The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Davefevs]

5 hours ago, visitingholte said:

Thank you! It definitely is a very good topic & there is a pretty good discussion for ffp & finances in general.

I didn't realize it would include a 25 player squad limit. Not sure I would be in favor of that either. 

I find it interesting that they settled on the £18million limit. Why not £20mil? How many current championship teams would immediately comply with that? Feels like many of them would have to significantly trim the wage bill for that. I know that Stoke aren't likely to get relegated now, but I thought I read that at least one of their players would be on a wage that is bigger than the entire League 1 wage cap. And it also seems like the huge financial gap between the PL & EFL would just begin to grow and grow (which is a bad thing). 

The examples are pretty helpful/insightful, thanks! 

Don't get me wrong, I think finances in football have become unsustainable and definitely agree with some type of cap. I just don't know how implementing that would be beneficial for everyone. There's obviously never going to be a PL wage cap, and the enticement of the PL TV revenue (~ £100mil) will always be there for championship teams and that will cause overspending from Championship clubs in an attempt to reach that prize. 

No probs.  I think £18m and 25 man squad are separate proposals....but are based on a Championship Average salary of £720k, hence the two together would be the ideal proposal for the EFL.

I think teams like Stoke with contracts commitments from previous Prem years would fall into similar rules as newly relegated teams.  You are right, you just can’t impose this when there are existing contractual commitments.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

In my view the analysis stops too early.  As mentioned earlier the real issue will be DCFC and SWFC showing that they lost out as a result of the ‘agreement/promise’.  That means establishing that they abandoned another solution that would have solved their FFP issues.

For SWFC that of course ignores the selling of the stadium to a company that hadn’t been incorporated.

Interesting stuff.

They IIRC claim they were relying on 'legitimate expectation'. Sheffield Wednesday especially, Derby intimated sign-off. 

Would've been very difficult indeed for both clubs to have come up with another solution.

Sheffield Wednesday apparently approached as per The Athletic, Shaun Harvey/the EFL executive in summer 2018 and told him that they intended to solve their issues by selling Hillsborough. That's their version anyway!

The article also suggests that the price of £60m was eventually settled on after a number of weeks of talk (if true how does an objective analysis of fair value by an independent surveyor kick in)??

From December 2019.

Now I've read about this one too. I've had debates on social media arguing this point but some Sheffield Wednesday fans seem to suggest something called 'novation'. 

Not sure what it is myself but apparently a company can exist in principle before a transaction occurs.

The longer it goes on without a verdict, to me it either means a crushing loss for the EFL or a landmark punishment for one or both of these clubs! Feels like there is little in-between. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Before my time but I heard they got kicked down two divisions (reduced to one on appeal).

What did they do to merit that?

[Owl Visiting]

Rubbish end to a rubbish season.

Part of me hopes we get our points deduction now as I don't see us surviving if we start on minus points next season and there's not much point in delaying the inevitable relegation to League One. We've not got much of a squad left (Rhodes is the only striker now at the club) and you'd think whatever happens points wise we'll be under some sort of embargo or a further points deduction will be suspended, meaning we won't be putting much of a squad together that could battle its way to survival.

[Hxj]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting stuff.

They IIRC claim they were relying on 'legitimate expectation'. Sheffield Wednesday especially, Derby intimated sign-off. 

Would've been very difficult indeed for both clubs to have come up with another solution.

Sheffield Wednesday apparently approached as per The Athletic, Shaun Harvey/the EFL executive in summer 2018 and told him that they intended to solve their issues by selling Hillsborough. That's their version anyway!

The article also suggests that the price of £60m was eventually settled on after a number of weeks of talk (if true how does an objective analysis of fair value by an independent surveyor kick in)??

From December 2019.

Now I've read about this one too. I've had debates on social media arguing this point but some Sheffield Wednesday fans seem to suggest something called 'novation'. 

Not sure what it is myself but apparently a company can exist in principle before a transaction occurs.

The longer it goes on without a verdict, to me it either means a crushing loss for the EFL or a landmark punishment for one or both of these clubs! Feels like there is little in-between. 

 

The contract could have been 'novated'.  Company A agrees to sell Asset to Company B.  Companies A, B and C can agree that the contract for the sale of Asset becomes one between A and C.

Trouble is you can't alter the facts.  If Asset has already been sold to B (to comply with FFP) then A can't sell it again.  If Asset is still held by A that is fine, except that FFP is failed because the contract can't be assigned to C before C exists.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Hxj
punctuation edits to clarify meaning,.

[22A]

As this thread is now sixty pages long, I've not read all posts,, so apologies if this has already been posted.

SSN team stated that SW may be deducted up to 21 points which if applied, would relegate them. However if that is the punishment and an appeal is then lodged, it will  possibly  next season when the final  verdict is announced. The Derby  case is still under investigation and that won't be decided until next season.

Are punishments actually listed anywhere? I remember Leeds docked 19 points one season whilst Luton started on minus thirty! Many years ago P'boro' were sentenced to be relegated to Div 4 the following season regardless of where they finished. They were 9th in Div 3. Spurs were deducted 24 points so Alan Sugar appealed and this was reduced to 12 points. He appealed again and all points were restored.

Perhaps the punishment reflect the "size & importance" of the club?

 

[Davefevs]

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 23/07/2020 at 00:42, Owl Visiting said:

Rubbish end to a rubbish season.

Part of me hopes we get our points deduction now as I don't see us surviving if we start on minus points next season and there's not much point in delaying the inevitable relegation to League One. We've not got much of a squad left (Rhodes is the only striker now at the club) and you'd think whatever happens points wise we'll be under some sort of embargo or a further points deduction will be suspended, meaning we won't be putting much of a squad together that could battle its way to survival.

I'm wondering increasingly if you or Derby are in for a points deduction at all- the way the Hearing has dragged, didn't it as per @JPercyTelegraph on Twitter officially begin on Monday 22nd June 2020?

[Owl Visiting]

On 24/07/2020 at 19:40, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm wondering increasingly if you or Derby are in for a points deduction at all- the way the Hearing has dragged, didn't it as per @JPercyTelegraph on Twitter officially begin on Monday 22nd June 2020?

Apparently so, nobody seems to have a clue what's going on. The hearing apparently ended a couple of weeks ago and they've been deliberating ever since, I wonder if they all meet once a week for an hour or something like some sort of badminton club, it's pathetic isn't it. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, Owl Visiting said:

Apparently so, nobody seems to have a clue what's going on. The hearing apparently ended a couple of weeks ago and they've been deliberating ever since, I wonder if they all meet once a week for an hour or something like some sort of badminton club, it's pathetic isn't it. 

It's ridiculous for sure. Could have some merit to the reasons though- read a fair few theories. 

1) Case could've been heard with one or both sides appealing as of now all still behind closed doors. I say case, more like cases!

2) One or both of you and Derby won with rules needing to be rewritten. 

3) Case lost but Chansiri threatening administration if punished. I find  that hard to believe BTW! 

4) Some kind of negotiated punishment to reflect guilt or incorrect conduct (by which I mean incompetent as opposed to corrupt)on both sides.

Shaun Harvey has a lot to answer for but this case. You get more  info out of Fort Knox!

Well I say Shaun Harvey, might Shaun Halfwit be fairer.

[Owl Visiting]

42 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's ridiculous for sure. Could have some merit to the reasons though- read a fair few theories. 

1) Case could've been heard with one or both sides appealing as of now all still behind closed doors. I say case, more like cases!

2) One or both of you and Derby won with rules needing to be rewritten. 

3) Case lost but Chansiri threatening administration if punished. I find  that hard to believe BTW! 

4) Some kind of negotiated punishment to reflect guilt or incorrect conduct (by which I mean incompetent as opposed to corrupt)on both sides.

Shaun Harvey has a lot to answer for but this case. You get more  info out of Fort Knox!

Well I say Shaun Harvey, might Shaun Halfwit be fairer.

I think number 4 is the most likely, unless I'm remembering it wrong I seem to remember QPR negotiating their punishment when they fell foul of the rules a few years ago. 

One thought that has crossed my mind, whilst lots of people have been accusing the the EFL/independent panel of being useless etc is that the delay in any sort of decision might be coming from the other side, as it would be in Wednesday's interest to drag this out as long as possible wouldn't it? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Owl Visiting said:

I think number 4 is the most likely, unless I'm remembering it wrong I seem to remember QPR negotiating their punishment when they fell foul of the rules a few years ago. 

One thought that has crossed my mind, whilst lots of people have been accusing the the EFL/independent panel of being useless etc is that the delay in any sort of decision might be coming from the other side, as it would be in Wednesday's interest to drag this out as long as possible wouldn't it? 

That's possible, the negotiated punishment angle but I don't think it necessarily should be the case.

Wasn't with Birmingham and the legal ruling there seems to offer some kind of precedent/guideline for future cases. Independent panel should be arbiter for better or worse IMO. 

Complex cases can take a while in terms of deliberation. Man City's hearing at CAS was IIRC 8th-10th June and yet verdict only came out on 13th July! 

It would, think Covid may have helped in that respect too, stalling for time. Should add as well, I think the EFL made a mistake pursuing both club and individual charges at the same time.

Think those individual charges took a good 2-3 months. I'm not interested in personal blame in first phase, club charges were more important. If EFL won case then they should've considered personal charges but going with both at once didn't seem like the best move.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnAstonVillafan]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Worth noting that Parry and Harvey have a different approach. To say the least- a lot would have depended on how these EFL cases v Derby and Sheffield Wednesday go. Precedent set and all that!

Maybe that initial (even if flawed) authorisation trumps all regardless. However these were seemingly approved or not objected to by Harvey but Parry with his credentials has a different view- we'll see! 

I don't know what the regs say with respect to such issues tbh, certainly never seen anything with respect to it. It's a fair point that.

I suppose my problem is that in a sense some expenditure did continue, the way the plan seemed to go was to escape the issue (to an extent in any case) via promotion as opposed to making more cutbacks during the season itself. The ground sale and HS2 may well have been looked at in some depth.

It was notable that despite Parachute Payments dropping as they did, as they always do  in Year 3, both wages and despite the use of loans so shockingly did amortisation.

Even if not hitting the exact figures, pushing on with further expansion as parachute payments fall and then settling it with a stadium sale and leaseback is very different in intent to showing some austerity. 

You had rather a lot out of contract going into summer 2019 but at the same time was final season of parachute payments so the two may negate. 

Further discussions on this should be on the FFP thread, agreed.

I just wanted to follow this on from the Premier League last day thread.

I'm not sure what you expected us as a club to do here. We did sell players. We also released Samba, Terry and Agbonlahor. Took a big fee for Jordan Amavi among others. At the same time John McGinn arrived for £2.5m

You said on another thread that you hope my club leverages itself big with fees and wages and comes down next year, but we only spent what we earned in TV income last summer and we currently have the 3rd lowest wage bill in the top flight at £23.8m.

In comparison Brighton's – £36m, Bournemouth's is £40m, and Watford's £45m.

Most of our new players except Heaton, are young and can be sold to balance accounts should the worst happen.

Edited July 27, 2020 by AnAstonVillafan

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I just wanted to follow this on from the Premier League last day thread.

I'm not sure what you expected us as a club to do here. We did sell players. We also released Samba, Terry and Agbonlahor. Took a big fee for Jordan Amavi among others. At the same time John McGinn arrived for £2.5m

You said on another thread that you hope my club leverages itself big with fees and wages and comes down next year, but we only spent what we earned in TV income last summer and we currently have the 3rd lowest wage bill in the top flight at £23.8m.

In comparison Brighton's – £36m, Bournemouth's is £40m, and Watford's £45m.

Most of our new players except Heaton, are young and can be sold to balance accounts should the worst happen.

Those figures for all those clubs sound really low. Brighton £36m wage bill, Bournemouth £40m and Watford £45m?? Happy to look further but where are those from. Norwich higher wage bill, really?

Well the leverage point was a certain degree of anger but worth noting it's been done before.

Well I'm not in atm but if I was I'd do a bit of a deeper dive. 

Parachute Payments as happens in Year 3 down. Was it by between £15-20m?

Loss limit down by £22m. It's £35m in PL of course and £13m at this level- another problem I have with the system but that's another debate. 

Nonetheless you're talking of a crunch of between £35-45m when combining the fall in loss limit with the fall in parachute payments. 

So for a wage bill AND amortisation to increase during that season is stunning really. Gobsmacked somewhat. 

In fairness some will have included the Bruce severance pay and the Smith compensation to Brentford.

I'm also disregarding the promotion bonuses. Despite and net of these the wage bill rose in a context with a squeeze containing falling parachute and loss limits. 

Swiss Ramble succinctly summarises some key points.

From his March review of the accounts, as we can see £10m rise in wages net of promotion bonuses (which are rightly excluded) and £2m rise of amortisation in a season of falling income. Good grief!

[AnAstonVillafan]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Those figures for all those clubs sound really low. Brighton £36m wage bill, Bournemouth £40m and Watford £45m?? Happy to look further but where are those from. Norwich higher wage bill, really?

Well the leverage point was a certain degree of anger but worth noting it's been done before.

Well I'm not in atm but if I was I'd do a bit of a deeper dive. 

Parachute Payments as happens in Year 3 down. Was it by between £15-20m?

Loss limit down by £22m. It's £35m in PL of course and £13m at this level- another problem I have with the system but that's another debate. 

Nonetheless you're talking of a crunch of between £35-45m when combining the fall in loss limit with the fall in parachute payments. 

So for a wage bill AND amortisation to increase during that season is stunning really. Gobsmacked somewhat. 

In fairness some will have included the Bruce severance pay and the Smith compensation to Brentford.

I'm also disregarding the promotion bonuses. Despite and net of these the wage bill rose in a context with a squeeze containing falling parachute and loss limits. 

Swiss Ramble succinctly summarises some key points.

From his March review of the accounts, as we can see £10m rise in wages net of promotion bonuses (which are rightly excluded) and £2m rise of amortisation in a season of falling income. Good grief!

The Swiss Ramble must use an alternative method of working these figures out.

I got my figures from here and they were repeated in the The Mirror

https://www.sportekz.com/football/premier-league-clubs-wage-bills/

 

Consider also that Villa's wage bill fell from £90m to £73m before relegation. And that as I told you before Aston Villa usually try to hide

the exact player wage total by including it in total staff costs. Something I've noticed us doing for about ten years.

 

 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 23/07/2020 at 00:34, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting stuff.

They IIRC claim they were relying on 'legitimate expectation'. Sheffield Wednesday especially, Derby intimated sign-off. 

Would've been very difficult indeed for both clubs to have come up with another solution.

 

Derby would have been looking at a sub £10m overspend for the period ending June 2018 (without the stadium sale). This could have been covered by player sales, such as selling Vydra earlier in the summer window.
This would have likely meant a very touch and go 2019 period, but we wouldn't have signed the players we did if it looked like we'd fail. We also wouldn't have gone out to spend as much as we did on Bielik this season, probably wouldn't have signed Rooney, and could have sold more of our youth players.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Derby would have been looking at a sub £10m overspend for the period ending June 2018 (without the stadium sale). This could have been covered by player sales, such as selling Vydra earlier in the summer window.
This would have likely meant a very touch and go 2019 period, but we wouldn't have signed the players we did if it looked like we'd fail. We also wouldn't have gone out to spend as much as we did on Bielik this season, probably wouldn't have signed Rooney, and could have sold more of our youth players.

Sub £10m for the 3 years to June 2018? I can agree with that- is worth noting top that based on the Birmingham precedent clubs found guilty seemed to get a business plan and reset £13m targets.

Could be owing to the way in which Birmingham's expenditure was increasing at that time but the Judgement did seem to reset losses with individual £13m targets.

You do seem to have a thriving academy, something that can count in your favour with respect to FFP.

An issue would be the profit on disposal. When did it switch to residual value? That if applied correctly and consistently can markedly reduce a profit on disposal.

Straight line seems alright with profit but would have affected the amortisation in prior years.

Also are you using Sevco 5112 or the club? For FFP it should be the latter. 

I am increasingly coming round to the view of zero punishment for both clubs. The reason for the verdict could be diverse:

One of innocent, not guilty, case not proven or blame/error on both sides.

All of which would lead to no deduction, I blame the EFL (aka Harvey) for not acting more expeditiously back in 2018 with all but Birmingham.

[Mr Popodopolous]

To add as well, I meant it should be Sevco 5112 not necessarily the club figures in isolation used. Certainly for a fuller picture even if a fair chunk is excluded.

Onto the here and now, clubs seem to want verdicts by the end of the week.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/efl-urged-resolve-legal-charges-hanging-derby-county-sheffield/

Barnsley cited in the article- tbh the majority who DO seem to want stronger regulations need to band together here, for reform and further reform.

Is behind a paywall but I managed to 'find' a couple of quotes, key sections.

Quote

Paul Conway, Barnsley’s co-chairman, told Telegraph Sport on Monday: “We at Barnsley want a stronger and more strict English Football League. We want to empower the EFL to make quicker and stricter decisions. 

“[But] Much of the blame needs to be put on the clubs themselves.  Some clubs may be scared of retribution for speaking out but I also believe some of these clubs want to reserve their rights to create their own sketchy deals to attempt to skirt EFL regulations and limit enforcement.”

Interesting take- he thinks that some of the quiet clubs are looking for an opportunity to circumvent the regulations themselves.

The general theme, I strongly agree with him as it goes- a simpler systyem of points penalties that are fixed which are less vague but more iron-cast would be a good start.

One idea might simply be £1m overspend=1 point and £2m overspend=2 points. Then follow that formula- with no upper limit. Ideally with projected accounts forming the third part of the equation and doing so correcrlty with continued and stepped up in-season monitoring- the big aim of the punishment IMO should be to stop a side getting promotion through excessive spending- this is a big aim but certainly shouldn't preclude punishment and enforcement in a wider sense.

Quote

One senior Championship official, who did not want to be named, said: “It’s a disgrace, and Barnsley are spot on when they accuse the EFL of not maintaining integrity.

“I can understand the Wigan situation because of the timing and the rules permitting an appeal within a timeframe, but the fact Sheffield Wednesday is unresolved is amazing and brings the EFL into disrepute.”

Wonder which club? 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 28/07/2020 at 13:17, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sub £10m for the 3 years to June 2018? I can agree with that- is worth noting top that based on the Birmingham precedent clubs found guilty seemed to get a business plan and reset £13m targets. Could be owing to the way in which Birmingham's expenditure was increasing at that time but the Judgement did seem to reset losses with individual £13m targets.

Yes, the 3 years to 2018. Normally, a club should be punished the season following that 3 year period, with the business plan part of that. If found guilty, that should have been in the 18/19 season. The earliest our potential penalty can be imposed is almost certainly the 20/21 season. It just so happens that our actual business plan has tied in nicely with what the EFL's business plan probably would have been anyway - the higher wage earners have left, and we've promoted youth. With a couple more expected to leave, we're currently looking at going into next season with only 15 over 20's in the squad, with only 3 or 4 expected to come in. One of those 15 hasn't even played a professional game yet.

I don't think we're far off the £13m annual target anyway.

On 28/07/2020 at 13:17, Mr Popodopolous said:

You do seem to have a thriving academy, something that can count in your favour with respect to FFP.

An issue would be the profit on disposal. When did it switch to residual value? That if applied correctly and consistently can markedly reduce a profit on disposal.

Straight line seems alright with profit but would have affected the amortisation in prior years.

Without checking, I think it was introduced in the 15/16 season. It's been long enough for the 'advantage' gained from reduced amortisation and profit on disposal to have balanced out. A historical correction would result in us gaining an advantage in the immediate present - I think this is going to be a bit of a sticking point with the verdict. I'll be very surprised if we aren't forced to change our amortisation policy in line with others, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't gain any advantage.

On 28/07/2020 at 13:17, Mr Popodopolous said:

Also are you using Sevco 5112 or the club? For FFP it should be the latter. 

Club. For the 3 years to 2018 there isn't much between the two (once you account for our c£6m annual academy spend), although it would result in us being a lot closer to the limit in the following periods.

On 28/07/2020 at 13:17, Mr Popodopolous said:

I am increasingly coming round to the view of zero punishment for both clubs. The reason for the verdict could be diverse:

One of innocent, not guilty, case not proven or blame/error on both sides.

All of which would lead to no deduction, I blame the EFL (aka Harvey) for not acting more expeditiously back in 2018 with all but Birmingham.

It may be my own bias, but I could see SWFC getting punished whereas we do not. Them including the stadium sale in the 17/18 accounts seems wrong. Whereas us having a stadium valued roughly in line with inflation and accounting for stadium improvements looks fine. The amortisation policy being approved every year since 15/16 also looks difficult to penalise. I think the EFL executive(s) part in this will see at most a slap on the wrist for both clubs though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Quote

On 29/07/2020 at 14:18, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Yes, the 3 years to 2018. Normally, a club should be punished the season following that 3 year period, with the business plan part of that. If found guilty, that should have been in the 18/19 season. The earliest our potential penalty can be imposed is almost certainly the 20/21 season. It just so happens that our actual business plan has tied in nicely with what the EFL's business plan probably would have been anyway - the higher wage earners have left, and we've promoted youth. With a couple more expected to leave, we're currently looking at going into next season with only 15 over 20's in the squad, with only 3 or 4 expected to come in. One of those 15 hasn't even played a professional game yet.

I don't think we're far off the £13m annual target anyway.

Test foq quote format.

1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Quote

Yes, the 3 years to 2018. Normally, a club should be punished the season following that 3 year period, with the business plan part of that. If found guilty, that should have been in the 18/19 season. The earliest our potential penalty can be imposed is almost certainly the 20/21 season. It just so happens that our actual business plan has tied in nicely with what the EFL's business plan probably would have been anyway - the higher wage earners have left, and we've promoted youth. With a couple more expected to leave, we're currently looking at going into next season with only 15 over 20's in the squad, with only 3 or 4 expected to come in. One of those 15 hasn't even played a professional game yet.

Quote

I don't think we're far off the £13m annual target anyway.

Without checking, I think it was introduced in the 15/16 season. It's been long enough for the 'advantage' gained from reduced amortisation and profit on disposal to have balanced out. A historical correction would result in us gaining an advantage in the immediate present - I think this is going to be a bit of a sticking point with the verdict. I'll be very surprised if we aren't forced to change our amortisation policy in line with others, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't gain any advantage.

Club. For the 3 years to 2018 there isn't much between the two (once you account for our c£6m annual academy spend), although it would result in us being a lot closer to the limit in the following periods.

Quote

It may be my own bias, but I could see SWFC getting punished whereas we do not. Them including the stadium sale in the 17/18 accounts seems wrong. Whereas us having a stadium valued roughly in line with inflation and accounting for stadium improvements looks fine. The amortisation policy being approved every year since 15/16 also looks difficult to penalise. I think the EFL executive(s) part in this will see at most a slap on the wrist for both clubs though.

 

test

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Without checking, I think it was introduced in the 15/16 season. It's been long enough for the 'advantage' gained from reduced amortisation and profit on disposal to have balanced out. A historical correction would result in us gaining an advantage in the immediate present - I think this is going to be a bit of a sticking point with the verdict. I'll be very surprised if we aren't forced to change our amortisation policy in line with others, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't gain any advantage.

The balance of non-written off transfer fees and related costs at 30 June 2017 was about £50 million, about £15 million of additions and £5 million of disposals.  Total amortisation of the £65 million excluding disposals was £6.5 million.  If you look at the disposals in the total costs removed on disposal were £5.3 million of this £4.7 million was written off in the year. 

Both these figures indicate that there is a long way to go before the figures balance out.

If you assume that the net balance at 31 June 2018 has to be written off over the next four years that amounts to £12.5 million a year, so you will treading FFP failure simply on that depreciation figure, let alone your wages costs running at 130%+ of income.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Yes, the 3 years to 2018. Normally, a club should be punished the season following that 3 year period, with the business plan part of that. If found guilty, that should have been in the 18/19 season. The earliest our potential penalty can be imposed is almost certainly the 20/21 season. It just so happens that our actual business plan has tied in nicely with what the EFL's business plan probably would have been anyway - the higher wage earners have left, and we've promoted youth. With a couple more expected to leave, we're currently looking at going into next season with only 15 over 20's in the squad, with only 3 or 4 expected to come in. One of those 15 hasn't even played a professional game yet.

I don't think we're far off the £13m annual target anyway.

Without checking, I think it was introduced in the 15/16 season. It's been long enough for the 'advantage' gained from reduced amortisation and profit on disposal to have balanced out. A historical correction would result in us gaining an advantage in the immediate present - I think this is going to be a bit of a sticking point with the verdict. I'll be very surprised if we aren't forced to change our amortisation policy in line with others, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't gain any advantage.

Club. For the 3 years to 2018 there isn't much between the two (once you account for our c£6m annual academy spend), although it would result in us being a lot closer to the limit in the following periods.

It may be my own bias, but I could see SWFC getting punished whereas we do not. Them including the stadium sale in the 17/18 accounts seems wrong. Whereas us having a stadium valued roughly in line with inflation and accounting for stadium improvements looks fine. The amortisation policy being approved every year since 15/16 also looks difficult to penalise. I think the EFL executive(s) part in this will see at most a slap on the wrist for both clubs though.

The rules suggest this is arguable, ie the following 3 year period- the 'T' is a Projected Account based rule and therefore punishable in that the same season- I've read them in depth and my reading is that the EFL have not been enforcing this correctly, under Harvey in particular! Parry time will tell.

I'm far from convinced that the £13m loss thing anyway- once the stadium adjustment if it comes in factored in, let's not forget a loan cancellation of around £12m classed as revenue in 2015/16- FFP rules suggest that this, with the exception of the interest incurred, should be excluded! You take out the stadium sale, before we even get onto debate over amortisation and it's a £25m operating loss in 2017/18- a £25m operating loss that was inclusive of the playoffs- though admittedly not the final, a profit on transfers and Rowett compensation! Sevco 5112 accounts look even worse!

Will post some stuff later about the respective regulations. 'T' indicates in-season assessment and if necessary referral to a Disciplinary Commission however!

The fees still have to be amortised though, don't they- whether short or over time, they have to be amortised in full- the question is how much did the stadium sale offset this and how big will the hit for 2018/19 and I guess possibly 2019/20 be- they have to be amortised in full- whether it's straight line or whatever- Impairment would be one way out but no because Impairment of Player Registrations also counts against FFP. Has to be accounted for one way or another!

Depends what % has been amortised doesn't it? If it's changed from one to the other, then that adjusts figures even if it's the 3 years to last season for 2016/17 and 2017/18 as well for the worse- and also if it's the 3 years to 2019/20, it changes them for the better a bit. OTOH is there an argument that disposal of player registrations may have yielded a higher profit?

I don't agree- because the club is quite clearly gaining revenue from Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC, Derby County Academy but offloading at least some of the costs-- have I missed any- think the EFL should be looking at the group figures too- in addition I looked at your club summary of FFP in 2015/16- as in website statement- the Loan cancellation is another interesting angle that could change things materially. Loan cancellations and FFP, my reading of the regulations is that they don't count with respect to revenue or as a method to offset losses- save for an interest waiver. Perhaps a wage and some cost adjustments added back into the club accounts? Revenue for Sevco 5112 oddly is even slightly lower than the club one season! The Sevco shows the academy expenditure for a couple of seasons- and some other allowable costs. Think you need some combination of club and Sevco 5112 to get a full FFP picture personally- then again Sevco 5112 accounts for 2016/17 accounts were 10 months so may require a bit of adjustment again!

There is also the question of how Infrastructure expenditure should be accounted for. Should it simply be "Purchase of Tangible Assets"- that was how your club statement for 2015/16 and 2016/17 accounts seemed to present it- or should it be when it's hit the balance sheet? For FFP it's profit and loss so certainly that feels incorrect too. Said your loss for 2015/16 FFP was around £9m- unsure how that fits tbh, what are the included and excluded items?

I'd also add, Sheffield Wednesday's feels overvalued! Absolutely overvalued- gone through it before on a spreadsheet, their accounts back to 1990 and cannot fathom how the hell it goes for £60m- based on precedent, valuation- their work on it in 1990s and for Euro 96 certainly enhanced it but £60m- not one set of prior accounts suggests anything like! I question a number of valuations but theirs is somehow the most expensive of all- or at best second most- come on!

As for Derby. Doesn't account for Pride Park being seemingly valued at £50m or £49m or whatever the exact number was by the EFL hired independent valuer though does it. Possibly different valuation methods will throw up different outcomes. I note that the difference pretty much between the sale price/valuation by your hired valuer and the EFL's is the revaluation reserve. Factor in a grant as well and it's right in that range. Sure when looking at the two Birmingham clubs the grant seemed to be a factor with respect to the profit on disposal.

I fear both will get nothing though because of the actions of the EFL Executive in 2018- and in the case of amortisation, possibly before! Big suspended penalty for each maybe, in conjunction with a slap on the wrist- as in do it again and the clubs will get a major whack.

EDIT: I also note that there was no Fair Value Adjustment to Pride Park- or any of the assets- on acquisition in 2015/16. Does this suggest that valuations were broadly in line at purchase date?

In the first set of Sevco 5112 accounts for Assets acquired it basically says:

Quote

26   Acquisitions and disposals

         Acquisitions

                                                                                  Vendors' book value £000              Fair value adjustments £000        Fair value to the group £000

       Assets and liabilities acquired

        Tangible Fixed Assets                                             55,601                                                                -                                                              55,601   

This is the relevant section anyway. It suggests to me that the Vendors' book value for the Tangible Fixed Assets on acquisition is equal to Fair Value. That's all Fixed Assets, not just the ground btw.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

Got bored with the home working IT system failing completely today.

So looked at the 2019 accounts for Bournemouth and Watford.  Both are a complete mess and unless they bounce back quickly or make wide ranging disposals both are going to have major FFP problems.

[Lrrr]

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

Got bored with the home working IT system failing completely today.

So looked at the 2019 accounts for Bournemouth and Watford.  Both are a complete mess and unless they bounce back quickly or make wide ranging disposals both are going to have major FFP problems.

I thought Watford made a profit unless that was 2018.

Wasn't aware they were that badly off, Bournemouth yeah- their problems are well documented.

Ake already off for £40m or so- bear in mind too that the higher loss limits in the PL, so that'd be £83m losses allowable for them both and £61m for Norwich in the 3 year period to 2021- subject to equity too I guess.

EDIT: Just had a quick look on Twitter and wow. Amortisation costs alone for Bournemouth in 2018/19, were £36,195,000. £32,424,000 loss in the PL with their gates coming down looks catastrophic for sure.

Not looked in great depth but assuming their owners will put in the equity to top them- Bournemouth and Watford- up to or near their loss limits at the upper level as opposed to the lower one.

I wonder how Aston Villa might have looked had they come straight back down. I note that their fans appear to think it's cancelled this year- at least from quick Twitter searches which may or may not be representative.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Good thread with respect to the relegated clubs.

Wonder what Bournemouth's allowable and therefore excludable costs might be? I'll hazard a guess at £5-7m per season.

Further, from another Swiss Ramble Tweet, it appears that their TV reliance for most recent accounts- so 2018/19- was high indeed.

88%- Kinnell! A number of clubs had it high but Huddersfield and Cardiff didn't run at a significant loss, Watford had a profit but a loss surely likely in 2019/20.

It did though surprise me a bit, to read that Bournemouth don't plan to sell anyone else aside from Ake.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest visitingholte]

Guess this is the right thread for this. Sheff Wednesday will be deducted 12 points from next season.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's good!!

Matt Hughes was right, about punishments next season. Despite the fact he writes for Daily Mail, he's a good journo!

Wonder if other clubs will be happy with this- probably the least they deserve tbh, Sheffield Wednesday.

EFL should appeal it to try and get it into 2019/20 maybe.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

14 minutes ago, visitingholte said:

Guess this is the right thread for this. Sheff Wednesday will be deducted 12 points from next season.

 

That should put the cat among the pigeons!

Wigan, thanks to underhand tactics by their owner and going into administration, were handed a points deduction conditional on if it would relegate them it would be applied this season, otherwise it would be applied next season.

Wednesday, for financial shithousery offences committed in a previous season, are awarded a points deduction that would relegate them this last season, but in their case it is deferred until next season.

Can someone explain how the two clubs have been treated equally fairly?

Edited July 31, 2020 by downendcity

[Davefevs]

Just in case some of you didn’t read it fully (I didn’t)....this is from an independent board.  Both Wednesday and EFL have 14 days to appeal.  Suspect Wednesday will from a “too big a penalty” point of view.  EFL may do from a “wrong season” point of view.  Other club’s, e.g. Charlton, may take legal advice.

[Lrrr]

Has any justification been given for next season regardless of who handed out the punishment 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

17 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Has any justification been given for next season regardless of who handed out the punishment 

Something song the lines of the date of the hearing was set before lockdown. This meant it would have originally been after the 19/20 season ended. The intention was always for the (potential) penalty to be applied in the 20/21 season, and it would be unfair for it to be brought forward because of a delay to the season out of everyone’s control. 

[downendcity]

8 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Something song the lines of the date of the hearing was set before lockdown. This meant it would have originally been after the 19/20 season ended. The intention was always for the (potential) penalty to be applied in the 20/21 season, and it would be unfair for it to be brought forward because of a delay to the season out of everyone’s control. 

Unfair to who?

Wigan went into administration at a time that would originally have been after the end of the 19/20 season, were it not for the delay out of everyone's control. Had the season ended as normal, Wigan would have gone into admin during the close season and I think I'm right in saying their 12 point deduction would have been applied next season.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Hxj

Make you quite right about Bournemouth- saw this Tweet by Kieran Maguire about their 2018/19 accounts.

Total Player Costs- that'd be Wages + Amortisation- 112% of Turnover.

All that while in the PL- in excess of 100% of turnover! 

I'll lazily assume that £112 in player costs per £100 in income is equating to 112% of income- but FFP trouble ahead?

Howe has left today, wonder if these two are linked...?

Sure they'll raise transfer income, sure their wages will overall come down and sure there will be Covid related exclusions- but is it enough?

Edited August 1, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[BetterRedthanBlue]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Hxj

Make you quite right about Bournemouth- saw this Tweet by Kieran Maguire about their 2018/19 accounts.

Total Player Costs- that'd be Wages + Amortisation- 112% of Turnover.

All that while in the PL- in excess of 100% of turnover! 

I'll lazily assume that £112 in player costs per £100 in income is equating to 112% of income- but FFP trouble ahead?

Howe has left today, wonder if these two are linked...?

Sure they'll raise transfer income, sure their wages will overall come down and sure there will be Covid related exclusions- but is it enough?

Bournemouth have quite a few players other teams want. Ake to man City for £40m, Kelly is wanted by Liverpool that'll probably be £15m+, Wilson wants to leave. King and Lerma will get offers. Begovic will probably leave as well, Rico has interested parties. 

They shouldn't have too much of a problem with FFP given the 2019-20 and 20-21 seasons are combined into one block for FFP

[Mr Popodopolous]

36 minutes ago, BetterRedthenBlue said:

Bournemouth have quite a few players other teams want. Ake to man City for £40m, Kelly is wanted by Liverpool that'll probably be £15m+, Wilson wants to leave. King and Lerma will get offers. Begovic will probably leave as well, Rico has interested parties. 

They shouldn't have too much of a problem with FFP given the 2019-20 and 20-21 seasons are combined into one block for FFP

We still don't know if the EFL- unless it's been confirmed elsewhere- about if the EFL will be doing this.

How do you combine something with such differing loss limits as well- in the EFL it's £13m per season and in the PL it's £35m per season (plus allowable costs).  Could you maybe adjust that aspect to £24m but that in turn could unfairly disadvantage them this season- they'll need to come up with something anyway!

Clearly they will and need to sell players- Ake, Kelly, Wilson, King, Lerma, Begovic, Rico- all could leave. I'd add Brooks as well maybe?

Whether they go straight back up however- will be interesting to see.

Oh yeah, the combination point. That's at UEFA level for UEFA competitions- we don't know yet if the EFL will- or indeed if clubs in the EFL will vote for it, and by the EFL I mean largely the Championship- possibly it'll be decided at the EFL end of season AGM in mid-August?

Edited August 1, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One I'm quite interested in right now is Stoke.

They've sold nobody of note post 2018/19, their parachute payments drop heftily this coming season as they always do in Year 3. Meanwhile at the same time as that, the total rolling 3 year loss allowed drops to- exclusive of allowable costs- £39m from £61m.

Sale and leaseback- well the property itself is seemingly owned by Stoke City (Property Limited) and has been for a while.

There doesn't appear to have been any change of company structure just yet but they strike me as possible candidates to try and pull a fast one with the sale and leaseback trick...?

For those who are interested:

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/69f7d814-c806-4ccc-b451-aba50d6e8de2/FRS-102-FRS-applicable-in-the-UK-and-Republic-of-Ireland-(March-2018).pdf

154/404 as you scroll down. At the top of the screen- the page number itself, at the bottom, appears to be 150.

Section 17, PPE.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

Some forward looking figures for Bournemouth.  Assuming £25 million loss for FFP 18/19 (£32 million accounts loss) and 19/20 plus estimated lost income and current rules.

Best estimate is that they will comply easily in 2020/21 then the pain really begins to hit.  More about the overall problems faced than the individual detail.

[Davefevs]

43 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Some forward looking figures for Bournemouth.  Assuming £25 million loss for FFP 18/19 (£32 million accounts loss) and 19/20 plus estimated lost income and current rules.

Best estimate is that they will comply easily in 2020/21 then the pain really begins to hit.  More about the overall problems faced than the individual detail.

Yes, that first year down, isn’t the problem, it’s the ones after that, especially if they have a poor season first up.  They start to lose players, can’t attract players, but still have a big wage bill.  They need to sell the likes of Ake for good money and recruit well for significantly less.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Reading under John Madejski were a fairly well-run club IIRC.

However, they're no longer owned by him. Appears that their FFP issues are catching up with them...

Looks fairly blatant that their signings of Joao and Puscas in August 2019 within a month or so of being released from a soft embargo were a shit or bust roll of the dice IMO! Whatever the reasoning it was ridiculous.

The ONE thing the EFL- and I guess rival clubs- have to be alert to is that they don't offload at high prices to Beijing Renhe- in 2018/19 there was an Aluko loan there, for £3m!! I struggle to justify that one alone, that should draw a line under dealings profitable to them with Beijing Renhe I think at least in terms of FFP inflation.

John Swift was off to Sheffield United but a bid was rejected quite late it seems- on the flipside, Ejaria amongst other loanees appears not to have been renewed yet.

Moore, Swift, Meite, Joao and Puscas- you'd think some if not all of these constitute saleable assets. By which I mean genuine sales, as opposed to sales, inflated loans or worse still sale with loan back to Beijing Renhe.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Couple more thoughts on Reading as well.

I think also a couple more saleable assets could be Rafael- well by definition he joined on a free so profit! Not a bad keeper too.

Add Yiadom and Rinomhota- dunno the fees but both cost nothing and decent enough options.  Point is you could get a fee for both, profit.

Loader was one they messed up on! Think Wolves were interested in summer 2019 but they didn't sell. Perhaps fee wasn't much but he's now leaving on a free!! Unsure he developed as hoped.

The more interesting aspect is Howe. Nigel Howe is on or was voted onto EFL Board. He has stated twice this year- possibly more than twice, but certainly twice at least that players need to be sold for FFP.

I'd say he is entirely correct in this assessment yet when it appeared that John Swift was set to move to Sheffield United for £3.5m a couple of weeks ago the plug was pulled.

Perhaps Reading are holding out for more money or looking to encourage a bidding war, but the interesting thing was a claim that the owner- not even the manager but the OWNER- wants to build the side around Swift.

Certainly don't think him and Howe are on the same page. Their FFP compliance is shaky to say the least though.

That said IF the owner is refusing to sell players then more fool him, they'll doubtless get embargoed and beyond.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

I don’t think that the odd sale for less than £5 million will save them.

The accounting losses totalled £50 million in 2018 and 2019 accounts, probably only missed failure due to the 2017 profit.

Looking at a spectacular failure in 2019/20 season.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Agreed. Bit of a firesale needed?

I'm looking at Reading though and their accounts and wondering exactly why/how they have not yet been more proactive going back to last summer even.

Why the EFL appear not to have acted yet, so far as we can see- why their fans on HobNobAnyone, well a proportion have seemed quite blase about it, hell they don't even mention FFP all that much! None of it makes any sense when as you say their accounting losses in the last two seasons are huge. I suppose the EFL are still assessing things but they look on course for a major failure as you say based on 2019/20!

Osho was another given he was from academy who they might have been able to sell- he's just left on a free! £51m in fact their two year football club losses- despite being inclusive of some £14.6m in profit on disposal of fixed assets and inclusive of a £3m loan fee for Aluko!

Or if we use Renhe as the benchmark, that was 'only' £41m in 2 years but included £29m in fixed asset sale disposal profits and the aforementioned joke of a £3m Aluko loan fee.

Here we go, as I thought- possibly conflict between owner and CEO over this issue- well I don't wish to sensationalise, more like disagreement! Could it simply be strongly opposing views?

He's one of their key saleable assets and they HAVE to start selling without necessarily replacing to anything like the same standard, for FFP.

Is their owner stupid- again more fool him but they'd be looking at a big deduction IMO. Sheffield Wednesday one of the 'big hitters'- a team who people possibly were worried wouldn't be docked points or punished that severely have just been docked 12.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

Currently it looks like the Championship table will open with Sheffield Wednesday and Derby County on -12 with Stoke and Reading getting an in year deduction of say 12 points.

mmm - could be an interesting relegation battle - all but over by Christmas!

And people still whine about the Lansdowns!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Surely Reading and Stoke still might have time to rectify with significant player sale profits. That would of course weaken them on the pitch a fair bit and may plunge them into the mire anyway.

I'm slightly wary of Reading pushing at the loophole with their owners Chinese club and selling for inflated fees to them, loaning for inflated fees to them or worst of all, selling and then loaning back to Reading for significant fees- EFL should be all over that.

Stoke, it's not entirely clear their company structure but then I've not looked into it fully. Stoke City (Property Limited)- both that and the football club are under Stoke City Holdings Limited.

I could see scope for fixed asset sale and leaseback, albeit they may need to make some mergers, changes of control or whatever. Again EFL should be all over it!

As for what you say, Lansdowns very good owners in many ways.

Oh yeah, Sheffield Wednesday IF the £38m profit (a joke of a valuation) is counted in full in 2018/19 accounts, this gives them good headroom into 2020/21? That is still a big unknown though.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Someone I know did some work on it which I stuck on here back in November/December time when they were charged.

Part One

Year	Valuation listed- DRC £	Cost/Valuation as determined by Directors, listed as 1990 and unchanged in the explanation £	Starting Net Book Value £	Additions at cost £	Depreciation £	Adjustment to Revaluation- Surplus/Deficit £	New Net Book Value £	Revaluation Reserve £	Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve £	New or Unadjusted Revaluation Reserve £	Statement at Original Cost £	Adjustment to Statement at Original Cost £	Depreciation Based on Statement at Original Cost £	New Original Statement at Net Cost £	Question Marks
1990	15,150,000 (1990)	8,000,000 (1990)	2,345,000	94,000	N/A	5,561,000	8,000,000	N/A	N/A	N/A	1,918,000 (1990)	N/A	107,000 (1990)	1,811,000 (1990)	Revaluation Reserve
1991	15,150,000 (1990)	8,000,000(1990)	8,000,000	186,000	N/A	N/A	8,186,000	6,189,000	6,189,000	6,189,000	2,104,000 (1991)	86,000 (1991)	107,000 (1990)	1,997,000 (1991)	Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve
1992	15,150,000 (1990)	8,000,000 (1990)	8,186,000	739,000	N/A	N/A	8,925,000	6,189,000	N/A	6,189,000	2,104,000 (1991)	N/A	107,000 (1990)	1,997,000 (1991)
1993	15,150,000 (1990)	8,000,000 (1990)	8,925,000	423,000	N/A	N/A	9,348,000	6,189,000	N/A	6,189,000	2,104,000 (1991)	N/A	107,000 (1990)	1,997,000 (1991)
1994	15,150,000 (1990)	8,000,000 (1990)	9,348,000	526,000	N/A	N/A	9,874,000	6,189,000	N/A	6,189,000	2,104,000 (1991)	N/A	107,000 (1990)	1,997,000 (1991)
1995	15,150,000 (1990)	8,000,000 (1990)	9,874,000	1,721,000	N/A	N/A	11,595,000	6,189,000	N/A	6,189,000	2,104,000 (1991)	N/A	107,000 (1990)	1,997,000 (1991)
1996	15,150,000 (1990)	8,000,000 (1990)	13,719,000	4,919,000	N/A	N/A	18,638,000	6,189,000	N/A	6,189,000	2,104,000 (1991)	N/A	107,000 (1990)	1,997,000 (1991)	Where does the extra £2,124,000 come from? Includes other Fixed Assets maybe

Part Two

Year	Valuation listed- DRC £	Starting Net Book Value £	Additions at cost £	Depreciation £	Transfer to SWFC	Adjustment to Revaluation- Surplus/Deficit £	New Net Book Value £	Revaluation Reserve £	Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve £	New or Unadjusted Revaluation Reserve £	Statement at Original Cost £	Adjustment to Statement at Original Cost £	Depreciation Based on Statement at Original Cost £	New Original Statement at Net Cost £	Question Marks
1997	23,350,000 (1997)	18,638,000	£610,000	N/A	Yes	£4,339,000	23,587,000	4,339,000	N/A	4,339,000	19,248,000	17,244,000	N/A	19,248,000	Differences between SWFC PLC and SWFC in particular with Revaluation Reserve, but also on cost and valuation
1998	23,350,000 (1997)	23,587,000	1,375,000	N/A	N/A	N/A	24,962,000	4,339,000	N/A	4,339,000	19,248,000	N/A	N/A	19,248,000	As above
1999	23,350,000 (1997)	24,962,000	552,000	N/A	N/A	N/A	25,514,000	4,339,000	N/A	4,339,000	19,248,000	N/A	N/A	19,248,000	As above
2000	23,350,000 (1997)	25,514,000	88,000	N/A	N/A	N/A	25,602,000	4,339,000	N/A	4,339,000	19,248,000	N/A	N/A	19,248,000	As above
2001	26,200,000 (2001)	25,602,000	31,000	N/A	N/A	566,000	26,199,000	4,339,000 (2000)	566,000 (2001)	4,905,000 (2001)	19,248,000	N/A	N/A	19,248,000	Still the differences, but less of a gap- the difference maybe a Revaluation Reserve on other assets
2002	26,199,000 (2001)	26,199,000	35,000	516,000	N/A	N/A	25,718,000	4,905,000 (2001)	-98,000	4,807,000	15,795,000	-3,453,000	-423,000	15,372,000	Suddenly costs are aligned on valuation/cost- still a difference in Revaluation Reserve though
2003	26.199,000 (2001)	25,718,000 (2002)	24,000	517,000	N/A	N/A	25,225,000	4,807,000 (2002)	-98,000	4,709,000	15,795,000	N/A	-739,000	15,056,000	The sudden fall in 2001/02
2004	24,800,000 (2004)	25,225,000 (2003)	105,000	496,000	N/A	-1,164,000	23,670,000	4,709,000 (2003)	-1,164,000	3,545,000	15,795,000	N/A	739,000	15,056,000
2005	24,335,000 (2005)	23,671,000 (2004)	44,000	489,000	N/A	ADD BACK DEPRECIATION 1,529,000	24,775,000 (2005)	3,545,000	1,529,000	5,074,000	16,002,000	44,000	ADJUSTED- 1,371,000	14,631,000
2006	24,335,000 (2005)	24,755,000 (2005)	42,000	498,000	N/A	N/A	24,299,000 (2006)	5,074,000	N/A	5,074,000 (2005)	16,002,000	N/A	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 1,687,000	14,315,000
2007	25,100,000 (2007)	24,299,000 (2006)	30,000	498,000	N/A	ADD BACK DEPRECIATION- 1,485,000	25,500,000 (2007)	5,074,000 (2006)	1,482,000	6,566,000	16,032,000	30,000	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,008,000	14,024,000
2008	25,100,000 (2007)	25,500,000 (2007)	75,000	503,000	N/A	N/A	25,072,000	6,566,000	-181,000	6,385,000	16,032,000	N/A	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,329,000	13,703,000
2009	25,100,000 (2007)	25,072,000 (2008)	39,000	504,000	N/A	N/A	24,607,000	6,385,000	N/A	6,385,000	16,032,000	N/A	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,650,000	13,382,000
2010	21,800,000 (2010)	24,607,000 (2009)	224,000	504,000	N/A	ADD BACK DEPRECIATION- 1,511,000, but also -3,638,000	22,200,000 (2010)	6,385,000 (2009)	-2,309,000	4,076,000	16,256,000	N/A	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,792,000	13,284,000
2011	21,800,000 (2010)	22,200,000 (2010)	4,000	504,000	N/A	N/A	21,700,000	4,076,000 (2010)	-179,000	3,897,000	16,260,000	N/A	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,297,000	12,963,000
2012	21,800,000 (2010)	21,700,000 (2011)	N/A	466,000	N/A	N/A	21,234,000	3,897,000	-141,000	3,756,000	16,260,000	N/A	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,622,000	12,638,000
2013	21,800,000 (2010)	21,234,000 (2012)	28,000	466,000	N/A	N/A	20,796,000	3,756,000	-141,000	3,615,000	16,260,000	28,000	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,947,000	12,341,000
2014	22,250,000 (2014)	20,796,000 (2013)	N/A	439,000	N/A	ADD ON 1,518,000 PLUS ADD BACK DEPRECIATION 1,758,000	23,633,000	3,615,000	3,163,000	6,778,000 (2014)	16,288,000	N/A	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 4,272,000	12,016,000
2015	22,250,000 (2014)	23,633,000 (2014)	250,000	445,000	N/A	N/A	23,438,000	6,778,000	-119,000	6,659,000	16,288,000	250,000	ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 4,,598,000	11,940,000

£60m sale price/valuation, this is quite the uptick!

Yes it switched from valuation or revaluation model to cost in 2015/16 and yes there was some work- such as a new pitch and scoreboard carried out in Chansiri's early days but still struggling just a tad to square that with a surge from £22.25m, perhaps £24m in 2014 inclusive of land, to £60m sale price! Had it sold for say £30-35m- possibly even then a bit generous given Elland Road was £20m in 2017- then I wouldn't really be wondering.

Just to clarify as well, Part One is Sheffield Wednesday PLC, 1990-97. Then it transferred ownership- transferred not sold, not sold at leased back but transferred no loss and no gain.

Part Two is it under Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited, 1997-2015.

I'd love to know the mechanics of how valuations surge in that way!

Edited August 3, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

With respect to Derby, I read something interesting on their forum. Was posted in January 2020 around the time of the charge but brought up again- seems interesting!

Now we know the Fair Value regs but it is quite interesting to see it verified like this- if of course it has any veracity!

The poster claims to have a passable track record though so...

Quote

Colleague who has more knowledge than I do and has a direct interest re getting paid for some legal work he has done for DCFC understands that the point of dispute on the stadium is to do with whether or not it was an 'arms length transaction'.

If it was an arms length transaction then it does not matter what was paid for the stadium. If it was to interested parties (ie. Uncle Mel) then it has to be at a 'fair value'. The beef is apparently confusion over what was asked approval for and what actually happened.

I am not giving an opinion as to who is right or wrong so dont shoot the messenger just passing on a bit of info from the same person who told me that investment was delayed pending an EFL statement which turned out to be correct.

Might Derby have therefore intimated to the EFL at the time that it was in fact truly arms length, thereby negating the need for an independent check then gone ahead and sold it on their valuation then?? 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

THIS could be interesting.

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/up-nine-championship-clubs-lend-18713049

Seems up to NINE Championship clubs are backing Charlton on the points deduction being in the wrong season for Sheffield Wednesday.

@Davefevs @chinapig @downendcity @Hxj

I would also ask significantly why this was NOT the case or seemed not to have been the case when Gibson wanted an investigation there and then into Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday's finances in 2019.

This is what we have needed since at least January 2019 though when it became clear that Aston Villa were likely to blaze past FFP. We need the clubs to act as one here!

Derby and Sheffield Wednesday breaches appear to have been up to 2018- as for 3 years to last season, we have no idea as neither have deigned to release the accounts yet. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

THIS could be interesting.

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/up-nine-championship-clubs-lend-18713049

Seems up to NINE Championship clubs are backing Charlton on the points deduction being in the wrong season for Sheffield Wednesday.

@Davefevs @chinapig @downendcity @Hxj

I would also ask significantly why this was NOT the case or seemed not to have been the case when Gibson wanted an investigation there and then into Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday's finances in 2019.

This is what we have needed since at least January 2019 though when it became clear that Aston Villa were likely to blaze past FFP. We need the clubs to act as one here!

Because Ashton wanted a role at the EFL so didn't want to upset big clubs perhaps?

As a club that plays by the rules we have been disappointingly unwilling to put our head above the parapet.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Because Ashton wanted a role at the EFL so didn't want to upset big clubs perhaps?

As a club that plays by the rules we have been disappointingly unwilling to put our head above the parapet.

Not just talking about us but point taken.

Agreed- though it is reported that the club are disappointed with those pulling these kinds of stunts- I wonder what the difference it is a year on though, at least 8 clubs supporting Charlton yet when there was something quite significant, it got voted down entirely!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Might also add augurs well- as and when Aston Villa return I'd have thought all clubs would be united as one there, pretty much in terms of demands for an investigation/punishment?

Sometimes Aston Villa fans ask me on Twitter why I am so critical. Well it appears the Matt Lawton story about the big 3 Championship clubs who may have been in breach was broadly correct.

It stated Aston Villa losses for the season may have been as high as £60m.

Now consider:

Think was £68-69m- BUT minus £30m for Lerner promotion bonus-£15-16m for promotion costs inclusive of the bonuses- that's a nice easy £23m.

I already have factored in the HS2 would've been in there but costs of promotion would not have been and neither would Xia bonus- bith were contingent on promotion.

Profit on Villa Park- that article pretty much nailed on! £60m or close to- that's a full 12 point overspend over the 3 years and 3 for a deliberate breach as per Birmingham- may get one back due to terrible opwner and one back for not disregarding soft embargo but Matt Lawton- always said he's good.

This surely means that the stadium sale and leaseback must have been arranged/inserted AFTER the projected accounts. Given it was paid for in the form of Loans Receivable, wonder what the hell happened with the EFL analysis! Even a 5-6 points in the season in March/April would have knocked them out of playoff contention.

[AnAstonVillafan]

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Might also add augurs well- as and when Aston Villa return I'd have thought all clubs would be united as one there, pretty much in terms of demands for an investigation/punishment?

Sometimes Aston Villa fans ask me on Twitter why I am so critical. Well it appears the Matt Lawton story about the big 3 Championship clubs who may have been in breach was broadly correct.

It stated Aston Villa losses for the season may have been as high as £60m.

Now consider:

Think was £68-69m- BUT minus £30m for Lerner promotion bonus-£15-16m for promotion costs inclusive of the bonuses- that's a nice easy £23m.

I already have factored in the HS2 would've been in there but costs of promotion would not have been and neither would Xia bonus- bith were contingent on promotion.

Profit on Villa Park- that article pretty much nailed on! £60m or close to- that's a full 12 point overspend over the 3 years and 3 for a deliberate breach as per Birmingham- may get one back due to terrible opwner and one back for not disregarding soft embargo but Matt Lawton- always said he's good.

This surely means that the stadium sale and leaseback must have been arranged/inserted AFTER the projected accounts. Given it was paid for in the form of Loans Receivable, wonder what the hell happened with the EFL analysis! Even a 5-6 points in the season in March/April would have knocked them out of playoff contention.

I get the feeling you would have enjoyed that.

You really do have to let this go.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I get the feeling you would have enjoyed that.

You really do have to let this go.

Haha true and true!

The numbers do stack up however and it begs the question as to what the he'll the EFL were playing at with respect to a number of clubs in March 2019. 

I say stack up, possibly £1m either way divergence. I suppose the one remaining interesting q might be what statute of limitation.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I note that Sheffield Wednesday have not yet published their accounts for 2018/19 owing to the EFL situation/dispute.

Thought this might be the case- interestingly they're not under any kind of embargo and it states that should an appeal be unsuccessful, it- the sale- will be stuck in the 2018/19 accounts.

Now this is problematic for a number of reasons!

1. While I see the logic, it is true that they have benefited from it by cushioning the need to cut costs more drastically to an extent through the profit being on the books, this has to be mitigated in some way. One year targets that feed into ones for 2020-21 and possibly 2021-22 would do this, as in the stadium sale would help for 2018-19 but couldn't be of use beyond that.
2. Feeding into point 1- is it the full £38m? This profit lifted them from at least one embargo I think though it's hard to keep track.
3. Will this valuation/profit be challenged? Certainly should be- given how the EFL's valuation diverges so significantly in the case of Pride Park.
4. What will the rent be? Chansiri can charge what he likes but the EFL have to substitute in a fair market rent.
5. Why no Embargo- even a soft one- what sort of message does this send with respect to Governance!

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/exclusive-sheffield-wednesday-are-late-filing-their-accounts-again-why-2933813

Edited August 5, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest visitingholte]

On 02/08/2020 at 12:20, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reading under John Madejski were a fairly well-run club IIRC.

However, they're no longer owned by him. Appears that their FFP issues are catching up with them...

Looks fairly blatant that their signings of Joao and Puscas in August 2019 within a month or so of being released from a soft embargo were a shit or bust roll of the dice IMO! Whatever the reasoning it was ridiculous.

The ONE thing the EFL- and I guess rival clubs- have to be alert to is that they don't offload at high prices to Beijing Renhe- in 2018/19 there was an Aluko loan there, for £3m!! I struggle to justify that one alone, that should draw a line under dealings profitable to them with Beijing Renhe I think at least in terms of FFP inflation.

John Swift was off to Sheffield United but a bid was rejected quite late it seems- on the flipside, Ejaria amongst other loanees appears not to have been renewed yet.

Moore, Swift, Meite, Joao and Puscas- you'd think some if not all of these constitute saleable assets. By which I mean genuine sales, as opposed to sales, inflated loans or worse still sale with loan back to Beijing Renhe.

 Just curious, but how would the EFL be able to regulate the sale of players to clubs abroad (even if they have the same owners)? I wouldn't think that any league would have the authority to scrutinize the amount for a player sale to another club without kicking up a storm with other clubs and their player valuations? Obviously the Aluko loan is highly questionable especially at that loan fee. I just don't know what could be thrown at them?? Am I missing something with that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, visitingholte said:

 Just curious, but how would the EFL be able to regulate the sale of players to clubs abroad (even if they have the same owners)? I wouldn't think that any league would have the authority to scrutinize the amount for a player sale to another club without kicking up a storm with other clubs and their player valuations? Obviously the Aluko loan is highly questionable especially at that loan fee. I just don't know what could be thrown at them?? Am I missing something with that?

Disallow it for FFP purposes- just one idea- but you're right it's very difficult- the Aluko loan is a nonsense but okay- say for example Reading were to sell several of their players to Beijing Renhe for £30m fees in total and then loan them back- could they refuse to register them at the earliest opportunity? They couldn't let it pass IMO, you're right though it's not altogether easy to see what could be done- sure I've read something about UEFA and similar transactions- Nottingham Forest seem like they might do something similar from time to time but it's fair to say the fees and wages are not even in the Aluko £3m loan ballpark, let alone 

Embargoes pending investigation another idea maybe- you can bank the money but you ain't playing them when loaned back- if they 'sold' for arguments sake Joao, Puscas, Moore- Rafael maybe- these are decent players with for one reason or another some kind of resale value IMO- and banked £20-30m and loaned them back to play that season that would blatantly be taking the piss for want of a better term. They were under a soft embargo in summer 2019 or until late in that Reporting Period anyway, EFL need to be watching them like a hawk- most clubs including Reading- all but Derby in fact or so I've read use the straight line amortisation method though that of course is Book rather than Market value. 

The only real loopholes though, the gaping ones in the EFL system at this time seem to be:

• The Fixed Asset Sale and Leaseback debate.
• This theoretical one with Reading.

For sure, their FFP hole looks potentially not insignificant so they could sell the players but that would merely cover some of the problems, not enable significant reinvestment- an embargo pending further action may keep feet to the fire.

Here's a revealing line, from late April- maybe it was around the time of their accounts being released- the one on player wages- owner made the personal decision it would seem!

I should also add, I criticise Reading but I'm quite sure Nigel Howe DOES accept that players need to be sold- he's publicly stated it twice, maybe three times in 2020. It's the owner that is the issue, so it seems looking between the lines.

If they want to go down the Birmingham or Sheffield Wednesday route they know what to do.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The other part of the issue in general is the EFL and inconsistent, often slow enforcement of their own regulations- happy to go through one or two now.

Quote

1.1.12 T means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period ending in the year in which assessment pursuant to Rules 2.2 to 2.9 takes place, and:

(a) T-1 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T;

(b) T-2 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T-1;

(c) T+1 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T; and

(d) T+2 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T+1.

I question how much real time in-season planning for T onwards- ie the existing season when Projected Accounts submitted occurs- let alone T+1 and T+2 with respect to the forward projections. I could be wrong but the evidence to date suggests that it has been somewhat patchy in terms of EFL oversight- 'T' is a significant difference to the old rules- T+1 and T+2 are certainly new ground as well.

Bit more on these below.

Quote

2 Profitability and Sustainability

2.1 Rules 2.2 to 2.9 shall apply with effect from Season 2016/17.

2.2 Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Executive:

2.2.1 copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Executive) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditor’s report(s) on those accounts;

2.2.2 its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:

(a) be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and

(b) be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and

As we can see, the submission of 'T', combined with the real accounts for the last two can form a nice basis for ongoing assessment IMO- it gives you good basis to work from if you are the EFL Executive- any significant and unexpected submissions can be analysed there and then I'd suggest.

Quote

2.8 If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss that exceeds the Lower Loss Threshold, then the following shall apply:

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

That Lower Loss Threshold of course is £15m and anything over that- I don't suppose it means an insubstantial amount but you know talking sensibly excess means basically £15m+, higher than £15m in FFP losses but below £39m in FFP losses means that you need to as a Club submit by end of March the future FFP projections for not only the next season but the one after! You can keep a tight leash on clubs IF you so desire and you know what you're doing...you have the info with last two seasons and current one Projected- and any significant divergence looking forward or unlikely one in terms of the likely info will raise eyebrows I'm sure- or should if you're the regulator!

This last bit too.

Quote

2.9 If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss that exceeds the Upper Loss Threshold (calculated in accordance with Rule 3) then:

2.9.1 the Executive may exercise its powers set out in Regulation 16.20;

2.9.2 the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly The League shall refer the breach to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with section 8 of the Regulations.

Now I take that to be if over limits in that existing season, you get referred in that existing season to the Disciplinary Commission. If done correctly! If you have a points tariff which is now in play and precedent has shown it, it should become more straight forward and harmonised over time.

There's more though- those upper and lower limits btw are £5m at lower end and £39m at upper for 3 years in Championship. For a year in PL it's £35m upper, £5m lower. I think most clubs will tend to come in over the 3 year loss limit in existing seasons for lower levels, ie between £15-39m in terms of an FFP loss.

Quote

4 Duty of Disclosure

4.1 The Executive may require a Club to provide such further information as the Executive deems necessary (acting reasonably) for the purposes of enabling the Executive to assess whether a Club has met (as applicable) the Profitability and Sustainability Rules or not.  By way of example, and without limitation, additional information may be requested where:

4.1.1 any submission is incomplete;

4.1.2 there are insufficient assumptions; or

4.1.3 additional evidence is required to support certain assumptions.

4.2 Any such request shall be made in writing (including by email to the Finance Director or equivalent) and shall be responded to in full within 5 Normal Working Days of any such request being made.

Now this one is interesting because though I remember it was a bit of a transitional phase between old and new rules and for some reason the EFL at the time did not have a points tariff in place- Late Again Harvey- but Birmingham were in breach or over limits in March 2018, almost certainly- but they said 'Oh we'll just fall into line- not by much but that is enough- through summer 2018 transfer profits'. EFL appeared to have taken it at face value, perhaps Birmingham did in fact believe these would transpire, read it was sell on money for Butland and Gray- would have kept them in line but they would have failed moving forward ie to summer 2019.

Anyway this sell on did not happen as intended/hoped and we all know how it played out but it sounds like the EFL Executive should have more strongly exercised 4.1.2 and certainly 4.1.3! I I dunno if taking it at face value cuts it for me given it is a material item and the club are relying on something that may or may not happen that is totally out of their hands, to pass FFP in the 3 years to 2018!

Where is the evidence, where is the paper trail to show that this is pretty much failproof, that it will 100% cast iron be rectified come the summer ie June 30th- is this not just wishful thinking by the club are the sort of debating points here!

There I go- only two points I said! 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[havanatopia]

Selling players and leasing them back from a same owner club will be the foundation stone of a mockery statue to the FL. Rules should have been in place to enforce punishment long ago. I seem to recall Watford being told you cannot loan more than 7 or so players from a same owner 'sister' club. At that time FFP was not so much in the news or 'in service'. Watford soon adapted. 

Unless automatic relegation of at least one division is the punishment and a clear and precise set of rules are in place to follow the FFP arrangement is not fit for purpose.

We are seeing law suits starting to flow now and I think while Parry was brought in to clean this up so far the evidence suggests he is found wanting.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

We are seeing law suits starting to flow now and I think while Parry was brought in to clean this up so far the evidence suggests he is found wanting.

How?

[Hxj]

I would change the rules on accounting periods and projections.  The real problem is the lack of up to date information.

Firstly I would force all clubs to have a 31 May Accounting Date.

Secondly you submit your company accounts for 31 May audited and signed off to Companies House and the EFL by 31 July after the end of the season or you don't get to play the next season.  Anyone who says it can't be done has never tried or needs to improve the internal accounting or get a new Auditor.

The EFL can then review in August, apply any penalties necessary and do any investigations before Christmas.

Thirdly any transfer profits or losses you make (in or out) after the end of May but before the close of the summer window can be carried back but as a penalty are spread equally over the three year period, so the effect is reduced.

Fourthly if you are promoted or relegated you are still judged on the above standards and any failings result in the appropriate penalty being applied regardless of where you are currently playing.

 

Job done.

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Selling players and leasing them back from a same owner club will be the foundation stone of a mockery statue to the FL. Rules should have been in place to enforce punishment long ago. I seem to recall Watford being told you cannot loan more than 7 or so players from a same owner 'sister' club. At that time FFP was not so much in the news or 'in service'. Watford soon adapted. 

Unless automatic relegation of at least one division is the punishment and a clear and precise set of rules are in place to follow the FFP arrangement is not fit for purpose.

We are seeing law suits starting to flow now and I think while Parry was brought in to clean this up so far the evidence suggests he is found wanting.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

Parry inherited a set of circumstances ( Derby, Wednesday, Reading)  caused by the previous regime’s ineptitude in allowing loopholes in the rules when they were drafted. 

To give him his due, at least he has pursued clubs on grounds under which action could be taken, whereas I have little doubt that had Harvey still be in charge he would have simply rolled over and let it go.

I do agree that what these cases have done is expose the gaping holes in ffp rules and the need for a revision, not only to close the loopholes already identified, but to anticipate the areas that clubs will next choose to attack. Perhaps if the punishment(s) are sever enough ( automatic relegation?) then that might be sufficient to cause clubs to comply for absolute fear of the consequences. In that respect, Parry’s stance in taking the action he has thus far will make club’s realise the EFL is no the soft touch they were previously.

 

[havanatopia]

5 hours ago, Hxj said:

How?

12 PTS for Wed for next season?

[havanatopia]

4 hours ago, downendcity said:

Parry inherited a set of circumstances ( Derby, Wednesday, Reading)  caused by the previous regime’s ineptitude in allowing loopholes in the rules when they were drafted. 

To give him his due, at least he has pursued clubs on grounds under which action could be taken, whereas I have little doubt that had Harvey still be in charge he would have simply rolled over and let it go.

I do agree that what these cases have done is expose the gaping holes in ffp rules and the need for a revision, not only to close the loopholes already identified, but to anticipate the areas that clubs will next choose to attack. Perhaps if the punishment(s) are sever enough ( automatic relegation?) then that might be sufficient to cause clubs to comply for absolute fear of the consequences. In that respect, Parry’s stance in taking the action he has thus far will make club’s realise the EFL is no the soft touch they were previously.

 

Except for the fact you seem to be suggesting he has inherited rules so his 12 pt deduction is the same Harvey would have and indeed did dish out.

[Hxj]

4 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

12 PTS for Wed for next season?

The case was taken to the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION by the EFL with Parry in charge.  The decision of the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION was as you state.  That could be appealed by both the EFL and the club.

How is that Parry found wanting?

[havanatopia]

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The case was taken to the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION by the EFL with Parry in charge.  The decision of the INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION was as you state.  That could be appealed by both the EFL and the club.

How is that Parry found wanting?

Are you implying his hands were tied? If so then perhaps that's another matter. As I understand it 12 PTS have been dished out for the same season before Parry arrived and yet he chaired that meeting and was happy with a deduction next season? 

From where I stand he looks weak.

Feel free to clarify though.

Edited August 6, 2020 by havanatopia

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Hxj said:

I would change the rules on accounting periods and projections.  The real problem is the lack of up to date information.

Firstly I would force all clubs to have a 31 May Accounting Date.

Secondly you submit your company accounts for 31 May audited and signed off to Companies House and the EFL by 31 July after the end of the season or you don't get to play the next season.  Anyone who says it can't be done has never tried or needs to improve the internal accounting or get a new Auditor.

The EFL can then review in August, apply any penalties necessary and do any investigations before Christmas.

Thirdly any transfer profits or losses you make (in or out) after the end of May but before the close of the summer window can be carried back but as a penalty are spread equally over the three year period, so the effect is reduced.

Fourthly if you are promoted or relegated you are still judged on the above standards and any failings result in the appropriate penalty being applied regardless of where you are currently playing.

 

Job done.

I agree in principle with a good chunk though and yeah I agree on the Licensing thing- the carry back is an interesting idea for sure.

The only issue is that promoted sides, will the PL enforce penalties? This is genuinely a grey area.

Are Projected Accounts not a basis for charge then?

[havanatopia]

5 hours ago, downendcity said:

Parry inherited a set of circumstances ( Derby, Wednesday, Reading)  caused by the previous regime’s ineptitude in allowing loopholes in the rules when they were drafted. 

To give him his due, at least he has pursued clubs on grounds under which action could be taken, whereas I have little doubt that had Harvey still be in charge he would have simply rolled over and let it go.

I do agree that what these cases have done is expose the gaping holes in ffp rules and the need for a revision, not only to close the loopholes already identified, but to anticipate the areas that clubs will next choose to attack. Perhaps if the punishment(s) are sever enough ( automatic relegation?) then that might be sufficient to cause clubs to comply for absolute fear of the consequences. In that respect, Parry’s stance in taking the action he has thus far will make club’s realise the EFL is no the soft touch they were previously.

 

Parry is taking too long to get his legs under the desk then.

[Mr Popodopolous]

47 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Are you implying his hands were tied? If so then perhaps that's another matter. As I understand it 12 PTS have been dished out for the same season before Parry arrived and yet he chaired that meeting and was happy with a deduction next season? 

From where I stand he looks weak.

Feel free to clarify though.

It's tricky. I think he's better than Harvey for a start! Mind you Harvey had been at two clubs who were in administration or similar financial distress on his watch so how he ever got the top job at the EFL is beyond me! Perhaps he was unlucky and then very lucky.

There were complex legal arguments- Sheffield Wednesday (and Derby which is still ongoing) both claimed they had permission, possibly from Harvey himself- with respect to their transactions. I actually credit the EFL with winning the case in those circs! Some legal opinion even suggested Sheffield Wednesday would get away scot-free!

Where I would query is why did they pursue individual charges concurrently with club ones? These are harder to prove, and possibly dragged things out somewhat- to me the club is the priority here- by all means if you win that case, go after or consider going after Chansiri, Meire and Redgate- unless of course legal advice suggested that they needed to make a play of that from early on too, but from what I could see, those particular charges were stuck in deadlock, possibly arbitration for months- I'd argue it took valuable time and potentially resources out of the 12 point deduction for breaching FFP aspect, possibly enabled Sheffield Wednesday to have the 12 points in 2020-21 as opposed to this season.

Parry or the head of the EFL AFAIK doesn't chair the Independent Panel- it's one appointee by the EFL, one by the club and the third, who knows- dunno! Independent legal adviser/QC possibly? I'd have to look in depth but fixed penalties would be a good way forward to expedite certain things in the future. I have the feeling that some of the EFL administration of FFP and implementation is being/has been carried out on the hoof.

I also agree with your post about sale and leaseback to related clubs would be a foundation stone of a mockery statue to the EFL.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[havanatopia]

Thanks for clarifying the remark from HxJ about Parry not being on the panel Pop. 

I am rather taken aback there is no fixed penalty for given misdemeanours. It's a recipe for law suit one after the other. Mind boggling in its stupidity.

Parry has his work cut out. I see Championship clubs have rallied around Charlton making Wednesday the pariah... Not their fault they got away lightly though. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Maybe the fixed penalty point will become easier over time tbh Hav, as precedents are set and easier established, at least with respect to the points per overspend- combined with mitigating and aggravating factors of course would need hearings but a starting point "You overspent in this range therefore it's this number of points"- shouldn't be beyond the EFL to come up with a way to make this stick.

Some interesting snippets on Reading as well!

Seems they are having trouble with respect to signing Ejaria. Good- their expenditure in recent times has been a nonsense. They are trying to negotiate the fee down but this seems interesting...

Quote

Talks are still going on and I understand the League are involved too as they’re keeping an eye on the financial situation at the club.

Hopefully we’ll get some positive news soon.

This actually seems like they are doing their job correctly by now or at least moreso than before- if the League are involved then that is a big step- also reduces the chance quite significantly I'd suggest of some nonsense deals with Beijing Renhe.

On another interesting note, one of their saleable assets, seems that they have turned down a second bid from Sheffield United. John Swift- £4m.

Quote

It sounds like Mr Dai does not want to sell. So I guess unless a silly fee comes in then Reading will fight tooth and nail to keep him.

Remember the transfer window doesn’t close for another two months so this one could run on for quite a while yet at the rate it’s going!

Adds credence to what I say and what I posted I think about a possible disconnect in this area between owner and CEO.

Fine for the transfer window to have two months left but I make them over limits for the 3 years to season just gone.

If they were making £15-20m worth of net cutbacks this season or net combination of profit on disposal of players in genuine transactions and cutbacks I might say fair enough but...

Quote

I would imagine it’s getting on to between £75-100k a week overall.

That’s my best guess!

So we're saying around £3.9-5.2m per financial year/season so far. Not enough, not by a long chalk!

Their losses were increasing, with little regard for the regulations and the like- interesting to know how much though people left, Rafael, Morrison, Adam, Pele, Joao, Puscas and Boye would have added in wages!

These 7 players were of varying age and ability but from a mix of Championship, Serie A and one from Ligue 1- Pele Monaco IIRC- not cheap?

Little bit more on Swift.

Reading have (or more likely their Owner has) ****** things big time though, zero sympathy.

They lost this summer Loader on a free- they turned down a bid from Wolves for him a year ago.

Osho appears to have been an academy product- they could have got money for him but he's gone on a free. Having said that of the two, profit on Loader would've been more likely, as he was more known.

They received a bid from Brighton in summer 2018 for Liam Moore- £10m- they turned it down and promptly gave him a new large contract.

That's before we even get onto the folly of adding Puscas and Joao last summer- not saying they aren't good players- within a month-6 weeks of being released from soft embargo!

Edited August 6, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous