as window opens. Still pretty dubious though- if they'd wanted that they could legitimately have sold him for £25m in Jan and offered to let him continue to kick on for half a season of continued development on a loan back. Dicy but legit. Certainly not unheard of.

OR

If somehow they get a large sum as the final tranche of HS2 Compensation- HS2 compensation seems like it's gone nowhere fast but you never know- if they got say £25m this season that'd get them just over the line. The £3m I assume was HS2 but it still seems a bit up in the air.

Beyond that? 21 point deduction and embargo seems in order I'd say, based on the formula. Or 12 points at the bare minimum, would have to look up the formula in full again.

£15m could be possible, if Aston Villa really want to go for it on youth development as part of a new strategy then it's possible to believe it was legit- still a bit of a stretch though IMO.

Then again, there is an argument that says HS2 compensation shouldn't count towards FFP. Because if training ground expenditure etc doesn't, why should income from the admittedly unfortunate Bodymoor Heath HS2 thing count as FFP income? Club income yes...but not FFP.

Plus wow look at this...

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role

Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree- it's beyond a joke. Obscene sums it up to a tee!

The only workarounds I can think of are- ones that maybe classed as legit that is:

Grealish sale pre-arranged, regardless of promotion- maybe that could be shifted into accounts for this year for £25m or so. Say arranged in Feb, taking effect as soon as window opens. Still pretty dubious though- if they'd wanted that they could legitimately have sold him for £25m in Jan and offered to let him continue to kick on for half a season of continued development on a loan back. Dicy but legit. Certainly not unheard of.

OR

If somehow they get a large sum as the final tranche of HS2 Compensation- HS2 compensation seems like it's gone nowhere fast but you never know- if they got say £25m this season that'd get them just over the line. The £3m I assume was HS2 but it still seems a bit up in the air.

Beyond that? 21 point deduction and embargo seems in order I'd say, based on the formula. Or 12 points at the bare minimum, would have to look up the formula in full again.

£15m could be possible, if Aston Villa really want to go for it on youth development as part of a new strategy then it's possible to believe it was legit- still a bit of a stretch though IMO.

Then again, there is an argument that says HS2 compensation shouldn't count towards FFP. Because if training ground expenditure etc doesn't, why should income from the admittedly unfortunate Bodymoor Heath HS2 thing count as FFP income? Club income yes...but not FFP.

Plus wow look at this...

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role

Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things.

Wow indeed.

[downendcity]

19 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Aren't they getting a chunk of money selling land for HS2?

 

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Couple of million isn’t it????

If they use the surveyor that valued Derby's ground they'd probably bring in £50m! 

[CyderInACan]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Plus wow look at this...

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role

Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things.

The cavalry has arrived! FFS that would cause scenes 

[downendcity]

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Promotion denied would be the only fair solution of course.

The interesting thing about the Grealish sale of course is that just say they sell and backdate, stay down- that helps to alleviate the rolling period to this season, but then leaves them with an enormous hole...losing well I dread to think how much! Parachute payments gone albeit wages down- having to find a whole new set of profits on players just to stay compliant...straight- hard not soft- embargo and big deduction would surely be about right?

This Swiss Ramble Graphic shows just how tight a spot!

It would mean they could lose only £4m next season in this scenario plus FFP allowable exclusions. Let's assume they backdate a Grealish sale of £25m. Means they lose £35m in 2 years and then the next year in FFP terms can only lose, £4m...meanwhile Parachute Payments fall by £17m. Factor out the Grealish sale too. Means they need to find £52m from somewhere just to comply for the 3 seasons to May 2020.

This is at the heart of why ffp was introduced in the first place.

My understanding is that one of the primary reasons for introducing ffp is to avoid the type of situation that affected Pompey when they dropped out of the premier league, i.e. expenses                ( particularly wages) well in excess of much reduced income. leading to insolvency.

If Villa's figures are as suggested, then it seems that since relegation they have effectively ignored financial expediency, choosing instead to go for broke to gain a quick return, on the basis that premier league riches will then bring the books back in order. The fact that they borrowed against their third year of parachute payments is a clear indication of the lengths they have gone to gain the maximum advantage over the rest of the division.

It's little different from a couple being in mortgage arrears, at the limit of their overdraft and maxed out credit cards, borrowing £20,000 from money lender to buy lottery tickets, in the hope that buying enough tickets will give them a jackpot that will solve their financial problems!

Forget for a moment the fact that clubs like this are taking the 9i55 out of all the other clubs ( like us) that are trying to manage prudently and within the ffp rules, they are risking the club's future because, was you say, failure to gain promotion could leave them with a black hope financially.

 

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, downendcity said:

This is at the heart of why ffp was introduced in the first place.

My understanding is that one of the primary reasons for introducing ffp is to avoid the type of situation that affected Pompey when they dropped out of the premier league, i.e. expenses                ( particularly wages) well in excess of much reduced income. leading to insolvency.

If Villa's figures are as suggested, then it seems that since relegation they have effectively ignored financial expediency, choosing instead to go for broke to gain a quick return, on the basis that premier league riches will then bring the books back in order. The fact that they borrowed against their third year of parachute payments is a clear indication of the lengths they have gone to gain the maximum advantage over the rest of the division.

It's little different from a couple being in mortgage arrears, at the limit of their overdraft and maxed out credit cards, borrowing £20,000 from money lender to buy lottery tickets, in the hope that buying enough tickets will give them a jackpot that will solve their financial problems!

Forget for a moment the fact that clubs like this are taking the 9i55 out of all the other clubs ( like us) that are trying to manage prudently and within the ffp rules, they are risking the club's future because, was you say, failure to gain promotion could leave them with a black hope financially.

 

 

 

 

You couldn’t imagine how desperate I am for Villa to ****-up in the play-offs.

[downendcity]

44 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You couldn’t imagine how desperate I am for Villa to ****-up in the play-offs.

If Villa's losses are as suggested, you couldn't imagine how desperate I am for the EFL to act now,  stop just talking the talk, get their fingers out of their collective arses and apply a points deduction to take them out of the play off positions.

This is not about being vindictive to a particular club, or that such action might benefit us, but because without hitting clubs hard ffp will be a farce and the EFL will effectively be condoning clubs cheating to gain an advantage over every other club.

A club in Villa's position being properly punished might just be the catalyst for ffp to do the job for which it was intended as other clubs will realise that it is not worth the risk.

[bcfc01]

Apologies if already mentioned but apparently Derby made an offer to Boro to inspect their accounts but Gibson declined.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mel-morris-reveals-derby-countys-2796253

 

Also, a statement from the EFL following the meeting of the clubs (saying nothing obviously);

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-derby-villa-sheff-wed-2796310

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If Villa's losses are as suggested, you couldn't imagine how desperate I am for the EFL to act now,  stop just talking the talk, get their fingers out of their collective arses and apply a points deduction to take them out of the play off positions.

This is not about being vindictive to a particular club, or that such action might benefit us, but because without hitting clubs hard ffp will be a farce and the EFL will effectively be condoning clubs cheating to gain an advantage over every other club.

A club in Villa's position being properly punished might just be the catalyst for ffp to do the job for which it was intended as other clubs will realise that it is not worth the risk.

Totally agree about not being vindictive.  The EFL brought in projected accounts to deal with exactly the scenario Villa are in - breaking the rules and going for promotion.  You could also argue that Birmingham's points deduction should’ve been last season.  Barnsley would’ve stayed up.  Or if they’d started 18/19 with 9 points deduction and been in relegation trouble at Xmas, might Adams have wanted to go then?  The EFL have had a real missed opportunity here.

[downendcity]

9 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Apologies if already mentioned but apparently Derby made an offer to Boro to inspect their accounts but Gibson declined.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mel-morris-reveals-derby-countys-2796253

 

Also, a statement from the EFL following the meeting of the clubs (saying nothing obviously);

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-derby-villa-sheff-wed-2796310

Derby's Accountant has the books prepared, organised  and ready for inspection.

Can't imagine why Gibson declined the offer!

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by downendcity

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

This is at the heart of why ffp was introduced in the first place.

My understanding is that one of the primary reasons for introducing ffp is to avoid the type of situation that affected Pompey when they dropped out of the premier league, i.e. expenses                ( particularly wages) well in excess of much reduced income. leading to insolvency.

If Villa's figures are as suggested, then it seems that since relegation they have effectively ignored financial expediency, choosing instead to go for broke to gain a quick return, on the basis that premier league riches will then bring the books back in order. The fact that they borrowed against their third year of parachute payments is a clear indication of the lengths they have gone to gain the maximum advantage over the rest of the division.

It's little different from a couple being in mortgage arrears, at the limit of their overdraft and maxed out credit cards, borrowing £20,000 from money lender to buy lottery tickets, in the hope that buying enough tickets will give them a jackpot that will solve their financial problems!

Forget for a moment the fact that clubs like this are taking the 9i55 out of all the other clubs ( like us) that are trying to manage prudently and within the ffp rules, they are risking the club's future because, was you say, failure to gain promotion could leave them with a black hope financially.

 

 

 

 

They have a rich set of owners so the black hole- so long as the owners stay committed- will be for FFP IMO.

Bolton have the opposite issue...not enough cash to break FFP even if they wanted to, but a dodgy/skint- dodgily skint- owner in Ken Anderson.

In general though, agree with the post fully.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They have a rich set of owners so the black hole- so long as the owners stay committed- will be for FFP IMO.

Bolton have the opposite issue...not enough cash to break FFP even if they wanted to, but a dodgy/skint- dodgily skint- owner in Ken Anderson.

In general though, agree with the post fully.

I thought Anderson had sold Bolton now?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting twist:

https://offthepitch.com/a/bitter-championship-battle-over-clubs-breaking-ffp-goes

It's behind a paywall though- so only the first snippets are available...

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

I thought Anderson had sold Bolton now?

He has, was giving an example of a case where a side could be FFP compliant but wrecked financially or vice versa.

I'll rephrase that then- when Anderson ran Bolton, they were FFP fine but in trouble in real cash terms.

Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday amongst others- likely to be the opposite!

[CyderInACan]

43 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I thought Anderson had sold Bolton now?

He didn't want to tho so now he's Angry 

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

He has, was giving an example of a case where a side could be FFP compliant but wrecked financially or vice versa.

I'll rephrase that then- when Anderson ran Bolton, they were FFP fine but in trouble in real cash terms.

Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday amongst others- likely to be the opposite!

Villa had cashflow issues at the start of this season, but now have FFP issues!

Edited April 26, 2019 by Davefevs

[downendcity]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Villa had cashflow issues at the start of this season, but now have FFP issues!

Think that might be news to the EFL though Dave!

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Villa had cashflow issues at the start of this season, but now have FFP issues!

That's true. Probably a better example.

I suppose my Bolton v Aston Villa example was to highlight that a club can have one but not the other- but Bolton's case was/is pretty unusual. FFP didn't save them, in fact it is highly likely that they didn't breach it in this cycle...

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You know we haven't actually failed FFP. Not sure what we have done that is so despicable and disgusting. 

If the ruled with projected accounts as submitted by the club were enforced correctly, you likely would have been out by £25m.  For the 3 years to THIS season.

That'd be a 12 point deduction, 3 points for aggravated breach and one off for admitting it probably.

[BLRed]

Hoping west brom go up out of the play offs as I really want to see big time Charlie's Leeds, villa and Derby fail with a couple of them being questionable over finances. I think Derby would be in trouble and villa will be without parachute so would seriously have to sell or would be in trouble I think. I just want Leeds to fail as they feel they have a right to promotion.

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

Then why haven't the EFL punished us? They happily gave birmingham a pts deduction.

Okay.

On a train so limited battery but to summarise.

EFL FFP regs have submitted accounts in order to enable in-season punishment.

Birmingham were punished for the 3 seasons to LAST season. The period covering 2015/16-2017/18.

The whole point of clubs submitting projected accounts in March is so they can be assessed live and in-season. By rights Birmingham should've been docked points LAST season with Burton or Barnsley staying up.

When it affects the top with financial stakes it is worse still. You surely are in breach. Sheffield Wednesday well it's highly likely they are and Derby may very well be though that's the hardest to unpick.

The reason I'm particularly angry is that we sold Flint, Bryan and Reid last summer..squad players in Magnússon and Djuric also departed helping with cost reduction.

We've done fine, absolutely but it's beside the point. Birmingham should've sold Adams, you should've sold Grealish already IMO or others to raise £20-25m in offsetting losses.  

Derby tbh have already sold quite a few but are right up to the limit. Sheffield Wednesday? Should surely have sold any of Bannan, Forestieri but especially Reach. Signing Onomah and Hector season long loan plus in January Lazaar, Aarons and on loan is that sticking to the regs?? Plus Iorfa permantly.

Middlesbrough sold Gibson, Traore, Bamford and loaned Braithwaite- though with Pulis in charge they wouldn't have got best out of them anyway.

The alternative to bringing it in line through sales should be hard embargoes and points deductions fairly quickly implemented.

Oh yeah. Also firmly believe our necessary restructing and cutbacks contributed to the slow start.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

18 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You seem more clued up on the regulations than I do. 

I would say that forcing a club to sell an academy product to meet FFP is going to be one of the reasons the rich clubs in the prem remain rich and have the advantage. 

Our CEO believes we will be compliant with the rules so until he gives me reason to distrust him I have faith that we are following the rules.

Wolves lost a reported £57m last year and £23m the year before with no consequences. The media would have us believe their progress is some kind of fairytale of course.

FFP is meaningless without proper controls and independent in-season enforcement. The problem is that the EFL is a trade association not a governing body.

If any club ever gets really severe sanctions it's a safe bet it will be some little league 2 club not one of the powerful Championship clubs.

Edited April 28, 2019 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You seem more clued up on the regulations than I do. 

I would say that forcing a club to sell an academy product to meet FFP is going to be one of the reasons the rich clubs in the prem remain rich and have the advantage. 

Our CEO believes we will be compliant with the rules so until he gives me reason to distrust him I have faith that we are following the rules.

Thanks- bit of a hobbyhorse of mine.

Purslow seems to have gone from confident of compliance to admitting it's a challenge... Bit of both IMO.

Different debate. For the record though. Reid and Bryan? Academy boys. 

So was Gibson at Middlesbrough. 

Taylor at Leeds and Vieira.

Believe Christie, Hendrick and Hughes at Derby all were.

Burke and Brereton at Nottingham Forest.

Murphy at Norwich.

Evading FFP? To me, it's cheating- pure and simple.

[chinapig]

57 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You seem more clued up on the regulations than I do. 

I would say that forcing a club to sell an academy product to meet FFP is going to be one of the reasons the rich clubs in the prem remain rich and have the advantage. 

Our CEO believes we will be compliant with the rules so until he gives me reason to distrust him I have faith that we are following the rules.

I agree to the extent that I have long suspected that one of the real purposes of FFP was to entrench the advantage of the richest clubs.

By the same token, though, do you object to the advantage given to clubs who get parachute payments, especially those who are still profligate despite having that advantage?

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Pabloavfc said:

I think the parachute payments are an unfair advantage but then the loss in income once relegated is a huge thing. We had to sack a lot of staff and close a whole tier of a stand for most games. 

To be honest I think FFP is a mess at the moment. If they want real financial fairness then they need to adopt rules similar to American sports, with salary caps in place. 

I take your point, and it's always the non-football staff who take the hit. I don't suppose any of the club hierarchy lost much sleep over that. 

It didn't stop Bruce signing ever more expensive players then complaining he wasn't given enough to spend. How many staff could have been paid from the wages wasted on Bolasie and Hogan alone? Let alone Terry!

Absolutely agree on the American model though. It's ironic that the home of capitalism red in tooth and claw has better financial controls.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Wolves lost a reported £57m last year and £23m the year before with no consequences. The media would have us believe their progress is some kind of fairytale of course.

FFP is meaningless without proper controls and independent in-season enforcement. The problem is that the EFL is a trade association not a governing body.

If any club ever gets really severe sanctions it's a safe bet it will be some little league 2 club not one of the powerful Championship clubs.

Mad though it sounds, I believe Wolves complied- just.

You add profit onto allowable losses. Maybe £8m profit in 2015/16. Then a purported £20m in bonuses and fees due on promotion...if no promotion, nothing paid.

Then deductible costs- youth, infrastructure, depreciation and amortisation of non-footballing assets, Community. Say £4-5m per season.

For sure they would've needed some good sales had they lost in the playoffs..in Neves, Cavaleiro and Costa to name 3 though they were some good ones to sell. Could've turned a profit on Ruddy, Bennett and Douglas too if necessary.

No fairytale though, that's for sure. Mix of capitalising on 15/16 profit, utilising Mendes- and his manager with a La Liga and CL based CV- and by the looks of it moderate to big wages with large bonuses and yes gambling. Albeit with easily saleable assets as an insurance policy.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mad though it sounds, I believe Wolves complied- just.

You add profit onto allowable losses. Maybe £8m profit in 2015/16. Then a purported £20m in bonuses and fees due on promotion...if no promotion, nothing paid.

Then deductible costs- youth, infrastructure, depreciation and amortisation of non-footballing assets, Community. Say £4-5m per season.

For sure they would've needed some good sales had they lost in the playoffs..in Neves, Cavaleiro and Costa to name 3 though they were some good ones to sell. Could've turned a profit on Ruddy and Douglas too if necessary.

I'm not at fait with the accounting niceties but the idea that pre-tax losses of £57m is somehow ok doesn't suggest financial responsibility to me.

If that is the case, with his expertise and resources I'm sure SL could manipulate our position accordingly. Except he is too honest and we are not a big enough club to get a free pass.

Not that I think football is a cesspit of dubious practices or anything.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm not at fait with the accounting niceties but the idea that pre-tax losses of £57m is somehow ok doesn't suggest financial responsibility to me.

If that is the case, with his expertise and resources I'm sure SL could manipulate our position accordingly. Except he is too honest and we are not a big enough club to get a free pass.

Not that I think football is a cesspit of dubious practices or anything.

I agree £57m losses is shocking.

I wasn't too clear- it wasn't that Wolves last season were financially responsible- they backloaded the losses.  

£80m-£39m. That's breaking the 3 year losses by £41m.

SUBTRACT £20m for promotion bonuses etc. That's an overspend of £21m. Because promotion bonuses don't count as expenditure under FFP. Rightly or wrongly?

SUBTRACT about £8m of their profit in Steve Morgan's final season. Mix of parachute payments and player sales. Overspend down to £13m.

Allowable costs. Think there's been good infrastructure investment, academy, depreciation etc. Think £4-5m per year for a typical Championship club not unreasonable. These don't count towards FFP expenditure as it's seen as 'good investment'.

Reckon their 3 year FFP losses were £37-39m. Maybe at a push, £40m.

Think SL could do a few things and all by the book at that. We can spend reasonably this summer IMO. Or be under no pressure to sell if we don't wish to, FFP wise.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Obviously wouldn't do it myself but a friend subscribed to Off The Pitch for varying reasons. Sent me this article- has potential to interest a few.

Still maintain that there may have been a legal precedent for what Gibson was wanting- if taken to the CAS then precedent- well say Birmingham took it to CAS for getting punished when others may avoid, the CAS could compel the EFL potentially to provide Birmingham with the accounts of other sides who may have got away with it. Would take a club with a strong legal case that they had been treated differently to others- Birmingham v Derby, Sheffield Wednesday or Aston Villa could be it. Settled in CAS or other courts.

Quote

 

Bitter Championship battle over clubs breaking FFP goes on

 25 April 2019 3:59 PM

Photo: Getty Images  Aston Villa players celebrate a goal playing away against Sheffield Wednesday. Some Championship clubs think clubs like Aston Villa are continuing to break the financial fair play rules to get promoted.

 

• Off The Pitch discovers that a renewed attempt by clubs angry at those potentially guilty of financial rule avoidance is taking place.
• No resolution despite claims to the contrary after six hour meeting between EFL clubs at the City Ground on Wednesday.

MARTIN HARDY contact@offthepitch.com

 

The battle for more financial transparency amongst Championship clubs is still raging despite an EFL meeting at the City Ground yesterday.

It had been thought that moves led by Middlesbrough, with the backing of a significant number of clubs, had been overthrown after six hours of talks at the home of Nottingham Forest.

However Off The Pitch has learned that there was no meaningful vote and that those clubs fighting for a more open approach to finances and a tightening of the rules imposed by profitability and sustainability still believe they will be successful.

It is understood the English Football League have given private assurances that they have the capacity within their current rules to bring tighter control over the spending and accountancy of clubs in the second tier in England.

Pressing on

The majority of clubs are now said to have been appeased by this promises and are pressing on for greater clarity, rather than a rule change, and the matter has now been placed in the hands of legal teams to bring about more transparency.

“It is now a technical debate amongst the legal guys,” said a source.

A group of clubs, led by Middlesbrough, have become unhappy with the spending and financial actions of Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa.

Under Financial Fair Play rules - or what is now termed the EFL’s profitability and sustainability - clubs who post a loss of more than £39 million over three years will face punishments and sanctions. These can be either a points reduction or restrictions in the transfer market.

Pressing for rule change

Those clubs fighting for greater clarity maintain that clubs are continuing to break the rules to get promoted, which lands a guaranteed minimum bounty of £171 million, because the risk of punishment is too small a deterrent.

Those clubs unhappy and pressing for rule change insist nothing was lost at the City Ground on Wednesday but have instead been privately assured that the rules within the EFL are adequate to bring about more scrutiny and the potential punishment they seek.

...are confident they will find corporate structures have been put in place to avoid punishment for breaking the EFL’s profitability and sustainability rules.

They were told they would not have to alter the rules to shine a brighter torch inside the accounts of their Championship rivals.

Off The Pitch understands that those clubs pushing for greater scrutiny and stricter control have used the current rules to get inside rivals’ books and are confident they will find corporate structures have been put in place to avoid punishment for breaking the EFL’s profitability and sustainability rules.

Yield of 5 per cent

One of the major areas of contention has been Derby’s ability to sell their stadium to the owner Mel Morris for £80 million, which allowed the club to post a pre-tax profit of £14.6million.

It has been said on a commercial deal that the yield is around five per cent but Derby are paying just £1 1/4 million-per-year to a private company owned by Morris following the sale.

Aston Villa, who are in the final season of their parachute payment following relegation from the Premier League in 2016, valued Villa Park at just £39 million in their accounts for 2016/17.

The three-year rolling period for what is effectively FFP means that next season their maximum loss for any of the three years is £13 million, rather than the £35 million allowed for a Premier League club.

Morris claimed yesterday that Middlesbrough had declined the opportunity to go through Derby’s books in March. "Middlesbrough were offered by us in writing to come with their advisors to go through our submissions for profitability and sustainability, they declined,” he said.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw this on @KieranMaguire Price of Football Twitter.

Two things. Firstly Sheffield Wednesday must be in a huge mess FFP wise- not solvency wise of course.

Secondly, it is possible they used that to buy time for some dodgy manoeuvre- the EFL have had 2 months to prepare and plan for it, I hope they are wise to it and will act accordingly.

If it were down to me, moves like Derby owner selling ground to himself and whatever Sheffield Wednesday may have planned? I would dock points for not only breaching the regs but the spirit too- now Derby may not have breached the regs themselves, but if it was viable they should be docked points for such a move. Sheffield Wednesday likely have breached it and if there is some dodgy manoeuvre, would aggravated breach cover it? I hope so!

In layman's terms they extended- as is their legal right I hasten to add- their accounting period by 2 months when it was due in February 2019. Accounts which were to May 31 2018 are now to July 31 2018.

Despite this, they still appear to be late - clubs and businesses have 9 months to submit accounts to Companies House after their reporting period ends. I assume they are in a fairly tight spot indeed.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As per Kieran Maguire, now officially overdue!

Fair's fair, been a number of bank holidays lately but given they extended it by 2 months I'd say they have little excuse personally...

Bolton's are also officially overdue but then they are a basketcase of a club, run into the ground by terrible ownership in recent times whose very future is in doubt so it's hardly surprising.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As per Kieran Maguire, still overdue.

Bear in mind, they were already extended by 2 months so quite what they are up to will be very interesting surely...

[Olé]

On 28/04/2019 at 16:17, Mr Popodopolous said:

If the ruled with projected accounts as submitted by the club were enforced correctly, you likely would have been out by £25m.  For the 3 years to THIS season.

That'd be a 12 point deduction, 3 points for aggravated breach and one off for admitting it probably.

Hey Mr. P - I've been putting off trying to comprehend the unthinkable, but it's time to get my head around what happens if Villa actually go up.

I'm sure you've covered it but I've only dipped into bits of this (excellent) thread and am behind on my homework. Do they simply exit the jurisdiction of the EFL and therefore FFP?

[downendcity]

46 minutes ago, Olé said:

Hey Mr. P - I've been putting off trying to comprehend the unthinkable, but it's time to get my head around what happens if Villa actually go up.

I'm sure you've covered it but I've only dipped into bits of this (excellent) thread and am behind on my homework. Do they simply exit the jurisdiction of the EFL and therefore FFP?

There are 2 parts to this.

The first, and the most infuriating, is that the new rules introduced the requirement to produce projected accounts in the third year so that if a breach of ffp was then identified, sanctions could be applied in the same season. In the case of a club competing for promotion, then a points deduction could then be made to prevent them enjoying the fruits of their (cheating) labours and avoiding the farcical situations that existed when QPR and Bournemouth were promoted, thereby escaping the clutches of the EFL for their ffp breaches.

Secondly, when the new rules were announced I am sure I read that they had been agreed with and by the premier league. Whether this means that even if a club is promoted and a breach subsequently comes to light they can be punished and the premier league will accept the punishment I can't say, but the repercussions would be massive if it were the case. What if Villa won the play offs and were subsequently punished, could they be prevented from taking promotion and if they were who would be promoted instead - West Brom might argue that Villa should never have been in the play offs in the first place and Boro will argue they should have e taken the final play off place?

Because of the new rules I cant help but think that despite all of our suspicions, Villa's accounts show them to be within ffp. Either that or they are in breach but the EFL are fudging the issue, as they are not brave enough to take on a big club for fear of the legal repercussions, should they fight any points deduction. My suspicious mind makes me think the latter and especially so given that no action appears to have been taken with Derby, despite the accounting slight of hand they performed with the stadium "sale" to avoid busting ffp.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by downendcity

[Olé]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Because of the new rules I cant help but think that despite all of our suspicions, Villa's accounts show them to be within ffp. Either that or they are in breach but the EFL are fudging the issue as they are not brave enough to take on a big club for fear of the legal repercussions should they fight any points deduction

Thank you! I wasn't far off in my understanding then, I just didn't know the Premier League would support retrospective action after promotion - and I thought I'd missed something given that nothing has happened already based on projected accounts, as I cannot believe with the problems they have been through, Villa have found a legitimate way to comply.

[downendcity]

1 minute ago, Olé said:

Thank you! I wasn't far off in my understanding then, I just didn't know the Premier League would support retrospective action after promotion - and I thought I'd missed something given that nothing has happened already based on projected accounts, as I cannot believe with the problems they have been through, Villa have found a legitimate way to comply.

Not at all clear where the premier league stands regarding retrospective action.

Im guessing that if a club were to be fined or subject to a transfer embargo then they might well support such actions retrospectively. The big issue though is the question of points deduction for major breaches, and I can't see how this could be applied retrospectively, even if the premier league was in agreement.

As I mentioned previously, with projected accounts being provided in the third year I cannot see how and why any retrospective action should ever be required, unless the EFL cock it up or choose to kick a club's ffp issue into the long grass until a later date.

All we have at the moment is supposition ( albeit based on some pretty good forensic work by a couple of our in the know posters) from which there is strong suspicion that clubs like Villa and Derby have dogged a bullett by fair means or foul. If I was Birmingham City juts now I;d be spitting feathers and demanding the EFL explain their apparently less than even handed approach to championship clubs.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

My personal take on it is that as it showed, they were in Aston Villa in compliance until May 2018.

Now I'd suggest a breach of the 3 years even after post-deductions of £20-30m- in theory the EFL can strip promotion from a side, prevent them from going up- I hope they lose the final absolutely but I also hope that if they don't then by some miracle, the EFL will declare the promotion null and void and award it to the opposition. Unicorns apt for this post/wish?

@downendcity I'm not wholly convinced Derby in breach without the stadium sale- if we assume market value of £40m is a fair transaction, or thereabouts then their 3 year accounts until May 2018 have them quite likely just within the limits if we knock off the profit...they've sold players for good money too so I see it as likely they may just about be compliant after allowable costs- way I see that one is largely to give Lampard a warchest and wage budget by adding £40m to "profits" to 3 year figures- that profit should be declared illegal- not necessarily in breach but very little headroom either.

The other issue with the EFL, is they're quite simply not very good. Slow off the mark- look how long it to them to breach Birmingham 9 points in what was a pretty easy case!

On the point about uneven treatment- Birmingham need to take this to the CAS! There is excellent precedent with AC Milan last year and basically if UEFA hadn't chosen to go away and rethink, they would had to have produced the accounts that they had for the 2 petro-clubs and Inter Milan that they all submitted, for AC Milan to inspect as part of a legal case, an appeal.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My personal take on it is that as it showed, they were in Aston Villa in compliance until May 2018.

Now I'd suggest a breach of the 3 years even after post-deductions of £20-30m- in theory the EFL can strip promotion from a side, prevent them from going up- I hope they lose the final absolutely but I also hope that if they don't then by some miracle, the EFL will declare the promotion null and void and award it to the opposition. Unicorns apt for this post/wish?

@downendcity I'm not wholly convinced Derby in breach without the stadium sale- if we assume market value of £40m is a fair transaction, or thereabouts then their 3 year accounts until May 2018 have them quite likely just within the limits if we knock off the profit...they've sold players for good money too so I see it as likely they may just about be compliant after allowable costs- way I see that one is largely to give Lampard a warchest and wage budget by adding £40m to "profits" to 3 year figures- that profit should be declared illegal- not necessarily in breach but very little headroom either.

The other issue with the EFL, is they're quite simply not very good. Slow off the mark- look how long it to them to breach Birmingham 9 points in what was a pretty easy case!

On the point about uneven treatment- Birmingham need to take this to the CAS! There is excellent precedent with AC Milan last year and basically if UEFA hadn't chosen to go away and rethink, they would had to have produced the accounts that they had for the 2 petro-clubs and Inter Milan that they all submitted, for AC Milan to inspect as part of a legal case, an appeal.

The EFL dealing with clubs and clubs accountants appear to be like my parents were when trying to comprehend their grandchildren's computer technology!

I still think that the EFL hoped that when they introduced the latest ffp. rules, and particularly the punishments available to them under the new , that it would make clubs knuckle under and comply. Perhaps they saw a few fines and transfer embargoes but did;t envisage having to consider points deductions, and not from big clubs in and around promotion and not in the first season of application.

Accordingly, they seem to be dancing around the issues without actually confronting them, for fear of the potential consequences. Given what ff. is trying to avoid, with what is happening to Bolton just now, the EFL's inaction is pretty disgraceful.

[chinapig]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As per Kieran Maguire, still overdue.

Bear in mind, they were already extended by 2 months so quite what they are up to will be very interesting surely...

Complications may have arisen from their change of name to Steve Bruce's Sheffield Wednesday.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On that note, interesting story in today's Times.

Quote

 

Sky Bet Championship clubs accused of selling grounds then renting them back to exploit FFP rules

Matt Hughes, Sports News Correspondent

May 17 2019, 12:01am, The Times

• Football
• Premier League

Derby recently revealed they had sold Pride Park to Morris, the club’s ownerNICK POTTS/PA

Share

Save

The English Football League will review its financial fair play rules this summer after complaints from clubs in the Sky Bet Championship that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books.

Sheffield Wednesday and two other Championship clubs are believed to have followed the example of Derby County, who revealed last month that they sold Pride Park to the club’s owner Mel Morris for £80 million last year, enabling them to record a pre-tax profit of £14.6 million for the 2017-18 season. Aston Villa are understood to be considering selling Villa Park if they fail to win promotion to the Premier League in this month’s play-off final.

Under EFL profit and sustainability rules that prohibit clubs recording losses of more than £39 million over a three-year period, there is nothing to prevent such sale and lease-back schemes, which are an accepted method of solving cashflow problems in other industries. Many clubs consider it unethical, however, and the EFL board has agreed to review its regulations. It is understood that the subject will be on the agenda at the end-of-season meeting of Championship clubs in Portugal next month.

Several clubs have expressed anger that their Championship peers appear to be using creative accounting to bypass financial fair play (FFP) regulations that have resulted in Birmingham City being docked nine points and Queens Park Rangers fined £42 million for breaches in the past 12 months. Derby and Villa are understood to be two of the clubs most at risk of breaking the EFL’s £39 million loss cap and incurring sanctions if they are not promoted to the Premier League. Wednesday and Leeds United are also at risk.

The EFL introduced a set tariff for FFP breaches this season. A maximum of 12 points could be docked, although a further nine can be added if an aggravated breach is proven.

One owner of a Championship club told The Times: “According to the rules it’s not cheating, but we should change the way the rules are written. In this instance fair play doesn’t mean anything. It’s not ethically correct.”

The chief executive of another club added: “My owners are furious about this and demanding change. It’s not a level playing field at present as the rules are meaningless.”

Villa raised £4 million through the sale of a car park close to Villa Park last year and will look at selling the entire stadium as an option to raise funds if they are in breach of the EFL’s spending limits this summer. Wednesday’s situation is even more intriguing as they have yet to file accounts for the year ending July 2018. These were due on April 30.

Villa Park could be sold if the club fail to win promotion to the Premier LeagueANTHONY DEVLIN/PA

The Times understands that the club have also failed to file accounts to the EFL which were due last December, which could lead to them being fined. A club spokesman said that any new arrangement regarding Hillsborough would be clear in their accounts, which they insisted would be published in the next few weeks.

“The long-term sustainability of all EFL clubs remains of paramount importance and we will continue to work with Championship clubs in respect of the rules at next month’s summer conference,” an EFL spokesman said. “Clubs have also been reminded of the stringent processes undertaken in reviewing financial submissions and that in the event any club is found to be in breach of the rules, they will be referred to an independent disciplinary commission.”

 

Seems that Sheffield Wednesday have even failed to file accounts to EFL last December- they should be embargoed for that alone at minimum!

That article overlooks one point though- they actually- as is their legal entitlement once every 5 years so no rules or laws breached- extended their accounting period by 2 months.

The curious one on that list is Leeds- if there are not in-season punishments then they're not in danger. If there were they might be but they have lots of players on their books- them being sold will remove amortisation alone, let alone profit and wages, but then they would have legal recourse if they went up next season for no punishments against others, legal recourse to the CAS.

Also read which made me sick, Aston Villa £15m- that's FIFTEEN MILLION- compensation for HS2. Surely fake news?- but then again if we recall, an ex Aston Villa bigwig involved in HS2 in that area?!

If true though...Spawniest. Bastards. Ever!

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

On 15/05/2019 at 10:54, downendcity said:

Not at all clear where the premier league stands regarding retrospective action.

Im guessing that if a club were to be fined or subject to a transfer embargo then they might well support such actions retrospectively. The big issue though is the question of points deduction for major breaches, and I can't see how this could be applied retrospectively, even if the premier league was in agreement.

As I mentioned previously, with projected accounts being provided in the third year I cannot see how and why any retrospective action should ever be required, unless the EFL cock it up or choose to kick a club's ffp issue into the long grass until a later date.

All we have at the moment is supposition ( albeit based on some pretty good forensic work by a couple of our in the know posters) from which there is strong suspicion that clubs like Villa and Derby have dogged a bullett by fair means or foul. If I was Birmingham City juts now I;d be spitting feathers and demanding the EFL explain their apparently less than even handed approach to championship clubs.

 

I wonder whether Birmingham could be the salvation here, in terms of Villa’s flouting of FFP and finally getting done.  Big wishful thinking on my part.

We keep thinking about their 9 point deduction, but often forget that was for the 3 year period to 17/18.  They are still gonna be in the shit for for the 3 year period to 18/19, so likely to be under embargo....and get a points deduction at some point in the 19/20 season, when the EFL finally act.  They might show leniency if Adams is sold and brings some sanity back to their accounts.  But compare to Villa, there 3 year period to 18/19, also gonna be a mess.  Villa (if promoted) are gonna give the EFL the middle finger, but surely the EFL would need to request the Prem to apply similar treatment.

If not....then the more likely scenario is that FFP is scrapped!  

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I wonder whether Birmingham could be the salvation here, in terms of Villa’s flouting of FFP and finally getting done.  Big wishful thinking on my part.

 We keep thinking about their 9 point deduction, but often forget that was for the 3 year period to 17/18.  They are still gonna be in the shit for for the 3 year period to 18/19, so likely to be under embargo....and get a points deduction at some point in the 19/20 season, when the EFL finally act.  They might show leniency if Adams is sold and brings some sanity back to their accounts.  But compare to Villa, there 3 year period to 18/19, also gonna be a mess.  Villa (if promoted) are gonna give the EFL the middle finger, but surely the EFL would need to request the Prem to apply similar treatment.

If not....then the more likely scenario is that FFP is scrapped!  

Agree with this- definitely approaching crunch time.

Think the Birmingham ruling is now for the duration of this period 1 year- so £13m + allowable expenditure, as they can't be punished twice for the breach which occurred last season.

However 6 month accounts to December suggested that they had already exceeded £13m, to the HKSE (Hong Kong Stock Exchange). Birmingham Sport Holdings that is- presumably the overspend would be adjusted accordingly for the points tariff or is that another loophole the EFL haven't thought of I wonder!

In short, they might be saved in part by Butland sell on fee- IF it is by June 30th 2019 as that's when their accounts end and also the surely highly likely sale of Adams- again June 30th 2019 would be the deadline.

https://almajir.net/2019/04/23/bsh-credit-crunch/

They seem in a bit of a mess though, to say the least- perhaps not just with FFP either! Or it could provide them with some fresh legit income, who knows really.

https://almajir.net/2019/02/28/bsh-interim-results-to-december-2018/

Those results.

Oh yeah, my point about the tariff thing- if x-y in losses above the limit equals a given number of points then the obvious thing is to divide it by 3- so say £3m overspend=5 points (I know that isn't the tariff but can't remember it right now), then for an adjusted down limit it is £1m overspend=5 points. Bet the EFL haven't covered this base however!

For all that, yes they could be allies with us and other clubs in compliance. Inconsistent punishment by law of the same offences is very shaky- in sports law too. CAS proved this with AC Milan last summer.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I wonder whether Birmingham could be the salvation here, in terms of Villa’s flouting of FFP and finally getting done.  Big wishful thinking on my part.

We keep thinking about their 9 point deduction, but often forget that was for the 3 year period to 17/18.  They are still gonna be in the shit for for the 3 year period to 18/19, so likely to be under embargo....and get a points deduction at some point in the 19/20 season, when the EFL finally act.  They might show leniency if Adams is sold and brings some sanity back to their accounts.  But compare to Villa, there 3 year period to 18/19, also gonna be a mess.  Villa (if promoted) are gonna give the EFL the middle finger, but surely the EFL would need to request the Prem to apply similar treatment.

If not....then the more likely scenario is that FFP is scrapped!  

In either case, where does it leave clubs that have sold key players in order to stay within ffp and in so doing have compromised their chances of promotion, or risked them being dragged into a relegation battle?

Would be interesting to know what legal advice they might receive, as far as taking action against the EFL is concerned.

 

[Lrrr]

What are the chances the EFL punish the first non 'big club' who sell their stadium to the owner to skirt FFP and leave Derby/Wednesday/Villa etc alone

[Drew Peacock]

Quote

It is understood that the subject will be on the agenda at the end-of-season meeting of Championship clubs in Portugal next month.

Meanwhile in Bolton..................

[Davefevs]

48 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In either case, where does it leave clubs that have sold key players in order to stay within ffp and in so doing have compromised their chances of promotion, or risked them being dragged into a relegation battle?

Would be interesting to know what legal advice they might receive, as far as taking action against the EFL is concerned.

 

I think that is the angle Gibson and Lansdown are playing at.  I see the good intentions of the projected accounts, but the implementation when both 1) club annual accounting periods finish after the end of the season and 2) the transfer window Re-opens before 1, is flawed.  Villa will just sell Player X and / or Player Y for £Xm if they don’t go up.

Perhaps in Gibson / Pulis / Boro’s case they showed their hand too early in cutting costs?

Re Ground Sale, the EFL have already concluded Derby’s was fine....so have set the precedent....haven’t they?  Bit late to say they are gonna investigate Wednesday, and Villa if they do the same.

[Lrrr]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re Ground Sale, the EFL have already concluded Derby’s was fine....so have set the precedent

So basically Lansdown to just buy AG from whichever company owns the stadium for £100m and see if the EFL have any balls 

[Mr Popodopolous]

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think that is the angle Gibson and Lansdown are playing at.  I see the good intentions of the projected accounts, but the implementation when both 1) club annual accounting periods finish after the end of the season and 2) the transfer window Re-opens before 1, is flawed.  Villa will just sell Player X and / or Player Y for £Xm if they don’t go up.

Perhaps in Gibson / Pulis / Boro’s case they showed their hand too early in cutting costs?

 Re Ground Sale, the EFL have already concluded Derby’s was fine....so have set the precedent....haven’t they?  Bit late to say they are gonna investigate Wednesday, and Villa if they do the same.

Their accounting period runs until May 31st 2019- summer window opens in June...unless they can prove demonstrably to the EFL- doesn't have to be public, but it would be nice if a lot more of it was- then surely they'd be snookered for this season in that respect.

Maybe...but I prefer to think of it as clubs who abide and make decent efforts- and even mad though it sounds, Derby are better than a few having sold Christie, Hendrick, Hughes, Ince, Vydra and Weimann last 3 seasons to help at least, and those who don't- namely the 2 Birmingham clubs plus Sheffield Wednesday it appears. I mean there are those who will push the allowable limits to the max but won't breach it- Wolves and maybe Brighton spring to mind. In terms of those who sold to help try to ensure compliance, as well as Middlesbrough we have us, we have Norwich- though that was as much solvency as FFP, we have Nottingham Forest, they sold Brereton for £7m, we have Leeds- Wood, Taylor compensation amongst others summer 2017, fairly sure they sold in 2016/17 also, Vieira last summer, they're planning to bring in £7m in sales this summer and that's just early on if papertalk to be believed, albeit they're 2 players on loan elsewhere- helps offset losses though.

Then we have those who make small or moderate operating losses anyway, or in an FFP context- made smaller by sales, e.g. Preston, Rotherham, to an extent Wigan, on some levels Sheffield United- I'm sure there are quite a few if I look into it further. Then you have a handful of clubs who think they are above the rules- the 2 Birmingham clubs, though Birmingham City a shambles anyway I'd suggest, Sheffield Wednesday who if the Times article is to be believed haven't even submitted their accounts to the EFL though that could just be poor reporting- another badly run club, and Derby using a profit to cushion future spending/prevention of necessity to sell players.

Then you have the stupidest of all which was Barnsley selling Bree, Hourihane and Winnall even when they were already posting a profit for the season and were in the playoff picture- yet Birmingham survived at their expense a year and a half later!! Mix of asset stripping, loan repayments and debt reduction to owner IMO. Perhaps preparation for takeover too.

Precedent set- would seem so. I maybe wrong but I don't think they can forbid fair market value even if a related transaction- so £40-41m in the case of Pride Park, but perhaps moving forward they can disallow the profit as illegitimate if sold to a related party- that's the bit that really riles me personally, again Derby because of the aforementioned player sales and compensation for Rowett may just be in it if we strip the £39-40m profit from the sale but pretty hemmed in if they lose the final. In a similar way to debt write offs not counting as income for FFP.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Coppello]

I had an interesting conversation with a former Finance Director of a Championship club last regarding the state of the EFL at the moment. He described the FFP reporting as farcical and indicated that the finance department of the EFL were pretty incompetent.

Often he would phone the EFL's office, who are based in Preston, and ask Tad Detko (FD of EFL) queries regarding the reporting requirements. In a thick Lancashire accent, Tad would often respond with, "If it doesn't take the piss, I'm happy". It sums up the league's culture towards financial fair play and clubs have pushed their luck more and more. It is quite a contrast to the Premier League who are in constant communication with clubs and drive the reporting requirements. It sounds like those in charge of FFP at the EFL are simply not competent and perhaps do not have the capacity to monitor all 72 clubs. 

 

[Johnny Musicworks]

So Wednesday owner has apparently sold the stadium (as per Derby method I’m guessing) and another bit of FFP avoidance no doubt!

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

This year’s summer window opened on May 6 for the EFL and May 16 for the Premier league. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I had an interesting conversation with a former Finance Director of a Championship club last regarding the state of the EFL at the moment. He described the FFP reporting as farcical and indicated that the finance department of the EFL were pretty incompetent.

Often he would phone the EFL's office, who are based in Preston, and ask Tad Detko (FD of EFL) queries regarding the reporting requirements. In a thick Lancashire accent, Tad would often respond with, "If it doesn't take the piss, I'm happy". It sums up the league's culture towards financial fair play and clubs have pushed their luck more and more. It is quite a contrast to the Premier League who are in constant communication with clubs and drive the reporting requirements. It sounds like those in charge of FFP at the EFL are simply not competent and perhaps do not have the capacity to monitor all 72 clubs. 

 

Haha, knew it! Knew it- incompetent and in some ways reluctant to be too pernickety- but incompetent absolutely!!

Thank you though, that is very interesting stuff- and the difference between EFL and PL is evident. Mind you in terms of the base FFP in the PL- not talking the STCC thing- for that is slightly different but the £35m + allowable losses- with their TV money and commercial revenue- and marketing on a global level, it's almost impossible to fail! £105m over 3 years...makes sense in some ways but in others, forgetting parachute payments for a minute they also have £44m + any profit accrued in the prior 2 years to play with- should be £13m per year and allowable losses in PL IMO but that'll never happen.

Personally I think and I'm sure most right minded people would agree that Derby and seemingly Sheffield Wednesday if reports are true selling the ground to themselves effectively- even if technically different corporate entities- for a 'profit' is taking the piss- but then business regs and ethics don't always exactly align.

@RoystonFoote'snephew Ah, did it? Thanks. Read on here at some point that it was June 9th- I'll go with what you say though, small window for Aston Villa if they lose that playoff final before it rolls over to 2019/20 financial reporting period.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

18 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I had an interesting conversation with a former Finance Director of a Championship club last regarding the state of the EFL at the moment. He described the FFP reporting as farcical and indicated that the finance department of the EFL were pretty incompetent.

Often he would phone the EFL's office, who are based in Preston, and ask Tad Detko (FD of EFL) queries regarding the reporting requirements. In a thick Lancashire accent, Tad would often respond with, "If it doesn't take the piss, I'm happy". It sums up the league's culture towards financial fair play and clubs have pushed their luck more and more. It is quite a contrast to the Premier League who are in constant communication with clubs and drive the reporting requirements. It sounds like those in charge of FFP at the EFL are simply not competent and perhaps do not have the capacity to monitor all 72 clubs. 

 

If this is the case it is absolutely scandalous and proves the EFL and their administration of ffp compliance is not fit for purpose.

Villa phone call to the EFL.

Villa: "Hi  just wanted to bring you up to speed with our accounts and it looks like we will be about £35 million over the ffp limit"

EFL " Oh that doesn't sound too good"

Villa: "That's why I'm calling because it's not as bad as it sounds, as  we are selling Jack Grealish for  more than £40million and that will bring us well inline "

EFL " When will you be selling him?"

Villa: " Soon - very soon"

EFL: "That sounds OK then - nothing to worry about. I better ring off now because I've got to get in touch with Bristol City. They worry me I as they've overspent by £50 on their stationery budget so I need to teach them a lesson so that other clubs don't try and do the same thing. Oh and good luck in the play offs hope it goes well and you are soon back in the premier league - where you belong""

 

 

Photo of the EFL financial compliance team 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by downendcity