The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

**downendcity** · June 29, 2019

12 hours ago, chinapig said:

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

**Lrrr** · June 29, 2019

13 hours 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

Interesting that nswe stadium Co is outside the clubs group of companies, that could get real messy if the owners ever look to sell or a takeover approach

**chinapig** · June 29, 2019

3 minutes ago, hodge said:

Interesting that nswe stadium Co is outside the clubs group of companies, that could get real messy if the owners ever look to sell or a takeover approach

The potential asset stripping won't bother Villa fans, they're living the dream and so on.

For it's long term benefit football needs a club behaving like this to crash and burn.

**Lanterne Rouge** · June 29, 2019

14 hours ago, chinapig said:

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

Or they opened the envelope and several more smaller envelopes tumbled out...………...

GreedyHarry · June 29, 2019

So in theory, a club or owner could sell their stadium on every season to a new company, and cover their losses? They could even get the club to buy each stadium owning company for a pound before repeating the trick over and over. No point in FFP at all now if this is the case, as it is completely meaningless.

Edited June 29, 2019 by GreedyHarry
Phat Phingerz

June 29, 2019

I would be interested in seeing how we look in regards to FFP after this window, £14mill made on transfers but for players on a low(ish) wage in comparison to the new additions coming in that I would imagine be on top £££.

**chinapig** · June 29, 2019

31 minutes ago, GreedyHarry said:

So in theory, a club or owner could sell their stadium on every season to a new company, and cover their losses? They could even get the club to buy each stadium owning company for a pound before repeating the trick over and over. No point in FFP at all now if this is the case, as it is completely meaningless.

Like the fit and proper test, FFP is an attempt to look like there is proper governance.

**Mr Popodopolous** · June 29, 2019

8 hours ago, GreedyHarry said:

So in theory, a club or owner could sell their stadium on every season to a new company, and cover their losses? They could even get the club to buy each stadium owning company for a pound before repeating the trick over and over. No point in FFP at all now if this is the case, as it is completely meaningless.

Taxman/HMRC may have something to say about it.

Pretty sure they'd have more than FFP to worry about then- definitely couldn't happen like that IMO.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · June 29, 2019

So Aston Villa have as mooted sold the stadium then?

Few thoughts:

Given parachute payments too, nearly £90m in 3 years- wow how dislikable they increasingly are. Had the benefit of that and still needed to do this?? Derby at least sold Grant-Christie-Hughes-Ince-Hendrick-Vydra-Weimann. Birmingham got stung but have now sold Adams and Jota as a result. Who did Aston Villa sell of note?? Not talking foreign players who would have wanted out on relegation, but of note which first team or near first teamers did they sell? Same can be said of Sheff Wed- Jack Hunt the only one, but they didn't have all those parachute payments to help.
On that note, Parachute Payments really should be conditional on a club making significant efforts to help to balance the books IMO. Aston Villa did not therefore under my system would be fined a proportion of their parachute payments- obviously FFP would still apply as it would to everyone else.
The ground went for £56.7m right. Was that "gross" or "profit"- if it was the latter it'd be interesting- because only the profit on such sales, as opposed to the total transaction would be of use in this instance- especially if an internal transfer such as this. Anyway their accounts appear to in terms of
Villa Park- unsure how much it's worth. They probably did sell it for enough to get through FFP. 80-90% profit maybe? Again- questionable.
This must surely call into fresh question the Pride Park deal. Reading ground worth £20m, goes for £26.5m- though only 24k capacity, similar modern build and 1998 was its completion date as opposed to Pride Park which was 1997. The next bit is a RUMOUR- but Hillsborough apparently gross sale price around £30m- current value based on 2013 valuation around £22-22.25m. Margin about 1/3 on each.
EFL or perhaps I have more faith in club owners with hefty resources and proper business nous need to get some sort of inquiry going- to challenge the valuation, the profit based on benchmarking, hire some high end valuers and lawyers- these things can be legally challenged but it ain't easy!

Someone mentioned projected accounts. It's possible that they had this in their projected accounts- highly unlikely but possible that they had it as a fallback plan in these in case of no promotion.

8 hours ago, Sturman 1 said:

I would be interested in seeing how we look in regards to FFP after this window, £14mill made on transfers but for players on a low(ish) wage in comparison to the new additions coming in that I would imagine be on top £££.

Fine I reckon. Not saying we can go nuts- we cannot- but the profit on Flint and the academy lot, the savings on amortisation on some others- all a big help. The Kelly sale likely would fall in the 2018/19 accounts, the savings this season to date would be there but not huge- Fielding, Marinovic, Pisano wages and possibly a small profit on Eisa. However our 3 year position is decent but again that £24m loss in 2017/18- before allowables-has to be kept in mind. OTOH we should've made a profit last season, the Kelly sale making absolutely sure- the bigger the profit the more we can spend in the subsequent window or 2. As I say can't go nuts but by the end of this season, that aforementioned £24m loss- so summer 2020 basically, June 1st 2020 this will drop off and our new starting point will be summer 2018 and the restructure.

I don't have any particular concerns about breaching it with SL, MA and LJ at the helm.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · June 30, 2019

Some uncertainty about Sheffield Wednesday.

Apparently their new free transfer signings were spotted at their pre-season event called "Owls in the Park". Odubajo-Borner-Harris. Not bad range of free transfers- think first and third are good and Borner good experienced CB late 20s, Bundesliga 2 and useful on the ball. Bruce would like 4 more apparently. Also extended Westwood-Palmer-Lee- wasn't aware you could under an embargo?

The uncertainty comes because a) Obviously they have not been unveiled officially b) They are apparently under a soft embargo c) Unless anything new has happened in secret which it could well have, the EFL may well lack their accounts from season just gone and d) The big one- no accounts at CH- for 2017/18!!

Originally made up to May 31st 2018, extended to July 31st 2018- these were due on February 28th latterly April 30th 2018- this surely, is there nothing that smacks of aggravated breach here?

Haven't even explored the prospect they may have breached FFP- I'd say there is a reasonable chance they have but we shall see, Jack Hunt aside, who have they sold??

Said it before, any club not getting accounts to EFL by deadline, full summer embargo- end of. Let alone the lack of 17/18 accounts to CH!! Possible of course that ground thing going through, some say accounts not signed off by auditors- either way they should not be in a position to sign anyone at all or even negotiate for frees IMO, while in this position.- hope the EFL have tied up loose ends and refuse to register them for as long as it goes on and if they unveil them while a) 2018-19 accounts with EFL- which they might be now tbf- or b) 2017/18 accounts not with CH, EFL hearing Birmingham style I'd suggest.

Probably just a few isolated idiots, certainly not in the Aston Villa League (Begley excepted of course), but yeah I hope it evolves into a full embargo and maybe a disciplinary hearing at the EFL.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 1, 2019

Promised I'd come onto it and come onto it I will.

@Begley

On the Webster thread you declared that you had to do something to avoid breaching FFP. While I totally get it from a business, technical, regulatory and of course financial POV- from reality, for integrity of the competition it makes a total mockery. Absolute mockery. Other clubs appear to have done sale and leaseback but the big 3 here are yourselves, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday. Birmingham seem to have done a mix of the 2- stupidity but now the sale of Adams and Jota. If St Andrews sale in 2018/19 period and Adams sale too, well they're on one year periods until 2019/20 so they'd still be hamstrung even with a ground sale but would surely avoid FFP sanctions for 2018/19. Reading sold a ground worth £20m to owners for £26.5m, which is strikingly low and doesn't help their FFP all that much.

What else could Aston Villa have done- let's think shall we.

Sell Grealish
Keep Grealish but sell say Chester, Adomah, Kodjia- it all can help.
Sign cheaper loanees.
Not replace Snodgrass-Grabban with El Ghazi-Bolasie-Tammy.
Not sign Kalinic and Guilbert in Jan for a combined added amortisation of £1.1m.
Utilise YOUTH more- utilise it more to help make up shortfalls.
Utilise squad players more- fair enough if some you loan out help make up a shortfall and you sign cheaper ones making a net profit but you did not in the main.
Oh yeah, not even mentioned your January loans for Mings-Hause-Carroll!!

Looking at your many, many signings last season the ones I'd say were acceptable from a moving towards compliance POV were as follows:

Nyland- Not a huge wage probably.
McGinn- Not a huge wage probably.
Hause- loan
Tuanzebe loan- Maybe. Man Utd connection to Bruce perhaps helps with wages- or maybe his wages just are not so high?

Maybe some younger and cheaper loanees- certainly less proven on top.

Now I'm not saying that saves you entirely from FFP but it does what parachute payments are intended to do- and these steps would all be seen as very concrete with potential for significant mitigation, in terms of a point penalty or similar.

What yourselves have done- and Derby, and though there are zero accounts, Sheffield Wednesday is essentially tried to cheat the competition albeit within the revised regs!! Disgusting basically- ******* disgusting. I take back some of what I said about Mel Morris too.

EFL have a hell of a lot to answer for, I actually think clubs should look at legal action against the EFL themselves- mind you why clubs agreed to it as an 18/24 god knows. They certainly kept it very quiet.

Your club has got a lot more dislikable- no personal dig at you, you're a good poster in good faith obviously, but your club since last summer- looking from the outside your new owners seem a lot less likable than Xia, and Purslow? Liverpool fans didn't much like him apparently.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 1, 2019

Those clubs that do the sale and leaseback to a related party, especially with a lack of first team, key departures are cheats- albeit not in a technical sense which is a very important distinction to draw.

In the last few years- in no apparent order and off the top of my head:

US

Kodjia
Flint
Bryan
Reid
Kelly

Leeds

Wood
Vieira
Clarke

Middlesbrough

Gibson
Traore
Bamford

Norwich

Maddison
Murphy

Nottingham Forest

Burke
Assombalonga
Brereton

Sheffield United

Brooks

Then there are smaller, or less financially rich but nonetheless compliant clubs- Brentford sell aplenty and have a brilliant system. Preston sold Hugill, Wigan sold Grigg last season which probably helps just keep it ticking over a bit

Like I say it's disgusting. Shameless...EFL changing that rule quietly is morally- but in no way whatsoever legally I must stress- speaking aiding and abetting, enabling.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Lrrr** · July 1, 2019

Don't sit on the fence there @Mr Popodopolous tell us how you really feel

**downendcity** · July 1, 2019

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Promised I'd come onto it and come onto it I will.

@Begley

On the Webster thread you declared that you had to do something to avoid breaching FFP. While I totally get it from a business, technical, regulatory and of course financial POV- from reality, for integrity of the competition it makes a total mockery. Absolute mockery. Other clubs appear to have done sale and leaseback but the big 3 here are yourselves, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday. Birmingham seem to have done a mix of the 2- stupidity but now the sale of Adams and Jota. If St Andrews sale in 2018/19 period and Adams sale too, well they're on one year periods until 2019/20 so they'd still be hamstrung even with a ground sale but would surely avoid FFP sanctions for 2018/19. Reading sold a ground worth £20m to owners for £26.5m, which is strikingly low and doesn't help their FFP all that much.

What else could Aston Villa have done- let's think shall we.

Sell Grealish

Keep Grealish but sell say Chester, Adomah, Kodjia- it all can help.

Sign cheaper loanees.

Not replace Snodgrass-Grabban with El Ghazi-Bolasie-Tammy.

Not sign Kalinic and Guilbert in Jan for a combined added amortisation of £1.1m.

Utilise YOUTH more- utilise it more to help make up shortfalls.

Utilise squad players more- fair enough if some you loan out help make up a shortfall and you sign cheaper ones making a net profit but you did not in the main.

Oh yeah, not even mentioned your January loans for Mings-Hause-Carroll!!

Looking at your many, many signings last season the ones I'd say were acceptable from a moving towards compliance POV were as follows:

Nyland- Not a huge wage probably.

McGinn- Not a huge wage probably.

Hause- loan

Tuanzebe loan- Maybe. Man Utd connection to Bruce perhaps helps with wages- or maybe his wages just are not so high?

Maybe some younger and cheaper loanees- certainly less proven on top.

Now I'm not saying that saves you entirely from FFP but it does what parachute payments are intended to do- and these steps would all be seen as very concrete with potential for significant mitigation, in terms of a point penalty or similar.

What yourselves have done- and Derby, and though there are zero accounts, Sheffield Wednesday is essentially tried to cheat the competition albeit within the revised regs!! Disgusting basically- ******* disgusting. I take back some of what I said about Mel Morris too.

EFL have a hell of a lot to answer for, I actually think clubs should look at legal action against the EFL themselves- mind you why clubs agreed to it as an 18/24 god knows. They certainly kept it very quiet.

Your club has got a lot more dislikable- no personal dig at you, you're a good poster in good faith obviously, but your club since last summer- looking from the outside your new owners seem a lot less likable than Xia, and Purslow? Liverpool fans didn't much like him apparently.

This is the thing that grates with Villa and Derby.

Both clubs knew the new ffp rules, and that they would come into effect this spring , as did every other club in the division. In Villa's case they had 3 years in which to adjust to financial life in the championship, during which time parachute payments would help make the transition more manageable. Despite this they seemed to carry on as though nothing had changed, paying big money recruiting players that they thought would secure a quick return too the premier league. When this didn't happen, like a desperate gambler , they chased their losses by buying more players and if reports are to be believed they even borrowed in advance of their final year parachute payments.

With all of this, to now say that "they had to do something to avoid breaching ffp" as though it justifies the sale of Villa Park, is putting 2 fingers up to the EFL and every other club that has done something to avoid breaching ffp - namely, managing their affairs to bring costs in line with income.

Similarly, Mel Morris justifies Derby's sale of Pride Park on the basis of it being very difficult to remain competitive, i.e. Derby found it difficult to be as competitive if they had to reduce costs in line with income, thereby reducing the quality of their playing squad, i.e. doing all the things that other championship clubs have been doing in order to avoid breaching ffp.

It now seems that what they both did is allowed within the new rules. The irony is that it would not have been under the previous ffp rules, and this being the case I can't for the life of me think why the EFL made this change. Having said that I agree with you that this summer has shown the eFL to be almost impotent when dealing with big clubs over the application of ffp. I can't help but think that at this early stage they need to review and overhaul the rules at the same time as deciding exactly what they want ffp to achieve, because at the moment ffp seems to be a moving target and it is the clubs that keep moving it.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 1, 2019

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

This is the thing that grates with Villa and Derby.

Both clubs knew the new ffp rules, and that they would come into effect this spring , as did every other club in the division. In Villa's case they had 3 years in which to adjust to financial life in the championship, during which time parachute payments would help make the transition more manageable. Despite this they seemed to carry on as though nothing had changed, paying big money recruiting players that they thought would secure a quick return too the premier league. When this didn't happen, like a desperate gambler , they chased their losses by buying more players and if reports are to be believed they even borrowed in advance of their final year parachute payments.

With all of this, to now say that "they had to do something to avoid breaching ffp" as though it justifies the sale of Villa Park, is putting 2 fingers up to the EFL and every other club that has done something to avoid breaching ffp - namely, managing their affairs to bring costs in line with income.

Similarly, Mel Morris justifies Derby's sale of Pride Park on the basis of it being very difficult to remain competitive, i.e. Derby found it difficult to be as competitive if they had to reduce costs in line with income, thereby reducing the quality of their playing squad, i.e. doing all the things that other championship clubs have been doing in order to avoid breaching ffp.

It now seems that what they both did is allowed within the new rules. The irony is that it would not have been under the previous ffp rules, and this being the case I can't for the life of me think why the EFL made this change. Having said that I agree with you that this summer has shown the eFL to be almost impotent when dealing with big clubs over the application of ffp. I can't help but think that at this early stage they need to review and overhaul the rules at the same time as deciding exactly what they want ffp to achieve, because at the moment ffp seems to be a moving target and it is the clubs that keep moving it.

Agree with all of this. Impotent at dealing with big clubs...or maybe morally speaking colluding?

Derby is an odd case, I am trying to work out if they breach or not- based on the DCFC as opposed to Sevco 5112, without the ground thing. They're somewhere between player sales and ground sales- I'm adding up losses, but subtracting what I assume to be infrastructure spending i.e. spending on, additions to fixed assets-then the youth, community etc expenditure, depreciation. I agree the EFL removing that rule is and was madness.

If I was to give an order of ground sales and their culpability to date ethically etc then right now the disreputability table would look like this IMO:

Aston Villa- the winners.
Derby- The ground transaction, but at the same time a number of first team players solid- which leads me onto...
Sheffield Wednesday- So far no ground transaction reported yet- but no accounts either so we don't know- lack of sales could easily see them and Derby swap places!
Birmingham- Yes they breached, yes they were ignorant and arrogant but ground sale combined with Adams, Jota out and Morrison their captain gone on a free, Monk- catching up with them yet in reality it was one ~~shocking~~ Redknapp season that took them over.
Reading- Under a soft embargo, may well have breached. Yet the ground sale and leaseback profit only £6.5m, which is oddly low indeed. The least bad of the 5, not least as it appears not to have helped them much. Incompetence as with 4 and maybe 3??

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**downendcity** · July 1, 2019

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree with all of this. Impotent at dealing with big clubs...or maybe morally speaking colluding?

Derby is an odd case, I am trying to work out if they breach or not- based on the DCFC as opposed to Sevco 5112, without the ground thing. They're somewhere between player sales and ground sales- I'm adding up losses, but subtracting what I assume to be infrastructure spending i.e. spending on, additions to fixed assets-then the youth, community etc expenditure, depreciation. I agree the EFL removing that rule is and was madness.

If I was to give an order of ground sales and their culpability to date ethically etc then right now the disreputability table would look like this IMO:

Aston Villa- the winners.

Derby- The ground transaction, but at the same time a number of first team players solid- which leads me onto...

Sheffield Wednesday- So far no ground transaction reported yet- but no accounts either so we don't know- lack of sales could easily see them and Derby swap places!

Birmingham- Yes they breached, yes they were ignorant and arrogant but ground sale combined with Adams, Jota out and Morrison their captain gone on a free, Monk- catching up with them yet in reality it was one shocking season that took them over.

Reading- Under a soft embargo, may well have breached. Yet the ground sale and leaseback profit only £6.5m, which is oddly low indeed. The least bad of the 5, not least as it appears not to have helped them much. Incompetence as with 4 and maybe 3??

Could Reading's sale and leaseback profit be only £6.5 m because it could be based on a proper commercial valuation?

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 1, 2019

22 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Could Reading's sale and leaseback profit be only £6.5 m because it could be based on a proper commercial valuation?

You see, I wondered that- and it is the view that definitely makes sense by far.

My take on Derby's ground sale is that £50-55m, maybe around £56m "feels" about right. Rumours were that Sheffield Wednesday sold for £30m, ground value around £22-22.25m. No idea on Birmingham, whether they've got their act together on it is debatable. Still trying to work out Aston Villa's NBV as they have a certain amount of non-depreciable land.

The recurring theme though, certainly with Reading and if the rumours were true, Sheff Wed is that the profit is somewhere between 25%-35%- that somehow feels right what with additions to tangible fixed assets, land value rises minus depreciation- oh and in 2007 Pride Park was valued at £55m as per their own accounts- my method with it admittedly loose method was take that valuation, take additions and subtract depreciation- not yet got into looking at land prices in that area of Derby etc since 2007.

It's benchmarking after all- something the EFL need to look into as a matter of urgency, well they should have as soon as Derby approached with the proposal tbh. Valuation needs challenging.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Davefevs** · July 1, 2019

On 29/06/2019 at 09:33, chinapig said:

The potential asset stripping won't bother Villa fans, they're living the dream and so on.

For it's long term benefit football needs a club behaving like this to crash and burn.

My thoughts for a long time. One big club to go to the wall, or Sky / BT to start paying less.

We are positioning ourselves sensibly.

@Mr Popodopolous pretty sure Kelly will be in 18/19s accounts....and that’s not just because it happened on 18th May. Think the England u21 tournament was a reason for getting it done and dusted (not pending).

**downendcity** · July 1, 2019

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You see, I wondered that- and it is the most sensible view by far.

My take on Derby's ground sale is that £50-55m, maybe £56m "feels" about right. Rumours were that Sheffield Wednesday sold for £30m, ground value around £22-22.25m. No idea on Birmingham, whether they've got their act together on it is debatable.

The recurring theme though, certainly with Reading and if the rumours were true, Sheff Wed is that the profit is somewhere between 25%-35%- that somehow feels right what with additions to tangible fixed assets, land value rises minus depreciation- oh and in 2007 Pride Park was valued at £55m as per their own accounts- my method with it admittedly loose method was take that valuation, take additions and subtract depreciation- not yet got into looking at land prices in that area of Derby etc since 2007.

It's benchmarking after all- something the EFL need to look into as a matter of urgency, well they should have as soon as Derby approached with the proposal tbh.

Ive said previously that with Derby and Villa it seems to me that the valuation figures were just what the club wanted ( and needed) them to be.

Football stadia are not like residential properties, in that there is no established and active market in sales of stadia so no market comparable exist. This being the case it would be tricky for a valuer to be challenged about the accuracy of his/her valuation, which is why I suspect Villa and Derby have been so financially "successful" with the sale of their grounds.

I studied professional valuation in my younger days, but never got into practice. There are a few valuation principles I can recall but don't want to quote them on here in case my memory is a bit hazy or if valuation practices are different these days.

**chinapig** · July 1, 2019

10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Ive said previously that with Derby and Villa it seems to me that the valuation figures were just what the club wanted ( and needed) them to be.

Football stadia are not like residential properties, in that there is no established and active market in sales of stadia so no market comparable exist. This being the case it would be tricky for a valuer to be challenged about the accuracy of his/her valuation, which is why I suspect Villa and Derby have been so financially "successful" with the sale of their grounds.

I studied professional valuation in my younger days, but never got into practice. There are a few valuation principles I can recall but don't want to quote them on here in case my memory is a bit hazy or if valuation practices are different these days.

Would the market value of the land be a proxy for the value of the stadium?

**Bristol Rob** · July 1, 2019

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My thoughts for a long time. One big club to go to the wall, or Sky / BT to start paying less.

We are positioning ourselves sensibly.

@Mr Popodopolous pretty sure Kelly will be in 18/19s accounts....and that’s not just because it happened on 18th May. Think the England u21 tournament was a reason for getting it done and dusted (not pending).

Agree with a lot of that, but then you look at Arsenal...

For years it looked like they were going to be the benchmark for sustainable football, frugal in the transfer market, looking to pay off the stadium ahead of schedule and then a new Sky Deal comes along and re-levels the playing field.

A salary cap might be interesting, either in terms of percentage of turnover or a divisional total (divided by club), if you want to bring in another superstar, you might have to let someone else go. Would help with the stockpiling of players at some clubs.

Seems there is no clear answer to this.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 1, 2019

5 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Agree with a lot of that, but then you look at Arsenal...

For years it looked like they were going to be the benchmark for sustainable football, frugal in the transfer market, looking to pay off the stadium ahead of schedule and then a new Sky Deal comes along and re-levels the playing field.

A salary cap might be interesting, either in terms of percentage of turnover or a divisional total (divided by club), if you want to bring in another superstar, you might have to let someone else go. Would help with the stockpiling of players at some clubs.

Seems there is no clear answer to this.

Arsenal actually madly could be in some sort of FFP waters- different calculations online but that poster boy of FFP seemed to depend a decent amount on regular CL revenue.

Throw in caution being lifted on fees, wages, general inflation elsewhere playing its part, as you say the Sky deal- Arsenal drop out top 4? One year is okay, 2 years is alright but now they are unbelievably a bit restricted, with a mix of STCC and FFP.

One of the last clubs I thought would be anywhere near this. Because when you subtract profit on player transactions from actual profit, and then the net difference between Europa League revenue and CL revenue, things look different. Hamstrung? Like I say never thought Arsenal might be near or at least in the same ballpark as FFP. Think property revenues don't count towards FFP either- if not that's another that needs to be crossed off the profit.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**downendcity** · July 1, 2019

10 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Would the market value of the land be a proxy for the value of the stadium?

It's possible but as Im reading it the purchasers have purchased the stadia and it is the stadia that have been valued.

Happy to be corrected by those with current valuation knowledge.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 1, 2019

If anyone has a proper subscription to RICS guide for valuation and especially football stadia, that could be very interesting.

A friend tried to get a free trial a while ago but wasn't navigating it so well.

Isurv. Valuation calculations- something like this.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**downendcity** · July 1, 2019

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If anyone has a proper subscription to RICS guide for valuation and especially football stadia, that could be very interesting.

A friend tried to get a free trial a while ago but wasn't navigating it so well.

Isurv. Valuation calculations- something like this.

A friend of mine is an RICS qualified Commercial Valuer. His company manages substantial commercial property assets in and around London.

Im hoping to have a chat with him to find out how a stadium would be valued and will post on here when I have.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 1, 2019

11 minutes ago, downendcity said:

A friend of mine is an RICS qualified Commercial Valuer. His company manages substantial commercial property assets in and around London.

Im hoping to have a chat with him to find out how a stadium would be valued and will post on here when I have.

Thanks- that'll be very interesting to see, to hear.

If my friend can ever properly navigate the free trial for it- or better yet knows someone who is a valuer, using isurv etc I'll post that too.

As a layman, still thinking in the £50-55m bracket but we'll see I guess...

Edited July 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 4, 2019

Took a bit of a look at those Derby accounts in full for 2015-16 to 2017/18- not really looked at Sevco 5112 Limited much yet but for the sake of argument let's assume the reason Derby did the Sevco 5112 Limited thing and all the associated companies was because of massaging FFP/accounting figures? Tax efficiency too? This is before/without stadium shenanigans etc obviously!

Derby County 2015/16

Loss- £14,725,353- However included within is exceptional operating income of some £12,433,568. Don't think that should be included for FFP so let's adjust that to £27,589,921? This is headline loss/adjusted loss after player sales, interest reserve etc but before adjustments for FFP e.g. infrastructure, depreciation youth etc.

Derby County 2016/17

Loss- £7,872,715

Derby County 2017/18

Loss £25,368,759

Total losses- before the allowables of course- of £60,400,395.

However allowables now kick in:

2015/16

£5.815,221 on Infrastructure Expenditure- under Purchase of Tangible Fixed Assets
£2,445,890 in terms of Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets
No figure for Youth Expenditure- that's as distinct from improvements to ground, academy etc. The average figure for the 2 subsequent years added then divided seemed to be £4.29m per year so let's go with that?
Let's assume £500,000 in total for Women's and Community?

2016/17

£4,160,399 in Infrastructure Expenditure- under Purchase of Tangible Fixed Assets.
£3,176,360 in terms of Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets
£3,961,509 in Youth Expenditure
Let's assume the £500k still holds.

2017/18

£1,469,814 in Infrastructure Expenditure- under Purchase of Tangible Fixed Assets.
£3,451,513 in terms of Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets.
£4,624,162 in Youth Expenditure.
Let's assume the £500k still holds.

Not done the calcs yet but I think they pass to June 2018 even without ground transaction, albeit not by a huge amount- even if Youth Expenditure in 2015/16, plus Women's and Community expenditure in those three seasons is zero- which I doubt of course.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

July 4, 2019

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Took a bit of a look at those Derby accounts in full for 2015-16 to 2017/18- not really looked at Sevco 5112 Limited much yet but for the sake of argument let's assume the reason Derby did the Sevco 5112 Limited thing and all the associated companies was because of massaging FFP/accounting figures? Tax efficiency too? This is before/without stadium shenanigans etc obviously!

Derby County 2015/16

Loss- £14,725,353- However included within is exceptional operating income of some £12,433,568. Don't think that should be included for FFP so let's adjust that to £27,589,921? This is headline loss/adjusted loss after player sales, interest reserve etc but before adjustments for FFP e.g. infrastructure, depreciation youth etc.

Derby County 2016/17

Loss- £7,872,715

Derby County 2017/18

Loss £25,368,759

Total losses- before the allowables of course- of £60,831,359.

However allowables now kick in:

2015/16

£5.815,221 on Infrastructure Expenditure- under Purchase of Tangible Fixed Assets

£2,445,890 in terms of Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets

No figure for Youth Expenditure- that's as distinct from improvements to ground, academy etc. The average figure for the 2 subsequent years added then divided seemed to be £4.29m per year so let's go with that?

Let's assume £500,000 in total for Women's and Community?

2016/17

£4,160,399 in Infrastructure Expenditure- under Purchase of Tangible Fixed Assets.

£3,176,360 in terms of Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets

£3,961,509 in Youth Expenditure

Let's assume the £500k still holds.

2017/18

£1,469,814 in Infrastructure Expenditure- under Purchase of Tangible Fixed Assets.

£3,451,513 in terms of Depreciation of Tangible Fixed Assets.

£4,624,162 in Youth Expenditure.

Let's assume the £500k still holds.

Not done the calcs yet but I think they pass to June 2018 even without ground transaction, albeit not by a huge amount- even if Youth Expenditure in 2015/16, plus Women's and Community expenditure in those three seasons is zero- which I doubt of course.

We announced the FFP loss in 2015/16 as £9m here

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 4, 2019

53 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

We announced the FFP loss in 2015/16 as £9m here

EFL permitted the loan settlement then or? Exceptional items like that don't usually count towards FFP. Still you have said before your youth/academy expenditure quite high, it is a Category One Academy and the figures do bear this out. £9m feels in the right ballpark though if loan settlement excluded it is a bit- based on my calcs and what the accounts show, for £9m assuming loan settlement excluded, then £9,828,810 on Youth Expenditure that year- was there a lot of work done on it 2015/16, the academy? Unless the £9m refers to the Sevco 5112 figures, which I haven't really looked at much yet.

Anyway my calculations- done quickly and will probably require revision:

Total loss on accounts for Derby £47,966,827.

Subtract:

Infrastructure Expenditure to June 2018- £11,445,434
Depreciation on Fixed Assets- £9,073,763
KNOWN Youth Expenditure- we can only guess for 2015/16, something between £4-4.5m? Anyway known youth expenditure would be £8,585,671.
ASSUMED Womens and Community Expenditure- £1.5m over 3 years seems a reasonable guess? If you have any more info that'd be interesting.

Add back for FFP purposes the loan cancellation/settlement whatever it was £12,433,568.

You definitely pass without Stadium transaction, for Derby County that is. Sevco 5112 if that's used for your 3 year submissions/rolling figure, then it'd be more than likely a different matter without the sale and leaseback.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**downendcity** · July 4, 2019

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EFL permitted the loan settlement then or? Exceptional items like that don't usually count towards FFP. Still you have said before your youth/academy expenditure quite high, it is a Category A Academy and the figures do bear this out. £9m feels in the right ballpark though if loan settlement excluded it is a bit- based on my calcs and what the accounts show, for £9m assuming loan settlement excluded, then £9,828,810 on Youth Expenditure that year- was there a lot of work done on it 2015/16, the academy? Unless the £9m refers to the Sevco 5112 figures, which I haven't really looked at much yet.

Anyway my calculations- done quickly and will probably require revision:

Total loss on accounts for Derby £47,966,827.

Subtract:

Infrastructure Expenditure to June 2018- £11,445,434

Depreciation on Fixed Assets- £9,073,763

KNOWN Youth Expenditure- we can only guess for 2015/16, something between £4-4.5m? Anyway known youth expenditure would be £8,585,671.

ASSUMED Womens and Community Expenditure- £1.5m over 3 years seems a reasonable guess? If you have any more info that'd be interesting.

Add back for FFP purposes the loan cancellation/settlement whatever it was £12,433,568.

You definitely pass without Stadium transaction, for Derby County that is. Sevco 5112 if that's used for your 3 year submissions/rolling figure, then it'd be more than likely a different matter without the sale and leaseback.

Fair play Mr P for the in depth analysis of clubs accounts that you have done over recent months and for documenting it in an easily understood ( well relatively so!) format.

Something that has just crossed my mind. For Villa and Derby, now they no longer own their own ground, how do they stand in terms of spending on infrastructure i.e. the stadium, that would normally be allowable expenditure under ffp? My guess is that the tenancy agreements both clubs have make provision for this but it is an interesting point if ffp allows spending on fixed assets owned by the football club.

July 4, 2019

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EFL permitted the loan settlement then or? Exceptional items like that don't usually count towards FFP. Still you have said before your youth/academy expenditure quite high, it is a Category A Academy and the figures do bear this out. £9m feels in the right ballpark though if loan settlement excluded it is a bit- based on my calcs and what the accounts show, for £9m assuming loan settlement excluded, then £9,828,810 on Youth Expenditure that year- was there a lot of work done on it 2015/16, the academy? Unless the £9m refers to the Sevco 5112 figures, which I haven't really looked at much yet.

Anyway my calculations- done quickly and will probably require revision:

Total loss on accounts for Derby £47,966,827.

Subtract:

Infrastructure Expenditure to June 2018- £11,445,434

Depreciation on Fixed Assets- £9,073,763

KNOWN Youth Expenditure- we can only guess for 2015/16, something between £4-4.5m? Anyway known youth expenditure would be £8,585,671.

ASSUMED Womens and Community Expenditure- £1.5m over 3 years seems a reasonable guess? If you have any more info that'd be interesting.

Add back for FFP purposes the loan cancellation/settlement whatever it was £12,433,568.

You definitely pass without Stadium transaction, for Derby County that is. Sevco 5112 if that's used for your 3 year submissions/rolling figure, then it'd be more than likely a different matter without the sale and leaseback.

I don't know re. the loan settlement.

There was a lot of work done on the academy, but I'm not sure on the timings of it, some may have been later, I'm also not sure if it would come under the Infrastructure Expenditure or the Youth Expenditure, it almost doubled in size area wise (I don't think the first team use the pitches in the new area, so that may come under the Youth?) and there were buildings added inside the main u-shaped one (which I assume everyone will use, so probably the Infrastructure?).

That article does say:

Quote

Almost £6m was invested on operational functions across both Pride Park Stadium and the Training Centre in partnership with the University of Derby. Developments included; new undersoil heating, a top class pitch and LED floodlights at the stadium and the completion of further significant pitch and infrastructure improvements at the Training Centre.

That could mean the replacement pitches (changed to hybrid), as I think they were installed at the same time as the stadiums, and not the brand new ones in the newly acquired area, which is the bit I think could have been later.

Re. 4, I know we do a lot of Community work, but I've no idea of the costs involved.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 4, 2019

2 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

I don't know re. the loan settlement.

There was a lot of work done on the academy, but I'm not sure on the timings of it, some may have been later, I'm also not sure if it would come under the Infrastructure Expenditure or the Youth Expenditure, it almost doubled in size area wise (I don't think the first team use the pitches in the new area, so that may come under the Youth?) and there were buildings added inside the main u-shaped one (which I assume everyone will use, so probably the Infrastructure?).

That article does say:

That could mean the replacement pitches (changed to hybrid), as I think they were installed at the same time as the stadiums, and not the brand new ones in the newly acquired area, which is the bit I think could have been later.

Re. 4, I know we do a lot of Community work, but I've no idea of the costs involved.

It's hard to say IMO. I have had, though I might be wrong the Academy Expenditure down as operational spending- i.e. cost of running it to that category, whereas Infrastructure would be improvements to it, the ground other factors- overall Expenditure- possible I'm double counting in some places though!

Are the Training Centre and Academy as one, concurrent? Assuming yes- most clubs are now.

Yeah we can only guess on that one really- and the same for Derby FC Women's team.

On your academy expenditure I did a search of financial results Derby and it did suggest- well a below the line commenter did anyway, called "hkram" that your academy expenditure is/was £5.5m per year! Like I say, never been so sold on Derby failing FFP without the ground transaction, using these results- the Sevco 5112 results may show a different story.

@downendcity Yeah they may well have provisions. Failing that, quite possible that expenditure on the ground wouldn't show in the club accounts as such- but they can spend on other areas of Fixed Assets e.g. Training Ground, academy which would all come up under both expenditure and depreciation I believe.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 4, 2019

Ohhh and something interesting from another forum- been on the cards for some while?

Will be interesting to a) See the benchmark ratio b) Whether it actually solves their issues- Reading's £6.5m profit was no fix really and c) What will come first- their 2017/18 accounts at Companies House or Sheffield Wednesday being allowed to sign, spend etc!

One more note to add on stadium sales and FFP.

Being 3 year rolling, it drops off the calculations after this season, and the transaction for Pride Park took place in 2017/18 reporting period.

Disregarding any fallout from Gibson legal action, or the Aston Villa thing leading to some sort of dispute over £81.1m price, discounting that, way the rolling system works means that if Derby don't go up this season, that profit drops off the calculations which makes for a bit of pressure? Not a huge amount but a bit.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 8, 2019

Something interesting- possibly interesting- anyway on Sheffield Wednesday. I appear to have spotted it before Kieran Maguire but he can probably explain it better. :laugh:

Sheffield 2 Limited- Update. "Statement of Capital following an Allotment of Shares". £1,000 GBP.
Sheffield 3 Limited- Now owned by Sheffield 5 Limited as opposed to Sheffield 4 Limited. The officer listed though is still Chansiri.
Sheffield 4 Limited- Update. Statement of Capital following an Allotment of Shares". £1,000 GBP.
Sheffield 5 Limited- Update. Statement of Capital following an Allotment of Shares". £1,000 GBP.

Additionally:

Quote

On Sheffield 2 Limited and Sheffield 4 Limited

Non-cash consideration

"Shares allotted in consideration for the transfer of the entire issued share capital of SWFC Holdings Limited".

Quote

Sheffield 5 Limited

"Shares allotted in consideration for the transfer of the entire issued share capital of Sheffield 3 Limited".

Maybe completely wrong but my initial guess is one of these is for a mooted sale and leaseback of Hillsborough and another 2 or 3 are for hiving off of salary costs but sufficiently small not to have to publish full accounts for each- parent/holding company surely either Sheffield Wednesday FC or Sheffield Wednesday Holdings- of which there is no sign. Maybe all of those full costs would be in Sheffield Wednesday Holdings- unclear if it's in transit, going to be based overseas or in UK.

Struggle to see how the share thing should make any substantial difference to FFP or the accounts beyond pushing up allowable losses from £5m + deductible costs to £13m + allowable costs which is the benchmark anyway surely, the ground thing might. The accounts incidentally which were originally due on February 28th 2019 for the period to May 31st 2018, 2 months moved- presumably to buy time so due at end of April. Been a few bank holidays since then but 2 months and a bit overdue even so.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 8, 2019

Oh yeah, plot thickens.

Sheffield 4 Limited voluntarily liquidated/wound up according to "Open Corporate". Or looking like it might be- 2nd July, maybe it takes a while to feed through to Companies House.

That would help to explain perhaps why Sheffield 5 Limited now "own" Sheffield 3 Limited as opposed to Sheffield 4 Limited doing so. Chansiri appears to be the ultimate controlling party in all cases though.

All 4- or soon to be 3 it seems- Non-trading companies too. To own assets or split payment of wages IMO.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 10, 2019

Interesting bit of news.

Borner announced by Sheffield Wednesday- free transfer from Bundesliga 2, reasonable player more than likely, CB, apparently decent technically etc. Solid signing- but what makes it interesting and more than a bit odd, is that though it was clearly agreed in early May or mid May, whenever- is that his signing has been announced before their accounts have appeared at Companies House- their accounts for season 2017/18 which were due at end of April, which in turn was a presumably pre-arranged extension from end of February- reporting period was until 31st May 2018 and extended to July 31st 2018.

To me, no accounts at CH, no signings until it happens. Within allowable wage limits of the terms of a soft embargo or not, failure to submit accounts as it stands at all, let alone in a timely manner to CH should supersede this surely!

Edited July 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

Natchfever · July 10, 2019

On 01/07/2019 at 14:42, downendcity said:

Ive said previously that with Derby and Villa it seems to me that the valuation figures were just what the club wanted ( and needed) them to be.

Football stadia are not like residential properties, in that there is no established and active market in sales of stadia so no market comparable exist. This being the case it would be tricky for a valuer to be challenged about the accuracy of his/her valuation, which is why I suspect Villa and Derby have been so financially "successful" with the sale of their grounds.

I studied professional valuation in my younger days, but never got into practice. There are a few valuation principles I can recall but don't want to quote them on here in case my memory is a bit hazy or if valuation practices are different these days.

Depreciated replacement cost.

"The DRC method is a form of cost approach that is defined in the RICS Valuation – Global Standards 2017 (RB Global) Glossary as: ‘The current cost of replacing an asset with its modern equivalent asset less deductions for physical deterioration and all relevant forms of obsolescence and optimisation. The DRC method is based on the economic theory of substitution. Like the other forms of valuation it involves comparing the asset being valued with another. However, DRC is normally used in situations where there is no directly comparable alternative"

The DRC method may be used for the valuation of specialised property, which is defined in the RB Global Glossary as: ‘A property that is rarely, if ever, sold in the market, except by way of a sale of the business or entity of which it is part, due to the uniqueness arising from its specialised nature and design, its configuration, size, location or otherwise.’

This is the RICS approach so gospel and often applied to public buildings.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Loon plage

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 10, 2019

26 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Depreciated replacement cost.

"The DRC method is a form of cost approach that is defined in the RICS Valuation – Global Standards 2017 (RB Global) Glossary as: ‘The current cost of replacing an asset with its modern equivalent asset less deductions for physical deterioration and all relevant forms of obsolescence and optimisation. The DRC method is based on the economic theory of substitution. Like the other forms of valuation it involves comparing the asset being valued with another. However, DRC is normally used in situations where there is no directly comparable alternative"

The DRC method may be used for the valuation of specialised property, which is defined in the RB Global Glossary as: ‘A property that is rarely, if ever, sold in the market, except by way of a sale of the business or entity of which it is part, due to the uniqueness arising from its specialised nature and design, its configuration, size, location or otherwise.’

This is the RICS approach so gospel and often applied to public buildings.

Sounds like you know a fair bit about this stuff, valuation, methodology etc.

Intrigued to know your take on £81.1m for Pride Park and especially in an RPT such as that. I've always had a feeling £50-55m or so but purely a layman's take looking at such factors as 2007 valuation (£55m), additions to Tangible Fixed Assets since then, minus cost of depreciation since that- the 2013 revaluation appears not to be public knowledge and not even in their accounts, perhaps that gave it a large rise.

Were it a truly a Arm's length transaction for that cost at a sale and leaseback, with no RP involvement nobody could question the £81.1m IMO but other factors surely add doubt/query.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

Natchfever · July 10, 2019

43 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sounds like you know a fair bit about this stuff, valuation, methodology etc.

Intrigued to know your take on £81.1m for Pride Park and especially in an RPT such as that.

I haven't undertaken asset valuations for donkeys years Mr P, I deal with commercial property acquisitions, disposals and everything in between i'm afraid so can't comment on the valuation, particularly as I have no idea whether it was the stadium solely or associated leisure outlets etc, but I would say that the oft quoted figure of £1m per 1,000 seats is woefully outdated and fails to properly account for facilities within stadia,anyone putting their name to a valuation of £81m would have to be qualified to do so, and further, when you consider the costs of stadia coming out of the ground elsewhere recently, I think it would probably be very difficult to challenge the sale price.

Interesting stuff about Aberdeen's 20,000 capacity stadium https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/aberdeen-fc/donsnews/cost-of-stadium-to-rise-to-45-50m/

Edited July 10, 2019 by Loon plage

**bcfc01** · July 10, 2019

1 hour ago, Loon plage said:

I haven't undertaken asset valuations for donkeys years Mr P, I deal with commercial property acquisitions, disposals and everything in between i'm afraid so can't comment on the valuation, particularly as I have no idea whether it was the stadium solely or associated leisure outlets etc, but I would say that the oft quoted figure of £1m per 1,000 seats is woefully outdated and fails to properly account for facilities within stadia,anyone putting their name to a valuation of £81m would have to be qualified to do so, and further, when you consider the costs of stadia coming out of the ground elsewhere recently, I think it would probably be very difficult to challenge the sale price.

Interesting stuff about Aberdeen's 20,000 capacity stadium https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/aberdeen-fc/donsnews/cost-of-stadium-to-rise-to-45-50m/

General rule of thumb is £2k per 1,000 seats for a new build with an average finish, so thats about right if they're going for a decent finish.

**Davefevs** · July 10, 2019

4 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

General rule of thumb is £2k per 1,000 seats for a new build with an average finish, so thats about right if they're going for a decent finish.

So Derby’s £81.1m (if just Stadium) is way over with “depreciation”.

**downendcity** · July 10, 2019

1 hour ago, Loon plage said:

Depreciated replacement cost.

"The DRC method is a form of cost approach that is defined in the RICS Valuation – Global Standards 2017 (RB Global) Glossary as: ‘The current cost of replacing an asset with its modern equivalent asset less deductions for physical deterioration and all relevant forms of obsolescence and optimisation. The DRC method is based on the economic theory of substitution. Like the other forms of valuation it involves comparing the asset being valued with another. However, DRC is normally used in situations where there is no directly comparable alternative"

The DRC method may be used for the valuation of specialised property, which is defined in the RB Global Glossary as: ‘A property that is rarely, if ever, sold in the market, except by way of a sale of the business or entity of which it is part, due to the uniqueness arising from its specialised nature and design, its configuration, size, location or otherwise.’

This is the RICS approach so gospel and often applied to public buildings.

9 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

General rule of thumb is £2k per 1,000 seats for a new build with an average finish, so thats about right if they're going for a decent finish.

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So Derby’s £81.1m (if just Stadium) is way over with “depreciation”.

Can't remember the figure for Villa Park's sale and leaseback, but Im sure it was substantially less than Derby's £82m for Pride Park.

Even if you factor in a deduction for physical deterioration and obsolescence for Villa Park, being a much older ground, Pride Park's figure doesn't seem to stand up. Even more so when compared against the figure Reading showed for for their stadium sale - a comparable modern stadium.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 10, 2019

11 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Can't remember the figure for Villa Park's sale and leaseback, but Im sure it was substantially less than Derby's £82m for Pride Park.

Even if you factor in a deduction for physical deterioration and obsolescence for Villa Park, being a much older ground, Pride Park's figure doesn't seem to stand up. Even more so when compared against the figure Reading showed for for their stadium sale - a comparable modern stadium.

£56.7m IIRC.

Derby did additions though, and it was valued in 2007 at £55m- my basic, probably sketchy method has been to add on work- I assume "Additions" to constitute improvement to Pride Park and subtract depreciation in that timespan and that is how I came to the £50-55m range.

Another method I have used, less viable I know, is rate of property/land prices in Derby between a certain period. Would have to check again but I believe that the net figure now for growth-depreciation fell within £50-55m range.

A third method I have used- benchmarking against similar transactions. Reading's Madejski Stadium value £20m in books, sold to owners for a sale and leaseback for £26.5m- about 32.5% uptick. Again you've guessed it- fell to within £50-55m range! If the mooted figures for Hillsborough of £22-22.25m in accounts, sold for £30m then yet again it is that range. Villa Park is hard to value, there was a downward revaluation in 2016, and some non depreciable land- I'll continue to look at sale price-NBV so that one is unclear as to whether the uptick is 25-35% so far.

Yet for all this, I fear what @Loon plage says is spot on- it'd be very hard to challenge a valuation such as Pride Park, especially since it has gone through and was approved by the EFL. The EFL incidentally have huge questions to answer for seemingly removing that clause- difficult legal ones I hope, for allowing this to be a method of offsetting FFP- would not be saying this if it was a third party, but IMO the methodology and documentation for such a valuation and transaction with a Related Party should be publicly available but that's likely wishful thinking.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**bcfc01** · July 10, 2019

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So Derby’s £81.1m (if just Stadium) is way over with “depreciation”.

The 2k per 1000 is for new build.

If Pride Park had to be built from scratch now and assuming a good finish (2,4k per seat) the cost could well be around 81m imo.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 10, 2019

10 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

The 2k per 1000 is for new build.

If Pride Park had to be built from scratch now and assuming a good finish (2,4k per seat) the cost could well be around 81m imo.

Does that factor in a 2007 revaluation at DRC method of £55m, and subsequent depreciation- and additions admittedly?

Looked for the 2013 revaluation at DRC method, but seems to be listed nowhere. :dunno:

Edited July 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**bcfc01** · July 10, 2019

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Does that factor in a 2007 revaluation at DRC method of £55m, and subsequent depreciation- and additions admittedly?

Looked for the 2013 revaluation at DRC method, but seems to be listed nowhere.

No, purely indicative build costs.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 10, 2019

59 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

No, purely indicative build costs.

Thanks- it just "feels" out of kilter though- the Madejski Stadium, a ground admittedly not as good as Pride Park and smaller, completion 1998- sold in 2017/18 to owners for £26.5m, book value £20m. Possible there's been no revaluation of any kind in that time- not looked at their 20 years of accounts. :laughcont:

Major discrepancy not talking gross cost but everything else. Maybe there's been no upgrades in last 2 decades there. :dunno:

It is largely the fault of the EFL too for seemingly changing the regulations to allow this as a safety valve in terms of FFP- hopefully Aston Villa spend themselves stupid, come back down and fail FFP in the 3 years to May 2021, Derby stay down and that profit drops off the books from 2017/18 as it will and Sheffield Wednesday stay in a soft embargo, lose Bruce and slip further into issues.

PS- Bruce quitting Sheffield Wednesday, potentially for Newcastle. Some rumours say it is due to "broken promises" on transfers- for that read soft embargo, unable to sign players except within strict limits.

That would be karma- sure @chinapig @Davefevs @downendcity might concur? Shame eh, if it happens and if that part is also accurate. :thumbsup:

Unsure about @Owl Visiting ?

Edited July 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**chinapig** · July 10, 2019

52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks- it just "feels" out of kilter though- the Madejski Stadium, a ground admittedly not as good as Pride Park and smaller, completion 1998- sold in 2017/18 to owners for £26.5m, book value £20m. Possible there's been no revaluation of any kind in that time- not looked at their 20 years of accounts.

Major discrepancy not talking gross cost but everything else. Maybe there's been no upgrades in last 2 decades there.

It is largely the fault of the EFL too for seemingly changing the regulations to allow this as a safety valve in terms of FFP- hopefully Aston Villa spend themselves stupid, come back down and fail FFP in the 3 years to May 2021, Derby stay down and that profit drops off the books from 2017/18 as it will and Sheffield Wednesday stay in a soft embargo, lose Bruce and slip further into issues.

PS- Bruce quitting Sheffield Wednesday, potentially for Newcastle. Some rumours say it is due to "broken promises" on transfers- for that read soft embargo, unable to sign potentially.

That would be karma- sure @chinapig @Davefevs @downendcity might concur? Shame eh, if it happens and if that part is also accurate.

Unsure about @Owl Visiting ?

Who me? Are you implying I'm cynical about FFP and wish bad things on all those big clubs who should be in the Premier League as of right?

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked! :whistle:

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 11, 2019

Took a quick look at Aston Villa.

They had a big old write down in 2015/16 of Villa Park- nearly £45m. Reckon they paid nearly double the current accounts listed net book value basically much like Derby- unlike Derby though there appears to be no recent revaluation in accounts- did they have time for all that I wonder given it seemed to be cobbled together quickly to duck FFP- that being the case I wonder if it's why no public EFL statement on having passed/complied.

Derby at least appear to have done things by the book to an extent e.g. getting in a valuer- Aston Villa it's harder to say- they certainly didn't seem to pay in the 25-35% bracket that Reading's owners did though.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 11, 2019

Peter Loehmann FFP calculations for Sheffield Wednesday- though their 3 year accounts pure guesswork until their 2017/18 are released.

They've failed FFP if he's right- based on the EFL's own formula it's a 4 point deduction- hell even with the ground sale it intimates they fail to July 2019 but the Bruce deal changes this- I also think some of those estimates are a bit over generous IMO because surely if accounts move by 2 months, while it would take in the Rhodes and Hunt departures which help to mitigate, it would also add 2 months to the wage bill? Plus surely gate receipts etc fall as Sheffield Wednesday did demonstrably worse in 2017/18 than the prior 2 playoff seasons?

Nobody can do their own independent analysis though as there is still no sign of those accounts! One conspiracy theory of mine- just for fun- is a dispute with auditors as Chansiri trying to backdate the sale to 2017/18 accounts which is/has been preventing their release.

Well this is odd- they've just announced the free transfer of Odubajo- good signing I feel and obviously was on the cards for a while.

Can someone explain how you can fail to submit accounts to CH which are well overdue- yet announce any new signings- even free transfers? Surely surely accounts to CH should take precedence over any signings?

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 11, 2019

BREAKING NEWS.

Sheffield Wednesday accounts out- Hillsborough SOLD for £38m profit.

Their accounts on their site, but not at CH yet. Auditors happy?

Quick scan suggests losses of around £35m in 2017/18- without this of course.

Makes a ******* mockery.

Puzzled as to when the transaction took place too- doubtless it'd show on Land Registry?

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

July 11, 2019

50 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

BREAKING NEWS.

Sheffield Wednesday accounts out- Hillsborough SOLD for £38m profit.

Their accounts on their site, but not at CH yet. Auditors happy?

Quick scan suggests losses of around £35m in 2017/18- without this of course.

Makes a ******* mockery.

Puzzled as to when the transaction took place too- doubtless it'd show on Land Registry?

Got to admit I'm a little confused about this one.

Just took a look at their 2017 accounts, on page 26 (29 of the pdf) under note 11, it says that in 2014 the freehold buildings were valued at £22,250,000.

And you thought ours was a big increase!

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 11, 2019

16 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

Got to admit I'm a little confused about this one.

Just took a look at their 2017 accounts, on page 26 (29 of the pdf) under note 11, it says that in 2014 the freehold buildings were valued at £22,250,000.

And you thought ours was a big increase!

It was!

However this one is ludicrous, it's possible there were some additions and subtractions which took it up to somewhere between £22-23m, but the sale price is truly farcical here- makes your transaction look reasonable and entirely sensible. Maybe with additions it was, but my instinct of Sheffield Wednesday being 2nd only to Aston Villa in my own "FFP League table dodginess" appears right. Even Peter Loehmann a Sheff Wed fan who writes on accounts and is pretty fair-minded, only assumed it was a £12m profit tor Hillsborough in his projections.

Couple of other early points from a quick read of their accounts.

Accounts only signed off and dated 20th June 2019- just the 3 weeks late.
The profit- of £38m- appears in their profit and loss statement at the start but not in their cash flow. Odd.
How can we be sure it took place within the relevant accounting period? We can't! I have my doubts as to whether it took place by 31st July 2018 but Land Registry would surely show all?
How on earth did their losses soar to £35m without it? Mad.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

July 11, 2019

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It was!

However this one is ludicrous, it's possible there were some additions and subtractions which took it up to somewhere between £22-23m, but the sale price is truly farcical here- makes your transaction look reasonable and entirely sensible. Maybe with additions it was, but my instinct of Sheffield Wednesday being 2nd only to Aston Villa in my own "FFP League table dodginess" appears right. Even Peter Loehmann only assumed it was a £12m profit tor Hillsborough in hias projections.

Couple of other early points from a quick read of their accounts.

Accounts only signed off and dated 20th June 2019- just the 3 weeks late.

The profit- of £38m- appears in their profit and loss statement at the start but not in their cash flow. Odd.

How can we be sure it took place within the relevant accounting period? We can't! I have my doubts as to whether it took place by 31st July 2018 but Land Registry would surely show all?

How on earth did their losses soar to £35m without it? Mad.

I thought there was a land registry entry that showed in May of this year it was owned by the club? Can you backdate? I know it was something you questioned about ours until finding that land registry entry from January(?) (ironically on Owlstalk!)

I presume the loss level is because apart from Hunt to you, I don't think they've actually sold anyone else since their owner took over?

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 11, 2019

6 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I thought there was a land registry entry that showed in May of this year it was owned by the club? Can you backdate? I know it was something you questioned about ours until finding that land registry entry from January(?) (ironically on Owlstalk!)

I presume the loss level is because apart from Hunt to you, I don't think they've actually sold anyone else since their owner took over?

I wasn't aware you could backdate and indeed if that Land Registry entry I found was correct and in date then this raises serious questions IMO. Unclear if the one who purchased it was Chansiri himself or his family- doesn't matter in terms of RPT rules, but still not wholly clear.

Loss level probably that, an extension of accounting period meaning more wages amongst other things. Largely that though! Their wage bill did rise by £13.1m that said.

July 11, 2019

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wasn't aware you could backdate and indeed if that Land Registry entry I found was correct and in date then this raises serious questions IMO. Unclear if the one who purchased it was Chansiri himself or his family- doesn't matter in terms of RPT rules, but still not wholly clear.

Loss level probably that, an extension of accounting period meaning more wages amongst other things. Largely that though! Their wage bill did rise by £13.1m that said.

I think it was earlier this year their owner told them they would be in very big trouble with FFP if they didn't get promoted? If they had already done the stadium sale then that's not the case? That makes me think it was backdated, they seen us do it (after their owner made those comments) and realised they could do it too?

Does the fact that it was sold (according to Kieran Maguire) to a Hong Kong holding company (so not on Companies House?) make a difference at all? I know they announced it as a related party transaction.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 11, 2019

41 minutes ago, DerbyFan said:

I think it was earlier this year their owner told them they would be in very big trouble with FFP if they didn't get promoted? If they had already done the stadium sale then that's not the case? That makes me think it was backdated, they seen us do it (after their owner made those comments) and realised they could do it too?

Does the fact that it was sold (according to Kieran Maguire) to a Hong Kong holding company (so not on Companies House?) make a difference at all? I know they announced it as a related party transaction.

Yep, earlier this year or late 2018 he said they would indeed be in big- or very big- trouble. I have that feeling that it was backdated but I have no proof so it's purely a hunch based on what you say and what we know- someone on Owlstalk who I recognise from following Kieran Maguire on Twitter reckons that if a process has begun in financial year x, then if it's completed in financial year y that's alright- however there is still potentially nothing on Land Registry which is puzzling.

Shouldn't if it is an RPT. They still need to produce their UK accounts but quite likely the Holding Company in Hong Kong.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 11, 2019

Looked in a bit more detail.

That wage bill! Admittedly some of it will have been from sacking Carvahal and the fact it was 14 month accounts to July 2018, but wow!

D_MPhptXsAA-NcM.jpg:large

Underlying loss £35.5m or thereabouts.- the slightest downward adjustment to that ground transaction profit based on benchmarking could be disastrous- wouldn't that be sad! :whistle2:

Think Reading's £20m NBV, £26.5m gross transaction was by far the most legit.

Interesting thread on this one- BBC Sheffield journo. Cannot fathom how they kept the news of the transaction under wraps for so long and also how they managed to get it into 2017/18 season- and why it still does not appear on Land Registry, Sheffield Wednesday still listed as owner of Hillsborough it appears.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 12, 2019

Here is my take as well.

Mike Thornton has received response from EFL on certain aspects- his essay on his site. Doesn't align so well with UEFA rules. My simple solution therefore is that any club who has complied during EFL period only via a sale and leaseback to owners who qualifies for Europe should be refused a UEFA License- whether they win one of the 2 Cups, or they finish 6th in the League within one or 2 seasons up- so Aston Villa basically, no alignment, no license- or in the highly unlikely event Sheffield Wednesday especially win the FA Cup/League Cup this season. Aston Villa might but fulfilment reached through this should be punished with no License for a UEFA competition until the 3 year rolling period has it fall off the books.

https://www.mikethornton.xyz/ffp-eat-humble-pie-or-my-hat/

The potentially highly interesting aspect here too is that EFL FFP regs don't seem to align with UK Accounting law in some aspects? The article may or may not have a valid point.

Back fo my UEFA license point though, the Regs on it seemingly say:

Quote

Under UEFA FFP rules we find
“The profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets (including, but not limited to, a club’s stadium and training facilities) in a reporting period must be excluded from the break-even result”

This after all forms the basis for the regs/rules.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 12, 2019

Who says cheats don't prosper eh?

While Sheff Wed fans may wish to kiss Chansiri for this, Gibson too should have given him one- of the Glaswegian variety.

On a serious note if I was a club who had abided or even tried to and I saw this, especially the gross inflation with no real mitigating factors, I would struggle to have cheats in my boardroom at games or to share it with them and remain civil, calm and professional- I really would. Genuinely think ones like this, who effectively cheat the competition should be treated accordingly- as pariahs.

Sounds like Chansiri has kicked Sky out of the training ground over the Bruce stuff- has he banned then?

To me, no Sky access, no Sky money. Your club are arrogant and despicable. @Owl Visiting

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 12, 2019

My last post was a bit strong but I still stand by what I say about having a serious problem when it comes to sharing a boardroom with such people- edit facility ran out of course.

Idea on Fixed Asset sales, but especially sale and leaseback to related parties.

Set the benchmark on the most realistic sale and leaseback price- Reading's £20m NBV, £26.5m transaction- accept that ratio i.e. 25-35% but no more.

In which case, we would see the gross transaction price:

Hillsborough- adjusted to somewhere between £27.8m and £30m. Profit on NBV between £5.6-£7.78m

Pride Park- adjusted to somewhere between £51,449,516.25 to £55,565,477.55. Profit on NBV between £10,289,903.25-£14,405,864.55.

Villa Park- adjusted to somewhere between £35,434,967.50 to £38,264,764.90. Profit on NBV between £7,086,993.50-£9,921,790.90

Note- this is adjusted for FFP purposes, fair value, not necessarily what would appear in the accounts.

With that Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday absolutely fail- Derby may well not but then their ground the most modern of the 3, Derby has had solid land rise prices and more importantly they sold quite a few unlike the other 2.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 12, 2019

Interesting though, specifically on Sheffield Wednesday- credit to BBC, this is where it is from. Mike McCarthy BBC Radio Sheffield.

Quote

Analysis

Mike McCarthy, BBC Radio Sheffield

There are some confusing things about the sale. I've asked Sheffield Wednesday when exactly it took place and they haven't been able to tell me. That immediately sets off some alarm bells.

In December, Mr Chansiri told a fans forum the club had broken the financial rules by an eight-figure sum - so at least £10m. Now for the same accounting period, Wednesday are showing a profit.

So if the ground had already been sold, or a contract was in place to sell it, why didn't Sheffield Wednesday tell anyone about it at that fans forum and put fans' minds at ease?

And why does the land registry still show Sheffield Wednesday as the owners of Hillsborough if it was sold months, possibly years ago?

Already we understand Sheffield Wednesday are working under a soft transfer embargo - that means they can sign some players, but they can't go big on transfer fees or wages.

And, long term, selling the stadium doesn't help much. You can only do it once, and that means Sheffield Wednesday's next accounts are likely to show another big loss. Without the stadium sale they'd have lost £35m this time.

So they still have to cut costs, and that has begun this summer with the release of half a dozen players from the first-team squad. But there's probably a lot more work to do.

This is particularly interesting, some of the bits in bold I mean.

Not too bothered about their fans mind being put at ease, in fact the more edge the better for all I care, but the key questions:

1) Why non-disclosure of when transaction took place?

2) Smoke and mirrors? Either now or then!

3) Land Registry does not take that long to update- how do you backdate a sale so far?

I know Mike McCarthy has basically ripped off some of my q's but won't hold it against him, :laugh: but on a serious note these are all good questions and the EFL should be scrutinising this very closely indeed.

He also states on Twitter that the company listed as owning Hillsborough- well it's unknown.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

July 12, 2019

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting though, specifically on Sheffield Wednesday- credit to BBC, this is where it is from. Mike McCarthy BBC Radio Sheffield.

This is particularly interesting, some of the bits in bold I mean.

Not too bothered about their fans mind being put at ease, in fact the more edge the better for all I care, but the key questions:

1) Why non-disclosure of when transaction took place?

2) Smoke and mirrors? Either now or then!

3) Land Registry does not take that long to update- how do you backdate a sale so far?

I know Mike McCarthy has basically ripped off some of my q's but won't hold it against him, but on a serious note these are all good questions and the EFL should be scrutinising this very closely indeed.

He also states on Twitter that the company listed as owning Hillsborough- well it's unknown.

That's one of the reasons I was confused about their ground sale yesterday, see my post below:

On 11/07/2019 at 14:07, DerbyFan said:

I think it was earlier this year their owner told them they would be in very big trouble with FFP if they didn't get promoted? If they had already done the stadium sale then that's not the case? That makes me think it was backdated, they seen us do it (after their owner made those comments) and realised they could do it too?

Does the fact that it was sold (according to Kieran Maguire) to a Hong Kong holding company (so not on Companies House?) make a difference at all? I know they announced it as a related party transaction.

I had thought it was earlier this year, but it seems it was actually in December 2018. My 'very big trouble' bit was paraphrased as eight figures seems very big trouble to me! But breaking it by an eight figure sum doesn't fit with their accounts from end of July 2018?

They were also under an embargo from April until mid August 2018, according to this BBC article. Would the EFL not have immediately lifted their embargo once notified of the sale?

**chinapig** · July 12, 2019

2 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

That's one of the reasons I was confused about their ground sale yesterday, see my post below:

I had thought it was earlier this year, but it seems it was actually in December 2018. My 'very big trouble' bit was paraphrased as eight figures seems very big trouble to me! But breaking it by an eight figure sum doesn't fit with their accounts from end of July 2018?

They were also under an embargo from April until mid August 2018, according to this BBC article. Would the EFL not have immediately lifted their embargo once notified of the sale?

The EFL appears to be somwhere between incompetent and corrupt, so we cannot expect them to take appropriate action under any circumstances.

For another example, the takeover of Bury last year was done without complying with EFL rules. Needless to say the EFL did nothing. Nor are they remotely embarrassed to admit it.

I expect any shady dealings on Wednesday's part to go unexamined therefore.

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 12, 2019

28 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The EFL appears to be somwhere between incompetent and corrupt, so we cannot expect them to take appropriate action under any circumstances.

For another example, the takeover of Bury last year was done without complying with EFL rules. Needless to say the EFL did nothing. Nor are they remotely embarrassed to admit it.

I expect any shady dealings on Wednesday's part to go unexamined therefore.

Can clubs not bring about some sort of pressure for this- especially this one because of the set of circs surrounding it?

Aston Villa too if they return- this one seems even more pressing and more "interesting" though- I'd argue regardless of FFP that a serious EFL misconduct hearing is due unless they can produce documentation proving that the accounting period and the transaction were aligned, in real time and in real terms.

Mike McCarthy BBC Sheffield is looking into this/covering it on Twitter.

Indeed there is a possible "smoking gun" so to speak- found on Twitter and Owlstalk.

This if accurate surely means that the transaction demonstrably DID NOT take place in financial year ending in July 31 2018- possible backdating job??

Tweet with time and date.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

Yellow&Blue&Red · July 12, 2019

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous for posting these. Really interesting.

Based on what we know of EFL's handling of Birmingham and whatever else, what do you think will (as opposed to ought to) happen to Wednesday, Villa and Derby?

**downendcity** · July 12, 2019

13 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous for posting these. Really interesting.

Based on what we know of EFL's handling of Birmingham and whatever else, what do you think will (as opposed to ought to) happen to Wednesday, Villa and Derby?

With EFL's track record - bu99er all!

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 12, 2019

Hmm, what will happen?

I fear not a lot- maybe Sheffield Wednesday soft embargo will continue until the end of the summer window on the principle that if their accounts come in late, then the EFL will take a long time scrutinising them and oops transfer deadline will pass. I mean is there definitive proof they have been registered by EFL, could Chansiri have not just released all this ie player announcements and "interesting" accounts as a distraction technique to boost morale what with Bruce maybe leaving?

Aston Villa- really hard to say. I fear nothing but there were rumours at PL were looking into their deal as though it may well be acceptable within EFL regulations, EPL ones are not so clear- @Coppello if he hasn't covered it already maybe best placed to answer if the EPL could dock Aston Villa points for it breaching their rules?

Derby- I had them down as big in breach but their accounts make it less clearcut. A big difference between the first 2 and Derby is they sold 7 players between 2016-17 and season just gone. Did they sign too? Yes, but these were a mix of first team and useful squad that they sold, plus e.g. Weimann and Vydra out Marriott and Waghorn in likely a reduction in total wages. Lee Grant- Squad. Cyrus Christie- First Team, Tom Ince- First Team, Will Hughes- First Team, Jeff Hendrick- First Team, Matej Vydra- First Team and Andreas Weimann- Either First Team or In and around. @DerbyFan may correct me on their status. My point is they're certainly not as bad as the other 2.

To me as a starting point what should happen is that the valuations should be lopped down to a 32.5% profit on NBV as per Reading- precedent, benchmarking. Maybe that Derby pass with that, certainly not the other 2. Remove for FFP purposes the rest of the profit for all 3, then assess afresh.

Sheffield Wednesday probably should be looked at for this and more, hopefully Mike McCarthy at BBC Radio Sheffield will continue his interesting work.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

**chinapig** · July 12, 2019

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Can clubs not bring about some sort of pressure for this- especially this one because of the set of circs surrounding it?

Aston Villa too if they return- this one seems even more pressing and more "interesting" though- I'd argue regardless of FFP that a serious EFL misconduct hearing is due unless they can produce documentation proving that the accounting period and the transaction were aligned, in real time and in real terms.

Mike McCarthy BBC Sheffield is looking into this/covering it on Twitter.

Indeed there is a possible "smoking gun" so to speak- found on Twitter and Owlstalk.

This if accurate surely means that the transaction demonstrably DID NOT take place in financial year ending in July 31 2018- possible backdating job??

Tweet with time and date.

Of course they could, the EFL is the clubs. The signs are that, Steve Gibson aside, they are not interested in doing anything though.

Perhaps other clubs are not pressing the case either because they have their own dubious practices they want to keep hidden or because they want the option of circumventing FFP themselves in the future.

As you have pointed out, they quietly changed the rules to allow the sale of grounds to count against FFP. Entirely coincidentally of course, this turned out to be convenient for a number of big clubs.

We know that some clubs wanted to further weaken the rules and I expect that to happen in due course.

What is needed is a reputable investigative journalist from the national media - like David Conn at The Guardian - to get their teeth into this kind of stuff. Problem is it involves clubs who are media darlings so nothing is likely to happen.

.

Edited July 12, 2019 by chinapig

**Mr Popodopolous** · July 12, 2019

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Of course they could, the EFL is the clubs. The signs are that, Steve Gibson aside, they are not interested in doing anything though.

Perhaps other clubs are not pressing the case either because they have their own dubious practices they want to keep hidden or because they want the option of circumventing FFP themselves in the future.

As you have pointed out, they quietly changed the rules to allow the sale of grounds to count against FFP. Entirely coincidentally of course, this turned out to be convenient for a number of big clubs.

We know that some clubs wanted to further weaken the rules and I expect that to happen in due course.

What is needed is a reputable investigative journalist from the national media - like David Conn at The Guardian - to get their teeth into this kind of stuff. Problem is it involves clubs who are media darlings so nothing is likely to happen.

.

The counterbalance there is though that there are other big clubs who comply- they too can perhaps cancel out the weight of the ones with sharp practice.

Well big to medium anyway- Leeds, Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest.

Agree, David Conn- this sort of thing would be made for him. Given the EFL usually announce rule changes on their site, this one is pretty scandalous.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

Sign In

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Sturman 1

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest DerbyFan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest DerbyFan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment