The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting note.

From OwlsTalk- and I'll get onto the big 2 plus possibly Birmingham and the thread as a whole later, maybe this evening.

Seems Hillsborough has not been sold- other rumours on there that it has been sold but there are problems getting it through as Chansiri is trying to backdate it to 2017/18 accounts or similar. 

I half wonder and only partly jokingly if he, given he seems to have run them badly to say the least thought "Ah! Great idea Mel Morris- I'll sell it to myself and avoid sanctions." Even though that accounting period had long since passed, i.e. if he had got no proper independent valuation etc but just charged in before the end of accounts, no planning.

The main thing I jokingly wonder about is given the no show of the accounts even after a 2 month shift in reporting period- and it sounds ridiculous but so is some of his chairmanship- is if he thinks that because the Accounting Period for 2017/18 ends July 31 2018, he therefore has until the end of July 2019! It's a ridiculous idea but an amusing one, that I hope is somehow true!

Edited June 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

@Mr Popodopolous any idea what went on between Bryn and Jason on the Fishing Trip....otherwise known as the EFL Meeting in  Portugal?

[Mr Popodopolous]

In terms of FFP- no change apparently. That doesn't necessarily mean that Aston Villa e.g. aren't being investigated or that maybe even Derby are- though by the time they've worked it out both (and probably Birmingham and even Sheffield Wednesday) will be safely in PL!   

On a general note, regardless of stance on whether FFP is a good, bad or indifferent thing, the lack of clarity, guidance and general leadership from the EFL is a disgrace IMO- especially but far from exclusively on this!

Incidentally, on the Aston Villa thing just thought of something- if the PL won't transfer a points penalty across, then do the QPR thing- when their results come out in March 2020 and if they show a major breach as is anticipated, simply impose a punishment when they're still in the PL for their Championship return. Whenever that might be.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One quick note on Derby, before I come back to the main substance of the debate, in the coming days.

Looking at their accounts briefly, they did spend £5.8m in 2015/16 and £4.2m 2016/17 on Infrastructure (which I believe largely to be youth and youth related expenditure)- I'm still wondering therefore whether FFP was kept within regardless of ground transaction.

Then there's Depreciation of tangible assets. Women's Football, Community Expenditure. I don't know if I am double counting at all between Infrastructure expenditure and Depreciation of Tangible Assets but it isn't impossible they passed regardless.

Now IF they used the Sevco 5112 accounts, then I think they fail without the ground transaction, absolutely.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest Rapax]

Villa have not breached FFP accordingly to their chief executive at a fans meeting yesterday. The football league expected to confirm this apparently. 

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, Rapax said:

Villa have not breached FFP accordingly to their chief executive at a fans meeting yesterday. The football league expected to confirm this apparently. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

That must've been quite the exceptional item!!

Perhaps we now know why it was in Portugal the EFL conference- very nice.

Deductible against FFP obvs!

Edited June 13, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On a serious note, their accounts in March 2020 will show how they passed- or "passed".

Wonder if other club owners will be so happy to take this at face value?

The other possibility of course is that as we kind of guessed, EFL aren't bothering with projected accounts now and only the 3 prior years actual accounts will be the period that's judged.

Or maybe the £3m assumed for HS2 was in fact some other form of land sale and a huge HS2 compensation took them over the line this time.

Because I struggle to believe they raised a net £25-30m through a combination of sales and wage reduction.

@Rapax You sure you're a City fan? Only I looked at your posts and there's a lot pro Aston Villa in there.

Which is only a good thing- other fans on this board only adds to the perspective and the quality of debate, but some kinda dual interest? 

Regardless of how they somehow passed, never in my 21 years as a City fan have I seen such an odious entitled fanbase in any division we've played in (PL will have a lot)- not all of course but if social media a gauge, in one and only one way- if they fudged FFP good- I'm glad to be rid of them, just hope they don't come back.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Azed]

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Azed said:

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Good question- one which I believe @Coppello best placed to deal with, but I believe a Nicholas Craig to be their Governance and Legal Director. He's been a lawyer in excess of 10 years.

Aston Villa, I wonder if in March 2019 when their full accounts are published this issue will become live again- projected accounts barring exceptional items cannot show a pass, surely! Their losses should be very high but bear in mind that promotion bonuses which will show in the wages but not necessarily as a separate item, will not count as FFP expenditure. Same presumably goes for the upgrade to the McCormack contract and the payment to Randy Lerner- all comes under "cost of promotion" which is excluded for FFP purposes. Would also include e.g. fees due to clubs in event of promotion being achieved. Even taking all that into account though, they surely failed without some curious exceptional item.

Birmingham's hearing had Charles Flint QC overseeing it. James Seagan acting for EFL vastly experienced.

Here it is in full actually!

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

I think the EFL have made a mess of things overall though- the flip-flopping over projected accounts the big one. Precedent set- can only be judged on the 3 prior years of existing accounts unless the rules voted to be changed by the clubs. If they try to stop promotion now barring a fully voted for change of rules, first stop the CAS IMO.

Plus- on Aston Villa. Also possible that they put "sale of Grealish" on projected accounts.

IF no such sale transpired in that scenario as they went up, that's a seriously aggravated breach. No way should if that was the case EFL declare them as having passed, as seemingly requested by Aston Villa- they should release a statement to the effect of "Passed- As it stands, pending further material change of circumstances and if applicable, investigation".

The gall, the entitlement of Aston Villa wanting a statement released by EFL about them having passed- hate them!

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Azed said:

Mr P, Coppello, do you know if FFP breaches are dealt with by the the EFL's  Disciplinary Commission with a barrister and an arbitrator with minimum 5 years post qualification experience or are they reviewed "lower down" first? Do the EFL have a legal affairs dept? I can't find anything which refers to one on the EFL site.

Theses the EFL committee that deals with FFP breaches......

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Theses the EFL committee that deals with FFP breaches......

One thing I have noticed though.

Wasn't (yet) confirmed by EFL that Aston Villa passed- it's that Purslow has declared it and also asked them to release a statement to the effect that they have passed.

Will be interesting to see if this statement is forthcoming. Regardless of pass/fail it certainly shouldn't be but their entitlement knows no bounds.

Here we go, found it in full.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

 

They've released a copy of the account for transparency.....

[Lanterne Rouge]

6 hours ago, downendcity said:

They've released a copy of the account for transparency.....

No, no, no! That`s Derby`s.

[downendcity]

16 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

No, no, no! That`s Derby`s.

Easily confused as they have the same Accountants!  

[cider11]

The sun are reporting that Reading are currently under a soft embargo - https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/9316083/reading-soft-transfer-ban-championship-efl/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunfootballfacebook170619&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1560794522

[Guest Begley]

Interesting debate and nice to see fans from different clubs chatting. Villa fan in peace here.

There are a few mentions of Villa selling their ground to themselves (like Derby) to pass P&S. Although this is not against the rules albeit not in the spirit of P&S, it is not the case that Villa has sold Villa Park. Since buying Villa NSWE have been putting a lot of money into the club and with each investment Xia's shareholding is further diluted, apparently he now owns less that 20% of AVFC whereas he had 45% the day the sale went through. The name of the Villa Park holding company was changed and the directors of the holding company were also changed. It went from Recon (A Xia owned company) to Aston Villa (an NSWE owned company) with Xia removed as a shareholder. There was no sale of Villa Park, it was simply a further dilution of Xia's equity on AVFC 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Sheffield Wednesday are too apparently- albeit for different reasons, seemingly once you don't submit your accounts and a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic soft embargo.

It could well be one with conditions i.e. no fees, frees and loans alright within a certain wage pattern, Sheffield Wednesday that is.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheffield Wednesday are too apparently- albeit for different reasons, seemingly once you don't submit your accounts and a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic soft embargo.

It could well be one with conditions i.e. no fees, frees and loans alright within a certain wage pattern, Sheffield Wednesday that is.

Yet it has been reported, allegedly coming from Sheff Wed themselves, that they have agreed a fee for Turnbull.

If that were to happen I would definitely despair of FFP. Though it looks more and more like a fig leaf to me anyway.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

 Yet it has been reported, allegedly coming from Sheff Wed themselves, that they have agreed a fee for Turnbull.

 If that were to happen I would definitely despair of FFP. Though it looks more and more like a fig leaf to me anyway.

Possible that they're waiting for Hillsborough sale and leaseback reported to be on the cards to come through- though it is also equally possible they're doing a Birmingham and signing a player while under soft embargo- Pedersen which should if precedent set see a referral to disciplinary commission.

Though last I read on it, said sale and leaseback has not happened or had not at that stage- unsure about fig leaf given Birmingham 9 points and varying stages of embargo. PL won't apply penalties on Aston Villa- if and when they return, EFL might- under pressure from at least 20 clubs I'd have thought- have a penalty waiting.

One thing to watch though it sounds small might be whether EFL declare Aston Villa to have passed. Purslow seemingly declared it as a fans forum last week, and their odious fans seem or seemed to think that an EFL Statement was  on the cards confirming this. Obvious what Purslow is up to there and I don't think even the EFL will fall for it- if they declare publicly they have passed, I don't see how they can re-open it.

Therefore either: a) They declare they have passed "as it stands"- in much more legalese obviously. or b) They don't say anything.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Possible that they're waiting for Hillsborough sale and leaseback reported to be on the cards to come through- though it is also equally possible they're doing a Birmingham and signing a player while under soft embargo- Pedersen which should if precedent set see a referral to disciplinary commission.

Though last I read on it, said sale and leaseback has not happened or had not at that stage- unsure about fig leaf given Birmingham 9 points and varying stages of embargo. PL won't apply penalties on Aston Villa- if and when they return, EFL might- under pressure from at least 20 clubs I'd have thought- have a penalty waiting.

One thing to watch though it sounds small might be whether EFL declare Aston Villa to have passed. Purslow seemingly declared it as a fans forum last week, and an EFL Statement was apparently on the cards confirming this. Obvious what Purslow is up to there and I don't think even the EFL will fall for it- if they declare publicly they have passed, I don't see how they can re-open it.

Therefore either: a) They declare they have passed "as it stands"- in much more legalese obviously. or b) They don't say anything.

The fact that big clubs appear to thumb their noses at FFP with impunity makes it a fig leaf for me.

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

I predict that within a year the rules will be relaxed to the extent that they will become irrelevant.

Edited June 18, 2019 by chinapig

[Gert Mare]

On 15/04/2019 at 19:07, Coppello said:

They say that they have had the stadium independently valued by experts which is interesting. I'd struggle to see how the stadium valuation of £80m has been ascertained using the depreciated replacement cost method given that it's not brand new and it's in Derby, not the most expensive area of the country. I'm currently working on a stadium valuation at the moment in a more affluent area of the country and I'd be amazed if it comes out at 75% of the fee. I do wonder if we will see a wave of Championship and Premier League clubs following this method which would be absolutely ridiculous. It throws FFP rules into complete disrepute. The fact that it has been audited is a bit of an embarrassment to Smith Cooper (their audit firm) who has signed this off.

As a side note, it is commonly stated that the football club do not own the stadium which is a little misleading. Yes, it's not held in the same legal entity as the footballing activity but it is held in a company that Bristol City Holdings Ltd own 100% of. It doesn't really change things in the grand scheme of things because if it was held in Bristol City Football Club Ltd, Lansdown could still asset strip the football club and sell off Ashton Gate. It's just slightly easier now it's in a separate entity as he could effectively sell shares in it but the Bristol City group still 100% own the stadium. 

 Someone must be telling lies. Everybody knows we are Bristol City (1982) plc Ltd as the faithful and true continually try to remind us. 82.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The fact that big clubs appear to thumb their noses at FTP with impunity makes it a fig leaf for me.

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

I predict that within a year the rules will be relaxed to the extent that they will become irrelevant.

It's an interesting one.

I think the rules have loopholes that would be easily amended. See the Derby ground sale as case study a. Some people suggest that fixed asset sales mean it's aok, but others rightly point out an inconsistency which basically reads that if depreciation on fixed assets doesn't count against FFP costs, then sale of assets shouldn't either- certainly not to related parties in a leaseback! Before we even get onto what might have been true value. That's just one example.

Agreed- Birmingham a lot lower profile.

We'll see. I think there are medium and big clubs in favour too. To name 3, Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest. Then you have a majority of medium and smaller clubs who have stuck to standards and want no more than equal treatment under the regs regardless of club size. Need 18/24 having a vote in favour to have them so watered down tbh- dynamics could change of course but I'm not sure I see an appetite among enough clubs to scrap them.

[Guest DerbyFan]

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

[Bristol Rob]

40 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Are the EFL planning on buying their own board room table off themselves?

[chinapig]

42 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Since nobody backed Gibson I think we can conclude that they don't give a toss about FFP.

Still, are Derby about to move on to their, (ninth is it?), manager under Morris? What with that and selling off the family silver, a stable, well run club, and an example to us all!

[Guest Begley]

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

It wasn't that Blues were an easy target. They failed P&S for the period '15/'16 through to '17/'18 and were punished with a soft embargo. Then in '18/'19 they broke the rules again. Persistent offending will result in severe punishment. Comparing them to Derby is ridiculous as Derby have not broken the P&S rules

 

[Guest DerbyFan]

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Since nobody backed Gibson I think we can conclude that they don't give a toss about FFP.

Still, are Derby about to move on to their, (ninth is it?), manager under Morris? What with that and selling off the family silver, a stable, well run club, and an example to us all!

If you actually look at the situations at the time there was one (McClaren) in place in May 2014 when he bought a minority (22%) stake in the club, then there was another (Clement) in place in September 2015 when he bought the rest of the club (source), since then we've had four permanent managers (Pearson, McClaren MKII, Rowett and Lampard), one interim (Wassall - after Clement) and one caretaker (Powell - after Pearson). Sam Rush, ex CEO, left in May 2017, when Rowett was in charge.

So while you may say the next one will be the ninth under Mel Morris, it's not as simple as that, it rarely is.

For all the manager changes we've actually not finished below ninth in that time, and we've finished in the play offs for four out of the last six seasons, there's worse clubs to be.

Anyway, at least when Frank goes we'll have made around £6m in compensation from the last two, better than having to pay them off!

[reddoh]

On 13/06/2019 at 14:07, downendcity said:

Theses the EFL committee that deals with FFP breaches......

think you have got that wrong I have never heard wise used when referring too the efl 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

It's just been announced that our Chief Executive Stephen Pearce has joined yours and Reading's on the EFL Board today.

Can we assume from that, given that they are selected by the other clubs in the division that there is no problem between us and the majority of clubs re. FFP as had been rumoured on here?

I can't imagine they would have voted our CEO onto the board if there were issues?!

Nah, it’s so he can’t influence anything that might benefit Derby as he’ll have a conflict of interest and not be allowed any decision making!.  

[chinapig]

7 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

If you actually look at the situations at the time there was one (McClaren) in place in May 2014 when he bought a minority (22%) stake in the club, then there was another (Clement) in place in September 2015 when he bought the rest of the club (source), since then we've had four permanent managers (Pearson, McClaren MKII, Rowett and Lampard), one interim (Wassall - after Clement) and one caretaker (Powell - after Pearson). Sam Rush, ex CEO, left in May 2017, when Rowett was in charge.

So while you may say the next one will be the ninth under Mel Morris, it's not as simple as that, it rarely is.

For all the manager changes we've actually not finished below ninth in that time, and we've finished in the play offs for four out of the last six seasons, there's worse clubs to be.

Anyway, at least when Frank goes we'll have made around £6m in compensation from the last two, better than having to pay them off!

Does it strike you as odd to celebrate selling your stadium, getting compensation for a manager and not finishing below 9th?

Time was when Derby County counted for more. Still, big club, should be in the PL as of right etc, etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Quick point on Reading embargo.

I might of course be wrong, but my guess for it is that the embargo is a holding pattern- and they have until 30th June to bring their finances into line, as per projected submitted accounts- that's when their accounting period up.

If they don't shift a few by then, even if it doesn't clear the deficit fully but shows excellent signs moving forward it might suffice. If they don't though, then surely the Birmingham precedent is that an EFL hearing awaits- though part of me wonders if they had stuck to soft embargo and not signed Pedersen for £2m when in that situation- a ridiculous move- did they think "soft embargo" meant relatively cheap transfers only?? Anyway, part of me thinks that had Birmingham stuck to it then they wouldn't have ended up in a hearing and with an EFL Business Plan, strictly conditional embargo etc. 

Maybe that's what has saved various clubs from Birmingham fate to date- shouldn't do of course but it's possible and especially with the "calibre" of the EFL!

Final quick note on Aston Villa.

Yes I posted this before but it is interesting that no EFL statement to this effect so far. Maybe they're still being investigated, mayne EFL are waiting for their actual accounts from 2018/19 because I don't see the other 20 plus clubs and I even include some who have had moderate losses and sold ground or Birmingham and their stupidity getting themselves punished being happy for them to come down scot free if they make a quick return or if that looks on the cards in 9 months- or maybe it's the aforementioned "calibre" of the EFL in evidence again and we'll see a statement in months to come.

Definitely intrigued to see how they passed given Villa Park seemingly not sold though! Maybe it was a significant HS2 compensation- or the wage bil/profit on transfers was an improvement of £20-25m higher than anticipated? We'll see I guess in March!

Edited June 19, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest DerbyFan]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

Does it strike you as odd to celebrate selling your stadium, getting compensation for a manager and not finishing below 9th?

Time was when Derby County counted for more. Still, big club, should be in the PL as of right etc, etc.

Was someone celebrating? I was just pointing out some facts as you were implying we were such a poorly run club.

I wasn't saying it was perfect, but you have to make the best of every situation and I believe that's what we've done by finishing in the top nine whilst having all those changes.

I know everyone craves stability, but you certainly can't blame the last two managerial changes (well one and that's one expected very shortly) on Mel Morris.

Rowett when appointed admitted he had wanted this job for years (source), he's lived in Derby for over 20 years, his son has grown up supporting us. Who would have expected him to walk out on us to go to Stoke in the manner he did after a season and a bit?

To be honest by the end of the season quite a few of our fans were getting frustrated with his pragmatism. Going into the second leg of the play offs against Fulham trying to hold onto a lead rather than attack didn't help. In hindsight, with that in mind and with the season that followed, getting almost £2m for him was actually great business.

Our fans annoyance with him leaving and the whole 'snake' thing was due to his comments after rebuffing their advances once and signing a new contract here in the January (source) and then choosing to walk out, to the same club, when they were no longer even in the league above us, about four and a half months later! A cynic would wonder if he just didn't want the likely relegation on his CV?

With Lampard - who on earth, regardless of his standing at Chelsea, would expect them, a club that finished third in the Premier League and won the Europa League, to come after a Championship clubs manager after just a year in management?! It feels so odd to even type those words it's that strange a situation.

Our fans obviously want him to stay but we know that's not going to happen, it's Frank Lampard and Chelsea, he's not going to turn them down when they come calling, as much as we'd like him to. But it would be the same situation no matter the club he was at, regardless of their standing and league, if Chelsea came calling he'd be going.

At least when they do the £4m they will have to pay helps the finances. We apparently added in a clause that means it costs more for them to take him because they're in the Champions League, so, if true, that can only be described as clever business sense.

[phantom]

@DerbyFan I am intrigued, and apologies for asking, but are you connected with the club in any way?

The tone of some of your posts (as informative as they are) reads more than just your casual fan with knowledge of their club

[Guest DerbyFan]

20 minutes ago, phantom said:

@DerbyFan I am intrigued, and apologies for asking, but are you connected with the club in any way?

The tone of some of your posts (as informative as they are) reads more than just your casual fan with knowledge of their club

No, I'm just a fan, someone else asked the same question previously.

I'm not sure what you mean by the tone of my posts, if you mean because I stand up for my club, then doesn't everyone?

I'm not saying anything that's not public knowledge - because I don't have any inside information.

[CyderInACan]

21 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I'm not saying anything that's not public knowledge - because I don't have any inside information

Quite the opposite of some of our alleged ITKs then in other posts on here! 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, DerbyFan said:

No, I'm just a fan, someone else asked the same question previously.

I'm not sure what you mean by the tone of my posts, if you mean because I stand up for my club, then doesn't everyone?

I'm not saying anything that's not public knowledge - because I don't have any inside information.

By "Tone" I meant that you use terminology and information that I wouldn't imagine a "fan" to know, the impression I (and obviously at least one other person got) was that you were more than just a regular North Stand ticket holder

[Guest DerbyFan]

37 minutes ago, phantom said:

By "Tone" I meant that you use terminology and information that I wouldn't imagine a "fan" to know, the impression I (and obviously at least one other person got) was that you were more than just a regular North Stand ticket holder

Ha, funnily enough that's exactly what I am, although add in the word season between Stand and ticket.

I'm certain (because I don't have any inside information) that if you go through my posts and search anything that I've put you will find it somewhere, if not then it's probably something that was in one of the televised fan forums that we've had, or possibly a radio interview, which it's possible may not be transcribed in an article anywhere.

[Riaz]

@Mr Popodopolous I noticed that last summer relegated clubs west brom and swansea didnt spend much at all. Am i right in thinking, they are in a very good position under FFP rules? Will be able to spend quite a bit? Considering that last season they would have got 40m in parachute payments and will do this season

Edited June 19, 2019 by Riaz

[Davefevs]

On 19/06/2019 at 14:24, Riaz said:

@Mr Popodopolous I noticed that last summer relegated clubs west brom and swansea didnt spend much at all. Am i right in thinking, they are in a very good position under FFP rules? Will be able to spend quite a bit? Considering that last season they would have got 40m in parachute payments and will do this season

West Brom have suffered from cash flow issues, not FFP previously, but having not gone straight back up, this season will probably see pragmatism, hence the rumour if offering Rodriguez for £5m rising to £10m in season 2, probably to get him off the wage bill. Gayle was only loan wasn’t he, but they get Rondon back....probably to sell.  So I think they will be starting to adjust, like Norwich did.

Swansea had a huge wage bill, so Dan James sale will help compensate that.  Think they’ll be ok, but they won’t be splashing loads either.  The appointment of Cooper suggests they go back to their old formula.

@Mr Popodopolous will give you a better answer.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 19/06/2019 at 14:24, Riaz said:

@Mr Popodopolous I noticed that last summer relegated clubs west brom and swansea didnt spend much at all. Am i right in thinking, they are in a very good position under FFP rules? Will be able to spend quite a bit? Considering that last season they would have got 40m in parachute payments and will do this season

 

39 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

West Brom have suffered from cash flow issues, not FFP previously, but having not gone straight back up, this season will probably see pragmatism, hence the rumour if offering Rodriguez for £5m rising to £10m in season 2, probably to get him off the wage bill. Gayle was only loan wasn’t he, but they get Rondon back....probably to sell.  So I think they will be starting to adjust, like Norwich did.

Swansea had a huge wage bill, so Dan James sale will help compensate that.  Think they’ll be ok, but they won’t be splashing loads either.  The appointment of Cooper suggests they go back to their old formula.

@Mr Popodopolous will give you a better answer.

WBA did I believe, though I'd have to research it fully mortgage against or borrow against the 2nd half of 2018/19 parachute payments and this seasons one so could that signal issues on the horizon? Definitely a good chance of pragmatism there.

I think Swansea's problem is partly wage bill, partly owners- they made a write down in their relegation season on player valuation which seems to help in the future- way I understand it allowable losses Swansea and WBA could have made last season if equity put in is £35m + £35m + £13m. Plus any accumulated profit, that's before we even get into expenditure of academy etc which either reduces FFP losses or increases the leeway moving forward.

However there's a caveat- I don't know if it applies in the PL, read different things but in the Championship the equity being put in is key- without it that £13m turns into £5m. Swansea's owners appear not to, WBA's might but I see no statement of capital in the last years- IF it was the case that PL losses also came down to £5m per season if no equity, and like I say read different things on this, then their position would be transformed- in a negative sense. Would mean allowable 3 year losses £15m + whatever spent on academy etc. As opposed to £35m + £13m + £13m. I believe WBA like most relegated clubs had relegation wage clauses- surely Swansea did too, you'd think.

Max equity an owner can count towards FFP being £8m- so without £5m, with £13m max losses- and I guess anything in between. If PL that'd be £30m but like I say it's unclear.

Their profits in 2016/17 will drop off the books and their small losses in 2017/18 will be the new starting point, as soon as their accounting period for 2018/19 done- for WBA it's 30th June 2019 and for Swansea 31st July 2019 so any sales before then count as profit in this season.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One quick view on Sheffield Wednesday too.

I remember saying something about or like this a few weeks ago- but it's probably hope over experience etc. IF a club has not submitted accounts to the EFL for the season just gone by the deadlines i.e. end of March but especially by the end of season just gone, that should be embargo for summer window. No ifs, no buts no lifting as soon as received- embargo summer 2019 if no accounts submitted by end of season. Just IMO anyway. Soft embargo all of the subsequent summer bare minimum.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Haha, what a laugh- what a joke!!

Intrigued to know what the other 23 owners make of this in the event of an instant return??

In any event, the EFL must not release any statement until sometime in March or April 2020 at the earliest when AVFC real accounts will be out- but they'll have this info already. Justice must be seen to be done etc.

Possible scenarios:

1. They either had a ground sale and leaseback in projected accounts- in which case they lied as it appears not to have occurred within the relevant accounting period. Back to EFL.
2. They claimed Grealish would be sold for £25-30m and they had a deal in place- in which case bad faith and an aggravated breach if anything. Back to EFL.
3. HS2 did indeed yield £25-30m in compensation. 
4. They sold and leased back training ground- Possible I guess?

1) and 2) would be in bad faith so should drop them right in it, and 3) well this is possible but given the controversy of HS2 and the delays then I don't really see how they could have jumped the queue to get £25-30m- that goes beyond football, that's a political scandal on a regional if not national level so I can't see it. HOWEVER the big interesting thing about this is a former Aston Villa chairman is high up in HS2 in that region- clicky here

The 4th, seems to have been nothing about it. Given recent work on it I don't see how 3) could apply and 4) must be the best kept secret if so.

If they've done either 1) or 2) and in fact made a £25-30m FFP deficit to May 2019, then I'd have them suspended from EFL IMO if they return soon- or at least it should be put to a vote of the EFL chairmen as an option on the table.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest Rapax]

Or maybe your wild speculation, is just that. EFL says Villa are compliant for 2018/19, subject to final audit. Standard stuff and absolutely nothing to see here 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Having looked fairly extensively at their prior 2 seasons accounts, and seen an AV FFP specialist, a football finance specialist in Kieran Maguire and Swiss Ramble another football finance specialist all on Twitter, and taking into account falling parachute payments, their 2017/18 losses- even taking into account what was written off for FFP expenditure and £22m falling off the allowable losses without some "exceptional item"- then I really don't see it.

The figure of £25-30m over seems somewhat commensurate with expected overspend over 3 seasons.

Possible of course that new owners inflated sponsorship deals through a related party- Adidas I think one of them has? Problem there is it's a related party and EFL can or should adjust it down using benchmarking for market rates- probably removing all but a few million for FFP purposes. That base therefore covered or should be- that loophole closed.

Intrigued to see how they therefore passed- their profit on transfers could of course help to offset the FFP losses, but they appear to be lower than 2017/18 too.

Of course the Terry and Samba contracts expired, then also Johnstone, Tuzunabe, Onomah-Snodgrass-Grabban loans expired. Richards also retired partly through injury and Agbonlahor left. 

That would be a very good sign of intent to try to move towards compliance. Or would be except:

1. Tuzanabe returns on loan.
2. El Ghazi joins on loan
3. Bolasie joins on loan (cancelled after half a season granted)
4. Tammy joins on loan.

January rolls on by

1. Hause joins on loan
2. Mings joins on loan
3. Carroll joins on loan

Permanent not even kicked in yet

1. Nyland joined summer 2018 from Ingolstadt.
2. So did McGinn from SPL.
3. Kalinic and Guilbert join January 2019- combined fee £9.9m apparently, 4.5 year deal- that's an additional £1.1m in amortisation on those 2 alone for that season. 

Of course amortisation was saved on departures and may represent a small net improvement.

Would love to know how they cut wages and amortisation or gained profit on player sales to the tune of £25-30m then- that figure an improvement in the case of the latter because they made a profit on player sales in 2017/18 of £15,882,000 according to their accounts.

Oh, Moreira also had a loan but this was cut short.

Haven't even factored in the Bruce sacking and the hiring of Smith compensation .

@Rapax - got you confused with @Riaz for some reason, apologies to both - must've been the "R" and purple background. All ears then- what do you think was done to work around it? Or indeed comply through legitimate means.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suppose there is one other angle to this- which isn't good enough but is perfectly possible with EFL being as they are, and especially as they were under Harvey.

Soft embargo like a warning. Part of me wonders if Birmingham only got punished and it escalated beyond a soft embargo because they took the piss and acted in that ridiculous manner- Pedersen £2m- under a soft embargo. Gross, gross incompetence.

Whereas if Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday all under one at varied times as was suspected, but especially Sheffield Wednesday and they stuck to instructions, plan then it doesn't go further. It's a terribly inadequate way to go about it, but then Shaun Harvey- EFL...

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11703/11475256/sheffield-wednesday-transfer-embargo-lifted

This is from 2018 but a very notable 2 quotes in the article!

Quote

The club has worked diligently alongside the EFL in a bid to ensure compliance with Profitability and Sustainability regulations.

 

Quote

"We would like to place on record our thanks to the EFL Executive for the support and guidance given to Sheffield Wednesday surrounding this issue.

Working with not against- EFL had no choice but to escalate with Birmingham once Pedersen signed for £2m under a soft embargo!

Well, a bit of toadying always cannot hurt in that situation, but it does make me wonder- soft embargo, a sign that over the limits.  Work with EFL- a lot less chance of penalties e.g. points and hard embargo.

Shouldn't be the case but...

About application of the regs in a firm, fair and without favour manner or about the ex CEO of the EFL's ego- or indeed the EFL keeping face??

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

On 18/06/2019 at 20:29, Begley said:

Brum were an easy target as the media are not going to fawn over them as they do the likes of Villa and Derby.

It wasn't that Blues were an easy target. They failed P&S for the period '15/'16 through to '17/'18 and were punished with a soft embargo. Then in '18/'19 they broke the rules again. Persistent offending will result in severe punishment. Comparing them to Derby is ridiculous as Derby have not broken the P&S rules

 

My point was that I have no confidence that the EFL would come down as hard if a big club did the same.

The fact that Derby's actions appear not to have even been questioned suggests as much to me.

Not that I am cynical about the way football is run at all.

Edited June 21, 2019 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

My point was that I have no confidence that the EFL would come down as hard if a big club did the same.

The fact that Derby's actions appear not to have even been questioned suggests as much to me.

Not that I am cynical about the way football is run at all.

Could also be that other clubs "played the game" somewhat- and avoided further escalation. Knowing what we do now, still cannot believe the idiocy of Birmingham and Pedersen deal!

Completely appalling governance but would you put it past Shaun Harvey?

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting developments potentially from Sheffield Wednesday.

Still no accounts, as in from 2017/18 on CH but what is interesting is the formation of "Sheffield 2 Limited", "Sheffield 3 Limited" and "Sheffield 4 Limited".

Presumably one of these will be buying or has purchased the ground for the sale and leaseback?

Or perhaps it is a method of splitting staff costs- i.e. catering Sheffield 2, and so on. Or perhaps a mix of the 2- much like how Sevco 5112 took non football wage costs off the books.

First accounting period has accounts made up to 31st July 2019. Sheffield 4 Limited incorporated 20th June 2019, the other 2 21st June 2019.

Chansiri controls Sheffield 4 and Sheffield 2- Sheffield 3 significant control is by Sheffield 4.

Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Ltd now owns Sheffield Wednesday it would seem- £21m in fresh shares. To cover losses for 2018/19- or even 2017/18- or an internal ownership shift?

The fact that all 3 companies- Sheffield 2-4- have their reporting  period at just over a month- these will be disposed of presumably- or maybe a month and then a full year in subsequent periods.

This should surely only help moving forward though if indeed it improves things at all- they surely can't retrospectively go back and improve their 2017/18 results, or their results to 31st July 2018- their 3 years to that, well I say 31st July 2018, actually was originally 31st May 2018 but they shifted the end of the reporting period to 31st July 2018.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

On 21/06/2019 at 09:54, Mr Popodopolous said:

One quick view on Sheffield Wednesday too.

I remember saying something about or like this a few weeks ago- but it's probably hope over experience etc. IF a club has not submitted accounts to the EFL for the season just gone by the deadlines i.e. end of March but especially by the end of season just gone, that should be embargo for summer window. No ifs, no buts no lifting as soon as received- embargo summer 2019 if no accounts submitted by end of season. Just IMO anyway. Soft embargo all of the subsequent summer bare minimum.

A soft embargo to me is not enough. In my opinion, any accounts not submitted to the EFL by the due date should result in an automatic immediate 3 point deduction, to be additional to any subsequent deductions if the club is found to be in breach of FFP. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

A soft embargo to me is not enough. In my opinion, any accounts not submitted to the EFL by the due date should result in an automatic immediate 3 point deduction, to be additional to any subsequent deductions if the club is found to be in breach of FFP. 

Fair- and that would be a good deterrent for sure. Problem is, would 18/24 clubs vote for it? You'd hope yes!

Maybe a full embargo a good compromise- the Sheffield Wednesday situation is particularly interesting. The accounts on CH for 2017/18 have not yet been submitted- but the EFL likely have these. Original deadline May 31 2018 was when the accounting period ended, so it was due by Feb 28th 2019. This of course shifted to April 30th 2019 because the accounting period was moved to July 31st 2019. Still nothing nearly 2 months on.

If I was to have a stab, they failed narrowly or passed narrowly in the 3 seasons to May- or July as it is- 31 2018, but surely failed or as it stands will fail in the 3 years to the end of this season!

Oh yeah, the other interesting aspect of the Sheffield Wednesday situation,, they may not have submitted their accounts for season just gone to EFL- their inaction is incredible as it goes!

[downendcity]

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting developments potentially from Sheffield Wednesday.

Still no accounts, as per from 2017/18 on CH but what is interesting is the formation of "Sheffield 2 Limited", "Sheffield 3 Limited" and "Sheffield 4 Limited".

Presumably one of these will be buying or has purchased the ground for the sale and leaseback?

Or perhaps it is a method of splitting staff costs- i.e. catering Sheffield 2, and so on. Or perhaps a mix of the 2- much like how Sevco 5112 took non football wage costs off the books.

First accounting period has accounts made up to 31st July 2019. Sheffield 4 Limited incorporated 20th June 2019, the other 2 21st June 2019.

Chansiri controls Sheffield 4 and Sheffield 2- Sheffield 3 significant control is by Sheffield 4.

Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Ltd now owns Sheffield Wednesday it would seem- £21m in fresh shares. To cover losses for 2018/19- or even 2017/18- or an internal ownership shift?

The fact that all 3 companies- Sheffield 2-4- have their reporting  period at just over a month- these will be disposed of presumably- or maybe a month and then a full year in subsequent periods.

This should surely only help moving forward though if indeed it improves things at all- they surely can't retrospectively go back and improve their 2017/18 results, or their results to 31st July 2018- their 3 years to that, well I say 31st July 2018, actually was originally 31st May 2018 but they shifted the end of the reporting period to 31st July 2018.

Next we'll have Sheffield Wednesday,  Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Shrove Tuesday! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, downendcity said:

Next we'll have Sheffield Wednesday,  Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Shrove Tuesday! 

Just noticed a "Sheffield 5 Limited"- so by August you may well be right! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Mel Morris has defended the stadium sale and leaseback on TalkSport- saw it on another forum.

Quote

Q: "[Stadium buy] Was that naughty?"

MM: "There simply isn't enough revenue to sustain a competitive club..."

Also added:

Quote

MM: "The starting point for this is: do you want to own a football club and just be mid-table or compete? Because there's a massive difference in expenditure. Money talks. Last year was an exceptional year, credit to Norwich and Sheff Utd. It is a rarity, though. Costs of running a football club are entirely proportionate to the aspirations. 9 clubs (this season) in the Championship will have parachute payments."

Think he's pretty engaging, pretty interesting tbh- and a good owner who is clearly a Derby fan- just a shame about the ground sale and leaseback!!

Dunno if it's a direct quote or a summary but this bit was also of interest, on the financial side.

Quote

There was a moment where he spoke about parachute payments and essentially FFP "not letting" people invest if they wanted to in order to compete with the relegated teams

Like I say, the ground move is not one I much care for at all but an interesting owner definitely.

[Guest DerbyFan]

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mel Morris has defended the stadium sale and leaseback on TalkSport- saw it on another forum.

Also added:

Think he's pretty engaging, pretty interesting tbh- and a good owner who is clearly a Derby fan- just a shame about the ground sale and leaseback!!

Dunno if it's a direct quote or a summary but this bit was also of interest, on the financial side.

Like I say, the ground move is not one I much care for at all but an interesting owner definitely.

It was a really good listen, as a Derby fan I feel very lucky to have him as our owner!

He actually mentioned the stadium valuation, he said about having it valued and paying the valuation and 'if I'd have bought it for a penny less then I'd have had HMRC on my back asking me why I've undersold' or something along those lines, I can't remember the exact wording.

As I had mentioned before, he talked about using the stadium for events, he mentioned that currently it is only used for around 30 days of the year and how many clubs want to use their stadium for events during the close season and that there's too many basically so you don't get much for it and how we can use it during the season.

He talked about having a retractable roof put onto the stadium (as the local rumours had been saying, and also as confirmed in that Sky article) and also finding a way of covering the pitch that was not only quick, but allowed the pitch to grow and flourish rather than yellow and die, as we still want to play good football so don't want a dodgy pitch, he said if this worked the way we think it will then it will allow use of the stadium for 100 events a year and bring in around £12m revenue!

You can actually listen to it via the TalkSport website, if you go via the 'Schedule' link at the top, then click the 'Listen Again' link for the Jim White show, it's on there in 30 minute sections, he came into the studio around 10.45am.

[downendcity]

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mel Morris has defended the stadium sale and leaseback on TalkSport- saw it on another forum.

Also added:

Think he's pretty engaging, pretty interesting tbh- and a good owner who is clearly a Derby fan- just a shame about the ground sale and leaseback!!

Dunno if it's a direct quote or a summary but this bit was also of interest, on the financial side.

Like I say, the ground move is not one I much care for at all but an interesting owner definitely.

Steve Lansdown also realised that there wasn't enough revenue to sustain a competitive club, so set about improving revenue and managing costs through the club's strategy around player purchases and use of the academy. 

These decisions were made with full realisation of the impact of ffp and that the club had to work within those parameters. It also meant that the plans would not have immediate impact and effect but would take time for the club to be properly competitive at the top end of the table, and in the meantime would test fans' patience .

For all that Mel Morris is a Derby fan and wants the best for his club ( as does SL) he is basically saying that he's not prepared to wait, wants success now and is prepared to pay for it and will break the rules in order to do so. He's also saying stuff all the other clubs that are affected by the same issues but are going about things the right way in order to stay within the same set of rules that he seems to regard as being unfair and restrictive to the club soon to be known as Formerly Frank Lampard's Derby County. 

Sorry but that makes him a cheat in my eyes, no matter how "interesting' he might be.. 

 

[Guest DerbyFan]

3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Steve Lansdown also realised that there wasn't enough revenue to sustain a competitive club, so set about improving revenue and managing costs through the club's strategy around player purchases and use of the academy. 

These decisions were made with full realisation of the impact of ffp and that the club had to work within those parameters. It also meant that the plans would not have immediate impact and effect but would take time for the club to be properly competitive at the top end of the table, and in the meantime would test fans' patience .

For all that Mel Morris is a Derby fan and wants the best for his club ( as does SL) he is basically saying that he's not prepared to wait, wants success now and is prepared to pay for it and will break the rules in order to do so. He's also saying stuff all the other clubs that are affected by the same issues but are going about things the right way in order to stay within the same set of rules that he seems to regard as being unfair and restrictive to the club soon to be known as Formerly Frank Lampard's Derby County. 

Sorry but that makes him a cheat in my eyes, no matter how "interesting' he might be.. 

 

We didn't break the rules so I'm not sure why that keeps getting mentioned!

That's not what he was saying at all, he's talking about it from our point of view obviously as he's our owner and he only sees how it directly affects us, but if you think he's not aware that all other non parachute clubs have the same issues then I think you've listened to it wanting to hear that and not listened to what was actually said.

[Mr Popodopolous]

37 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Steve Lansdown also realised that there wasn't enough revenue to sustain a competitive club, so set about improving revenue and managing costs through the club's strategy around player purchases and use of the academy. 

These decisions were made with full realisation of the impact of ffp and that the club had to work within those parameters. It also meant that the plans would not have immediate impact and effect but would take time for the club to be properly competitive at the top end of the table, and in the meantime would test fans' patience .

For all that Mel Morris is a Derby fan and wants the best for his club ( as does SL) he is basically saying that he's not prepared to wait, wants success now and is prepared to pay for it and will break the rules in order to do so. He's also saying stuff all the other clubs that are affected by the same issues but are going about things the right way in order to stay within the same set of rules that he seems to regard as being unfair and restrictive to the club soon to be known as Formerly Frank Lampard's Derby County. 

Sorry but that makes him a cheat in my eyes, no matter how "interesting' he might be.. 

 

Oh I don't like the ground sale at all- Aston Villa certainly the worst of the 4 likely big FFP botherers- by far, but this is a very good post.

Agreed.

The thing about Derby and where they differ to other clubs- by which I mean Aston Villa, Birmingham and seemingly Sheffield Wednesday- we don't know either way yet as still no accounts for 2017/18- was the first team and squad players they sold- seemed like a move to buy time for a restructuring rather than a big FFP dodge/cheat to me- but then it comes down to which accounts used for Derby's FFP submissions as well, is it the Derby County ones or the Sevco 5112 Limited?  

If the latter then yes FFP failed for sure without it, if it was the former then there's a small chance they pass. I've looked over their 3 year figures for Derby 2015/16-2017/18 and it really wouldn't have been a done deal that they fail to June 2018 with the DCFC accounts- grey area. Sevco 5112 though, absolutely it was FFP related! I hope they have to go through some austerity times though, if not fall foul of FFP.

It isn't right I agree- he's usually a good listen though.

@DerbyFan Thanks- will take a listen. The bit about events bringing in £12m per season sounds notable, like you are looking to stick strictly within the regulations in the future. Also do you know if it is "The Derby County Football Club Limited" or Sevco 5112 that is used for FFP submissions?

Edited June 26, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest DerbyFan]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh I don't like the ground sale at all- Aston Villa certainly the worst of the 4 likely big FFP botherers- by far, but this is a very good post.

Agreed.

The thing about Derby and where they differ to other clubs- by which I mean Aston Villa, Birmingham and seemingly Sheffield Wednesday- we don't know either way yet as still no accounts for 2017/18- was the first team and squad players they sold- seemed like a move to buy time for a restructuring rather than a big FFP dodge/cheat to me- but then it comes down to which accounts used for Derby's FFP submissions as well, is it the Derby County ones or the Sevco 5112 Limited?  

If the latter then yes FFP failed for sure without it, if it was the former then there's a small chance they pass. I've looked over their 3 year figures for Derby 2015/16-2017/18 and it really wouldn't have been a done deal that they fail to June 2018 with the DCFC accounts- grey area. Sevco 5112 though, absolutely it was FFP related! I hope they have to go through some austerity times though, if not fall foul of FFP.

It isn't right I agree- he's usually a good listen though.

@DerbyFan Thanks- will take a listen. The bit about events bringing in £12m per season sounds notable, like you are looking to stick strictly within the regulations in the future. Also do you know if it is "The Derby County Football Club Limited" or Sevco 5112 that is used for FFP submissions?

I've got no idea which accounts are used for the FFP submissions.

I've said before, the club have been saying for the last few years that we need to get our costs in line, we are reducing our costs for the future, the players bought in will be on less than the ones leaving, that will start to come to fruition now that a lot of contracts are ending in a few days time, then there will be a few more this time next year.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Alas, seems it is within the updated regs.

People call it a loophole but actually seemingly it's one enabled by the club owners, the EFL- did 18/24 vote for this then? 

Will have to look through the new regs- first I've seen a lot of those actually. Part 2 onwards would appear to be the updated/most recent/relevant.

I still wonder if the ground sale and leaseback might be challenged and adjusted- not excluded but adjusted- for FFP purposes what with Gibson's. Would need a full and far reaching inquiry though. 

Example A- Reading. Their ground was worth around £20m, income from sale and leaseback to owners £26.5m- that's about 32.5% profit margin. Bear in mind Madejski built similar time to Pride Park and adjusted for inflation, £50m to build today.

Example B- saw a rumour that Hillsborough gross figure was £30m- profit margin about 1/3.

To me either of those might pass the "smell test"- I don't approve of any of it but it feels like 25-35% uptick what with post 1992 developments of grounds, new builds, further work, property rises and inflation adjustments- might be within the bounds of normal. Double though, or as good as double? Just struggle to see it, given valuation in 2007 was £55m- unclear what revaluation in 2013 might have been- but for subsequent revaluation I've been taking £55m as a starting point, adding on extra work i.e. additions under Tangible Fixed Assets and subtracting depreciation.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest DerbyFan]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Alas, seems it is within the updated regs.

People call it a loophole but actually seemingly it's one enabled by the club owners, the EFL- did 18/24 vote for this then? 

Will have to look through the new regs- first I've seen a lot of those actually. Part 2 onwards would appear to be the updated/most recent/relevant.

I still wonder if the ground sale and leaseback might be challenged and adjusted- not excluded but adjusted- for FFP purposes what with Gibson's. Would need a full and far reaching inquiry though. 

Example A- Reading. Their ground was worth around £20m, income from sale and leaseback to owners £26.5m- that's about 32.5% profit margin. Bear in mind Madejski built similar time to Pride Park and adjusted for inflation, £50m to build today.

Example B- saw a rumour that Hillsborough gross figure was £30m- profit margin about 1/3.

To me either of those might pass the "smell test"- I don't approve of any of it but it feels like 25-35% uptick what with post 1992 developments of grounds, new builds, further work, property rises and inflation adjustments- might be within the bounds of normal. Double though, or as good as double? Just struggle to see it, given valuation in 2007 was £55m- unclear what revaluation in 2013 might have been- but for subsequent revaluation I've been taking £55m as a starting point, adding on extra work i.e. additions under Tangible Fixed Assets and subtracting depreciation.

I mentioned this in post 678, I actually quoted that particular section of the rules! (1.1.2 and (a))

The old rules (from the first tweet) are the ones in Part 1 on the EFL website, they relate to 2015/16. The new rules (from the second tweet) are the ones in Part 2 they relate to 2016/17 onwards.

The old rules seem to only be there as a reference because the year 2015/16 was included in the 3 year rolling period leading to 2017/18.

[Mr Popodopolous]

59 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I mentioned this in post 678, I actually quoted that particular section of the rules! (1.1.2 and (a))

The old rules (from the first tweet) are the ones in Part 1 on the EFL website, they relate to 2015/16. The new rules (from the second tweet) are the ones in Part 2 they relate to 2016/17 onwards.

The old rules seem to only be there as a reference because the year 2015/16 was included in the 3 year rolling period leading to 2017/18.

Thanks- I'll have a look at them in depth later, they do ring a bell actually from this thread.

Still unconvinced by the valuation personally- seems sale and leaseback in the regs, but £81.1m just feels too high- always had it in the bracket of £40-50m, maybe £55m- still think the profit size should be challenged by EFL- their own independent valuers etc. Paid for by the EFL of course.

Reading- value around £20m, sale pride £26.5m. Margin/ratio about 1/3.

If rumours to be believed- Hillsborough sold for £30m- shown in accounts as a 2013 revaluation of £22.25m, margin/ratio about 35%.

Well aware that Pride Park is bigger than Madejski Stadium and a fair bit better, more modern than Hillsborough, plus property prices in Derby so therefore land value higher than Sheffield but I'm thinking about £40-55m about right- based on 2007 valuation which was just that. Add on the additions to Tangible Fixed Assets which presumably represents work being done on it, subtract the depreciation- would property price rises shunt this up to £81.1m?

Using historic figures and benchmarking etc, it just "feels" too high- not the fact there is an uptick but double!!

Edited June 27, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Alas, seems it is within the updated regs.

People call it a loophole but actually seemingly it's one enabled by the club owners, the EFL- did 18/24 vote for this then? 

Will have to look through the new regs- first I've seen a lot of those actually. Part 2 onwards would appear to be the updated/most recent/relevant.

I still wonder if the ground sale and leaseback might be challenged and adjusted- not excluded but adjusted- for FFP purposes what with Gibson's. Would need a full and far reaching inquiry though. 

Example A- Reading. Their ground was worth around £20m, income from sale and leaseback to owners £26.5m- that's about 32.5% profit margin. Bear in mind Madejski built similar time to Pride Park and adjusted for inflation, £50m to build today.

Example B- saw a rumour that Hillsborough gross figure was £30m- profit margin about 1/3.

To me either of those might pass the "smell test"- I don't approve of any of it but it feels like 25-35% uptick what with post 1992 developments of grounds, new builds, further work, property rises and inflation adjustments- might be within the bounds of normal. Double though, or as good as double? Just struggle to see it, given valuation in 2007 was £55m- unclear what revaluation in 2013 might have been- but for subsequent revaluation I've been taking £55m as a starting point, adding on extra work i.e. additions under Tangible Fixed Assets and subtracting depreciation.

Of course it's enabled by club owners, some of whom wanted to further water down the regime recently.

I am confident that over time the rules will only be held together by the holes in them. The EFL can then claim they have proper controls knowing full they are a fig leaf so irresponsible owners can carry on as usual.

[chinapig]

It seems Villa Park is worth rather less than Pride Park. Should have got Derby's 'independent' valuer in.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-villa-park-ffp-16504236

[downendcity]

 

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It seems Villa Park is worth rather less than Pride Park. Should have got Derby's 'independent' valuer in.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-villa-park-ffp-16504236

Don't need any "qualified " or "independant" valuer.

You or I could perform the task, as the only information required is the amount the club needs to achieve as "profit" o the sale transaction in order to avoid breaching ffp and that's the figure that goes on the bottom of the valuation report.

The fact that there is no active or open market in football stadia means that there is little chance of any comeback on a valuer in terms of him/her being required to justify their valuation figure.

 

 

[phantom]

Not sure if this has been shared yet? 

How villa got around FFP

https://offthepitch.com/a/new-filing-reveals-aston-villa-sold-stadium-owners-5-weeks-ago

[downendcity]

33 minutes ago, phantom said:

Not sure if this has been shared yet? 

How villa got around FFP

https://offthepitch.com/a/new-filing-reveals-aston-villa-sold-stadium-owners-5-weeks-ago

So if the sale of Villa Park to the owners went through 5 weeks ago, what were the figures on their projected accounts submitted to the EFL at the end of March?

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, downendcity said:

So if the sale of Villa Park to the owners went through 5 weeks ago, what were the figures on their projected accounts submitted to the EFL at the end of March?

Doesn't matter. The EFL will have seen Aston Villa on the cover of the accounts then rubber stamped them.

[nickolas]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

It seems Villa Park is worth rather less than Pride Park. Should have got Derby's 'independent' valuer in.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-villa-park-ffp-16504236

Well it is an ageing sh1thole!!!

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, nickolas said:

Well it is an ageing sh1thole!!!

True, but in England's second city. I would expect land values to be higher than in Derby.