The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[davidoldfart]

Drive a coach and horses through the rule book ,spend like its gone out of fashion then get a let off by the EFL ..

It is because big billy bollocks (Wayne Rooney’s Derby ) is a bigger club than Wednesday so we have to be lenient .

Wonder if S/Weds will start legal action against the EFL and seek to have their points rescinded.

 

[Hxj]

40 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Seems on Twitter, derby have escaped any fine/points deduction etc for any wrongdoing. Shambles if true. Just sets a precedent for all others to get away with bad financial management

Yep - it's official

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/august/efl-statement---derby-county/

 

[Furious Custard]

I'm pretty sure that whatever Derby did they at least stated it in the right year of their finances, unlike Wednesday which is what they were penalised for. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Cleared of both charges, save for not notifying the EFL in 2015 of the change to amortisation policy. 

Written reasons will be interesting, the EFL have to appeal this IMO. 

Also, the placeman of that ***** Mel Morris needs voting off the EFL board PRONTO.

Residual value of zero assigned to Intangible Assets? Seems bizarre!

I'm not bitter but I hope they default on the loan to Dell and Pride Park becomes Europe's biggest Computing Trade Fair.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[The Journalist]

11 minutes ago, davidoldfart said:

Drive a coach and horses through the rule book ,spend like its gone out of fashion then get a let off by the EFL ..

It is because big billy bollocks (Wayne Rooney’s Derby ) is a bigger club than Wednesday so we have to be lenient .

Wonder if S/Weds will start legal action against the EFL and seek to have their points rescinded.

 

Just to be clear, it's not the EFL who've let them off. I suspect the EFL will appeal the decision.

[davidoldfart]

Fair enough - i see it was an “independent tribunal “ let us hope that the EFL takes this on otherwise it sets a precedent . 

[downendcity]

Unfortunately, selling Pride Park in itself did not break the ffp rules, thanks to the EFL’s own cock up when drafting the new rules.

I think Mr P raised a question mark over the way they accounted for player amortisation, but other than that I think the only thing they could have been penalised for was if Pride Park was sold for anything other than “fair value”.

After Wigan and Wednesday, I suspect the last thing the EFL wanted was potentially damaging and disruptive legal action coming their way, which would surely have been the case had Derby been penalised. On the question of fair value, I guess that both sides would have produced equally convincing evidence proving that their valuation was correct, so an argument the EFL would struggle to win, no matter that many of us feel/felt that Derby pulled a fast one.

[Monkeh]

38 minutes ago, Dog said:

They got off because they're a big club.

Wednesday are just as big

[Lrrr]

The thing is they probably aren't breaking any rules, Mel Morris and his lawyers for the club are just very good at finding any loophole to work and it looks guilty to fans given the lengths they stretch the ethical boundaries of the rules.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Couple more lines on it. 

John Percy said Derby WERE under a soft embargo. 

Also this snippet of his article on Derby forum. 

Says that the prospect of legal action 'cannot be ruled out'. 

Moment that happens, EFL need to bring golden share issue onto the table.

[chipdawg]

1 hour ago, davidoldfart said:

Drive a coach and horses through the rule book ,spend like its gone out of fashion then get a let off by the EFL ..

It is because big billy bollocks (Wayne Rooney’s Derby ) is a bigger club than Wednesday so we have to be lenient .

Wonder if S/Weds will start legal action against the EFL and seek to have their points rescinded.

 

Actually, it's very much in line with the Sheff Wed judgement. They got found guilty for how they reported the sale of the ground, not the act of selling it. Derby (iirc) were in trouble for inflating the value of their ground, which Wednesday were specifically found not guilty of. And as others have said, I would think that the EFL will appeal

The whole thing is an absolute farce, just ban clubs selling their grounds to their owners in this manner.

[Harry]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

[Shaun Taylor]

32 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Wednesday are just as big

Wednesday have a much bigger fanbase and bigger than United if they get things right on the pitch 

[Simon79]

43 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Wednesday are just as big

Bigger I would say. COYR 

[CiderCraig]

27 minutes ago, Harry said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

Clearly... 

[WarksRobin]

There will be 23 clubs watching this eagerly to see whether they can change their accounting approach to reduce their losses. The horse’s head has emerged from the open stable door; can EFL close the door in time?

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, CiderCraig said:

Clearly... 

sorry, can you expand on your reply. 
Im not sure what context this is being presented in? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

55 minutes ago, Harry said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

Loan charge/security- whatever exact category, Charge I think- was over all the Derby companies.

Think it was secured over the leasehold but it is worth noting that the charge appears on each of the following companies:

1. Gellaw Newco 203- The overall group company- the top company in the group.
2. The Derby County Football Club Limited- The club
3. Sevco 5112- The controlling party of the 3 below, but no longer the club- see the first one.
4. The Derby County FC Academy Limited- The academy
5. Club DCFC Limited- Listed as Event Catering Activities.
6. Stadia DCFC Limited- Think this is the commercial side but not wholly sure on this one. Happy enough to look into that a bit more.
7. Gellaw Newco 202 Limited- The company who purchased Pride Park.
8. Gellaw Newco 204 Limited- The controlling company of the company who purchased Pride Park.

Of course, it's all ultimately controlled by Mel Morris.

Over the last two, Rams Investment Limited charge is still listed at Companies House- in addition to this one. Henry Gabay's loan in other words. Maybe this second loan will pay off this one.

Loan to Morris himself but security as mentioned it covers all 8. The last two are not within the group of the first 6- Maguire doesn't see how the loan can count towards FFP.

@redsince1994 3rd party was Michael Dell I think- MSD- he also has made investment in Southampton and Sunderland- and before that, Henry Gabay, Rams Investment Limited- the latter appears on Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and Gellaw Newco 204 Limited.

Valuation? Reports claimed and this bit is uncertain- but reports claimed that it was the same company who carried out the 2007 and 2013 valuations- though this could have been put out by the club also, written reasons may reveal all! Cannot recall their name but it's listed in accounts up to 2017, they're quite big!

As for the loan itself, I think it's all security as I said above- but including the leasehold of Pride Park. I think.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[redsince1994]

39 minutes ago, Harry said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53751251
 

So. A few weeks ago, Derby received a loan from a 3rd party, which was secured against the stadium. 
 

Given this decision, it seems it was a legitimately priced purchase when Morris bought the stadium. 
 

So, Derby now don’t own the stadium. So the loan, being secured against the stadium, would surely be a loan to Morris himself (as stadium owner) and not to the club. Thus, this loan money can’t be money directly given to the club, but to Morris. Thus would only be able to be used as part of his own cash injections into the club, not as a source of ‘club’ earnings. 
 

Presumably? 

Assuming this is just a way to prove the value of the stadium was legit by opening a line of credit against it. If this ends up in the hands of the club surely there will be repercussions (probably not knowing FFP)

I would be interested to see who the 3rd party is, and who carried out the valuation on their behalf.... and whether they are on Morris' Christmas card list. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for Derby, I hope the EFL find some grounds to appeal this- throw anything and everything they can at it. If other clubs can give evidence, that would be nice too though I don't know how that all works- maybe they can only give evidence when the club itself appeal against an adverse verdict.

There are things that can be done though! Maybe.

1. Do not let Mel Morris or Derby directors into your ground- all clubs should do this to them and perhaps Sheffield Wednesday- ostracise the ******* as much as you can.
2. Raise complaints with the EFL on whatever might be an issue- see their recent loan.
3. Try to raise some kind of vote to force Stephen Pearce off the EFL board at the earliest opportunity.
4. Leak any adverse or contentious comments at EFL meetings- see Redgate- into the media to ratchet things up.

Oh and if all else fails, then good old on the pitch. Can't beat them- join them. Can't join 'em- kick 'em!

Two footers for Rooney, Clarke, Bielik, Bogle early doors would be nice.  Take one for the team, aka the League- by weakening their side in the League.

I assume two footers are straight reds- think Wycombe are quite physical aren't they, gwan! Bit of the old kick them off the park would be alright.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Back on the business side, the written reasons will be most interesting.

[Mr Popodopolous]

EFL must appeal this to see what is what- I don't know if the amortisation model so much reduces the losses as kicks the can down the road- it still has to be amortised in full.

Surely clubs would have to vote on such a change- the other big loophole of course is the fixed asset one, maybe clubs were awaiting the verdict etc before voting on change or otherwise.

If P&S isn't relaxed this year, they may yet fail- Derby that is- along with multiple others.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Harry]

39 minutes ago, redsince1994 said:

Assuming this is just a way to prove the value of the stadium was legit by opening a line of credit against it. If this ends up in the hands of the club surely there will be repercussions (probably not knowing FFP)

I would be interested to see who the 3rd party is, and who carried out the valuation on their behalf.... and whether they are on Morris' Christmas card list. 

As Pops mentions above, the loan is from a company called MSD, and supposedly to the tune of £30m. 
MSD have previously loaned money to Southampton & Sunderland. 
The loan has been charged on Companies House to the football club - but surely they can’t inject money to the football club secured against a stadium that the football club do not own. It’s like you lending me money and saying if I don’t pay you back you’ll take my neighbours house (not mine). 
 

In essence, if Morris doesn’t pay MSD back their £30m if they ask for it, then they’ll own the ground. Even though the club don’t own the ground any more!! 
 

It’s a bloody farce. The fact Derby’s CEO sits on the EFL board is surely a conflict of interest in this matter. 
 

I just can’t see how, within FFP rules, this £30m can form part of any calculations, as it’s not ‘football club’ income - it’s technically a loan to Morris himself (as he bought the stadium). 
 

There’s got to be some sort of investigation into this. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Harry

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now Derby are threatening to sue the EFL.

Get that ***** Pearce off the board! Cannot have someone on the EFL Board from a club suing the EFL over a legitimate Investigation.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

As Pops mentions above, the loan is from a company called MSD, and supposedly to the tune of £30m. 
MSD have previously loaned money to Southampton & Sunderland. 
The loan has been charged on Companies House to the football club - but surely they can’t inject money to the football club secured against a stadium that the football club do not own. It’s like you lending me money and saying if I don’t pay you back you’ll take my neighbours house (not mine). 
 

In essence, if Morris doesn’t pay MSD back their £30m if they ask for it, then they’ll own the ground. Even though the club don’t own the ground any more!! 
 

It’s a bloody farce. The fact Derby’s CEO sits on the EFL board is surely a conflict of interest in this matter. 
 

I just can’t see how, within FFP rules, this £30m can form part of any calculations, as it’s not ‘football club’ income - it’s technically a loan to Morris himself (as he bought the stadium). 
 

There’s got to be some sort of investigation into this. 

Over 8 companies- the charge appears on crucially the company which owns Pride Park and the company that owns that.

It's the ground, the club, the purchasing company- lock, stock and barrel.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hi Derby fans reading.

Just to clarify, the quotes you are quoting on your forum are me and me alone- largely. I am not necessarily representative in some of my harder views but I do very much dislike your club in a number of respects- because you're grubby. Think a review of Pearce's EFL position is long overdue.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EFL must appeal this to see what is what- I don't know if the amortisation model so much reduces the losses as kicks the can down the road- it still has to be amortised in full.

Surely clubs would have to vote on such a change- the other big loophole of course is the fixed asset one, maybe clubs were awaiting the verdict etc before voting on change or otherwise.

If P&S isn't relaxed this year, they may yet fail- Derby that is- along with multiple others.

Swings and roundabouts to an extend.

Take Player A - £10m on a 5 year deal

23 clubs amortise him at a loss of £2m pa, a cost in each year’s accounts.

Derby Dont.  Player A still sits on the books at £10, zero to amortise, zero cost.

That looks unfair, but....

Scenario A: sold

23 clubs sell player A for £10m the following summer.  Each club adds £2m to their transfer profit figure.

Derby sell player A for £10m.  Zero transfer profit.

Scenario B: runs contract down

23 clubs just continue to amortise the £2m in the 5th year.

Derby have to amortise / write off £10m.  That’s a risky strategy.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It is- I suppose they could heave Impaired the Intangible Fixed Assets in question, ie Player Registrations, but that still counts against FFP.

Has to be amortised in full one way or another, unless they've tried some way to evade this.

[Lrrr]

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now Derby are threatening to sue the EFL.

Get that ***** Pearce off the board! Cannot have someone on the EFL Board from a club suing the EFL over a legitimate Investigation.

I expect that is a case of 'if you don't appeal we agree not to sue'

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I expect that is a case of 'if you don't appeal we agree not to sue'

Would like to see Rooney and co kicked up in the air- esp. Rooney- Game 1.

Regulations make me wonder about legal action tbh. Agreement in Writing to Arbitrate- it's uncharted territory this.

You maybe right though. Makes a lot of sense.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, WarksRobin said:

There will be 23 clubs watching this eagerly to see whether they can change their accounting approach to reduce their losses. The horse’s head has emerged from the open stable door up the EFL’s arse; can EFL close the door in time?

 

[Lew-T]

3 hours ago, Dog said:

They got off because they're a big club.

Don’t really see Derby as that big of a club to be honest. 

[Portland Bill]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Wednesday are just as big

Bigger

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Quote

Just hope now that people get behind mel and the team now, I get mel has not done every thing correct and mistakes have been made but this really feels like a fresh start now.the man has done wonders for this club and continues to show his class and put Derby first.we now have the right manager and team of people you will start to see derbys stock rise.to all the journalists, ex footballs, chairmen, pundits,EFL and many more who have jumped on the bang wagon and tryed to put us down f@#$ you.we are Derby super Derby super rams.

Quote

If the EFL appeal, sue them.

If they don’t, let it go. We’ve won - on the inside circles the EFL have come out as incompetent, that’s a big win for Mel as well.

Time to focus on the footy only.

Erm, interesting interpretation of the Arbitration agreement right there!

In some ways yes, and yes the EFL under the old regime very much incompetent. However clubs hate you I reckon- opposing fans have a certain antipathy. Or vice versa.

There is still the question of the following with respect to Derby:

1. Stephen Pearce- EFL Board, how can he be fit and proper now? I know innocent but all of the many issues.
2. The loan arrangement.
3. Keogh- I do hope he will pursue his case against the club to the fullest extent possible.
4. The nonsense over Lawrence and Bennett being kept on- but Keogh sacked. How they got off so lightly with drink driving and crash is also beyond me, criminally speaking!

Oh they play Luton and Blackburn in Match days 2 and 3- and Barrow in the Cup, Sheffield United in a friendly in a week.

Hope there's no dodgy tackles!

To my Derby audience, I know a few of you have read my posts on and therefore, certain bits are for your benefit.

Still there are worse motivational techniques a manager might use. Nothing to lose certainly, to help an opposition side 'get into them' so to speak.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Am half tempted to join the Derby forum to meet my critics head on but probably not worth it.

However, I do hope that the EFL and other clubs keep an eye on Derby and keep pressure on over a variety of issues.

Legal action should lead to repercussions at a membership level. Or investigation into the possibility.

On another note, this thread by fans of a club I CAN respect. Sums up Derby quite nicely. 

http://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/derby-fans-and-club-a-disgrace.283815/

One of the first games post drink driving trio etc.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Would be interested in @Coppello take

Derby innocent in all but notifying the EFL of the change in policy??

I want to now see clubs take matters into their own hands. Maximum pressure using all avenues possible on Derby, by clubs and hopefully via this as a vehicle, the EFL.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On a Reading note, interesting theory on their forum about Howe standing down as CEO.

Quote

So, random theory time.

Howe, in his capacity as EFL board member knows that the EFL has decided to "freeze" FFP this season given COVID i.e. last season's and this seasons accounts will not have any baring on FFP calculations as they accept that clubs are working with contracts signed under very different financial circumstances and a large number of clubs will miss the target due to decreased income - i.e. less matchday income etc.

Knowing this, he advised the owners. They make the decision that, as they have the money, it is now or never to push for the PL - Howe, whilst not completely disagreeing, he doesn't feel like he can stay in the CEO role whilst the club takes this gamble, due to his EFL board seat (potential conflict of interest) so agrees to step down but remain at the club as Vice-Chairman, so that he (and the club) retain that spot on the board but focus, officially, on non-football club interests.

The owners employ one of their guys as a CEO but he is essentially just a man in a seat - the owners (with support from Howe, one of the reasons he stayed at the club) still run the football business side alongside Bowen - who is widely respected by the owners.

As the club hope to push for promotion, they feel they need a "name" manager to attract players who can make that possible - they have approached and are in discussions with a particular manager and an agreement is reached - Bowen is asked to move back upstairs as the club are impressed with the work he has done to reshape the philosophy of the club and want him to continue that work without the distraction of running the first team. His move will only be announced when the new manager can also be announced.


So yeah, probably all complete bollocks but if there really is a "strategic review" in place then given that Howe hasn't left this would fit. Either way, nowt we can do about it and more important things to worry about.

Long wondered about whether Howe has been leaking info from EFL to club, or perhaps favoured journalists. The odd article made me wonder- like when a local Reading journo a number of weeks, maybe a month ago declared that FFP was suspended in 2020/21! Get him and Pearce off the EFL board tbh. The latter especially.

As for this Derby debacle- was thinking about it and it's brutal. However.

For the benefit of my Derby audience . Some might say it needs a big club to go pop to get the message home about FFP and the importance. Given you're taking loans here, there and everywhere and somehow wriggled off you could be an ideal candidate! 

Aston Villa could have been the one really in 2018.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

@Mr Popodopolous you seemed a lot more reasonable in your views up until yesterday. It may also upset you now Villa will almost certainly avoid punishment when they drop down. Your anger should be directed at those at the EFL who are responsible for this mess.

[Hxj]

There is nothing wrong with the loans from Rams Investment Limited (Gabay) and MCD (Dell), they are both third parties.  The amounts, unless converted into equity, cannot be used for FFP purposes. 

Having lent all that cash the lenders have security with the charges over all the assets of the companies, that is not unusual, and no different from the arrangements for a house mortgage.

It continues to look like Morris has had enough though, he is no longer funding the club.

As to the disciplinary panel decision best to await a copy of the decision and the outcome of any appeal before commenting.

A quick look at the accounts for 2018 show that the position is still dire.  At 30 June 2018 the football club lost £26 million before the stadium transfer, and there is no indication that matters have improved in 2019 and 2020.  They also had £50 million of intangible assets on the balance sheet, those will need to dealt with through the Profit and Loss account at some point in time.

So let's say £25 million a year loss for 2018, 2019 and 2020, so £75 million, less the profit on disposal, gives you £35 million.  Disposals of players will not benefit the club to the same amount as others for the reasons already stated.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Hxj
typos

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

@Mr Popodopolous you seemed a lot more reasonable in your views up until yesterday. It may also upset you now Villa will almost certainly avoid punishment when they drop down. Your anger should be directed at those at the EFL who are responsible for this mess.

Some of my points were aimed at clowns on Dcfcfans, once I knew I was being cited.  

Choosing to cite a few of my posts, so may as well give them something to cite! 

On a more serious note, think the verdict is a bit of a travesty tbh and given the amount of controversy your club appears to create, Pearce should be removed from the EFL Board and replaced by someone more suitable. Norwich CEO perhaps, or I dunno Luton? Pick a club that aren't already on there but are less offensive! 

I also believe that if Derby take legal action against the EFL, then all avenues of action against your club should be explored.

Some of those characters on Dcfcfans should read and interpret (if they can) the section of Arbitration on the EFL website.

Terms of Membership include an 'Agreement in writing to Arbitrate'. Happy to double check tbh. Idiots on there appear not to mention it at all.

I still wonder about Aston Villa on two counts. Firstly each case differs and the verdicts seem less than predictable- talking about all Disciplinary not just FFP. See also Bolton and Macclesfield for non-fulfilment of fixtures.

Secondly, the payment terms for Villa Park took the form of Loans Receivable. Balance sheet item, not even the money in cash flow so I wonder from a P&L POV.

Final point, I hope that the EFL appeal.

Feel a great deal of anger towards a minority of clubs especially persistent and flagrant offenders. However a lot of blame should be attached to Shaun Harvey and his final couple of years in charge!

Edited August 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

A point I still do stand by though is that a big club going under, this would get home the message about the importance of FFP. 

*Derby appear to be Loans R Us so again, price worth paying?

*Notably aimed at Clown in Chief Dopey David on their site.

Serious note however, big club going *pop* would lead to financial mismanagement of clubs being taken more seriously.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I see conflicting reports that quite a few clubs are angry at the EFL for pursuing the case. Also reported that various clubs angry at the panel over the verdict.

As for my posts the other day, I see Luton are one of the angry clubs. Now they play Derby in a few weeks. 

I have read in the past that under Pulis, when Stoke played Arsenal he used to wind his players up pre game. Really wind them up possibly.

Didn't Jones play under Pulis- or have some kind of prior connection? Harness that knowledge with anger about this, the fact that Luton likely to be bottom third or scrapping against the drop. Let's face it they won't be able to outplay Derby.

Send them out, both to win and get into the players head with the FFP grievance. Could have a lovely physical approach if it aligns!

RandomAccessMemory on Dcfcfans.uk is clearly one eyed. Where does legal action arise given all clubs in writing agree to arbitrate. That said EFL would pay legal costs for this case surely.

I'd be thinking along the lines of:

"We cut our cloth accordingly. We strain to breakeven or make acceptable losses, easily funded but we're well within FFP. 

"This club. These tossers are the king of the loopholes. Rooney is paid for by a sponsor effectively! 

"FFP? What's that then! Sold a ground on a questionable basis. Amortisation of players also suspect, both of which artificially increase scope for expenditure. 

"We cut cloth, they cut rules. 

"We can't outplay them, but as well as club size they are artificially boosted by dubious means. 

Lads, get into them (and **** them up)!" (It's a terrace chant).

I'd properly rile and needle my side vs Derby pregame were my club legitimately within FFP.

I'd also add bits about suing the EFL being antisocial to the needs of the club and League as a whole. Luton won't outplay Derby but they could approach like Pulis era Stoke v Arsenal.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

There is nothing wrong with the loans from Rams Investment Limited (Gabay) and MCD (Dell), they are both third parties.  The amounts, unless converted into equity, cannot be used for FFP purposes. 

Having lent all that cash the lenders have security with the charges over all the assets of the companies, that is not unusual, and no different from the arrangements for a house mortgage.

It continues to look like Morris has had enough though, he is no longer funding the club.

As to the disciplinary panel decision best to await a copy of the decision and the outcome of any appeal before commenting.

A quick look at the accounts for 2018 show that the position is still dire.  At 30 June 2018 the football club lost £26 million before the stadium transfer, and there is no indication that matters have improved in 2019 and 2020.  They also had £50 million of intangible assets on the balance sheet, those will need to dealt with through the Profit and Loss account at some point in time.

So let's say £25 million a year loss for 2018, 2019 and 2020, so £75 million, less the profit on disposal, gives you £35 million.  Disposals of players will not benefit the club to the same amount as others for the reasons already stated.

 

Not sure how you've reached that conclusion. Since that period we've seen a drastic reduction in wages.

Out: Palmer (1/2 season loan), Winnall (1/2 season loan), Russell (1/2 season), Vydra, Weimann, Shackell, Hanson, Jerome, Baird, Ledley, Bent, Thomas, Nugent, Butterfield, Blackman, Pearce, Johnson, Bryson, Thorne, Carson, McAllister, Keogh, Olsson, Anya, Huddlestone, Martin
In: Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Malone, Evans, Bielik, Shinnie, Rooney, te Wierik, Marshall, Clarke (loan), academy lads

Even using conservative estimates for wages that's at least a £15m saving. Income (excluding impact of coronavirus) will have also increased in that time with a notable increase in sponsorship (thanks to Rooney/32Red), greater TV income (new TV deal with sky, a couple extra games on TV, and a big increase in RamsTV subscriptions), and general increases elsewhere.

The next two sets of accounts to be released won't be pretty - I wouldn't bet against c£25m losses in those years  (I estimated abour £24.8m and £27.2m) due to amortisation finally catching up with us from the 2015 and 2016 years. But, we're past that now and on very safe ground financially. From a P&S perspective this will be the toughest year with us just scraping the right side of the line. Thankfully, Mel's long term investment is starting to bear fruit - more minutes given to former academy players than any other club last season, and close to 75% of players used so far in pre-season having been involved in the academy process at some point (mostly youth level, a few U18 signings, and two U23 signings).

[Mr Popodopolous]

 

@AnotherDerbyFan 

The consolidated accounts are or should be used for FFP. 

The consolidated accounts showed a £1m loss in 2017/18 even WITH the stadium sale, Rowett compensation, and profit on transfer disposal.

Clearly there are healthy adjustments out of these but remember those big losses stay on the books.

I don't think the EFL should especially adjust FFP for Covid either. Taking your figures as the ones, if FFP not adjusted for Covid you're walking the line somewhat until 2022/23.

No Covid allowances for clubs IMO. Or very few. Don't know clubs losses due to Covid tbh.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2020/08/derby-county-club-statement-26th-august-2020

Derby statement. 

Clubs must now act to remove Pearce from the EFL Board.

Morris should be treated as far as possible as a pariah.

They also appear to have unilaterally published the written reasons!?

Further, the fact that they ie their legal team and that Sheffield Wednesday appeared to work together, any rules against? 

@Davefevs you know a bit of law from memory, joint coordination on cases any thoughts?

Edited August 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On balance, I hope clubs use the antics of this grubby owner as a motivational tactic, on the pitch. 

Whether it's treating them as their Cup final way or approaching it as Pulis under Stoke did v Arsenal. Either way could cause Derby issues.

[Davefevs]

No, law not my thing, must be someone else.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Fair enough, crossed wires on my part.

Am guessing more than likely fine, probably one of those issues whereby 'If not specifically prohibited, no rule against' etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Calling one or two on their site pillocks a bit uncalled for though I consider 'Dopey David' not bad as far as nicknames go!

Dopey David on DCFCFANS

"Sooner we can get out the Football League the better."

I quite agree. Suspension of membership or expulsion for as long as Morris remains would be great! See Dale at Bury as an example.

Gee Screamer!!, interestingly we are cited as a comparable in the report.

Land value in Bristol surely is worth more than in Derby. How Pride Park worth a lot more than Ashton Gate is puzzling.

Ellafella "Heads need to roll at the EFL". 

Quite agree. Stephen Pearce, will most clubs appreciate his ongoing presence?

Hi Dopey D. Sure you're reading. 

Opinion on auditor being Derby fan? Lot of interesting stuff out there on them. Might also add, Pulis sent out Stoke really wound up vs Arsenal especially so it's a legitimate tactic in football.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest Day]

@Mr Popodopolous This topic has been an enjoyable read, very insightful.

I do have one question though which I’m hoping you can help with, was you dropped on your head as a baby by a chance?

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Not sure how you've reached that conclusion. 

From the same place as you I think

 

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

The next two sets of accounts to be released won't be pretty - I wouldn't bet against c£25m losses in those years  (I estimated abour £24.8m and £27.2m) 

Your guess was £52 million mine is £50 million

Although we now know fromthe decision that the FFP figures for 2018 was a £7 million profit and predicted for 2019 a £34 million loss!

I can see points deductions for 2019/20 and 2020/21 with all those intangibles to deal with.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

11 minutes ago, Hxj said:

From the same place as you I think

 

Your guess was £52 million mine is £50 million

Although we now know fromthe decision that the FFP figures for 2018 was a £7 million profit and predicted for 2019 a £34 million loss!

I can see points deductions for 2019/20 and 2020/21 with all those intangibles to deal with.

Without knowing the 18/19 amortisation it’s hard to make a judgement on the following years. I’m willing to bet the P&S total from 18/19 and 19/20 will be close to the £50m figure we previously estimated. I am a bit more concerned about how close we’ll be for the 3 years to 2021 though

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Calling one or two on their site pillocks a bit uncalled for though I consider 'Dopey David' not bad as far as nicknames go!

Dopey David on DCFCFANS

"Sooner we can get out the Football League the better."

I quite agree. Suspension of membership or expulsion for as long as Morris remains would be great! See Dale at Bury as an example.

Gee Screamer!!, interestingly we are cited as a comparable in the report.

Land value in Bristol surely is worth more than in Derby. How Pride Park worth a lot more than Ashton Gate is puzzling.

Ellafella "Heads need to roll at the EFL". 

Quite agree. Stephen Pearce, will most clubs appreciate his ongoing presence?

Hi Dopey D. Sure you're reading. 

Opinion on auditor being Derby fan? Lot of interesting stuff out there on them. Might also add, Pulis sent out Stoke really wound up vs Arsenal especially so it's a legitimate tactic in football.

Grow up

[Mr Popodopolous]

30 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Without knowing the 18/19 amortisation it’s hard to make a judgement on the following years. I’m willing to bet the P&S total from 18/19 and 19/20 will be close to the £50m figure we previously estimated. I am a bit more concerned about how close we’ll be for the 3 years to 2021 though

Grow up

Okay daft nicknames aside, I do think Pulisball a legitimate tactic. Read up on it, he did really rile his team up when at Stoke ahead of games vs Arsenal. There's an article on it online.

It is also worth reading up on your auditors. How can we be guaranteed of arms length impartiality?

I still have doubts about about the valuation and how the proposed annual rent fell from £4.16m to £1.1m. 

The profits method of valuation is debatable given that a lot of football stadia run at a loss. 

On the other hand the above could well be acceptable IF commercial revenue doesn't flow to the club. Or the rent or price should be restated- can't have it both ways.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The report so far makes for interesting reading. Don't think EFL come out so well. 

Bit of a way to go on it. Certainly don't see good grounds for the one eyed jubilation on Dcfcfans.

In conclusion, I still consider Mel Morris to be a fairy entitled disreputable (albeit legal) *****. Appears to have a bit of a persecution complex too.

Stephen Pearce and good governance don't appear to go hand in hand. Get him off the EFL board. 

Derby are a scuzzy club throughout, and their fans have all the balance and grace of that King who lost his eye. However in the Kingdom of the blind, one eyed man is King!

[AnotherDerbyFan]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Okay daft nicknames aside, I do think Pulisball a legitimate tactic. Read up on it, he did really rile his team up when at Stoke ahead of games vs Arsenal. There's an article on it online.

It is also worth reading up on your auditors. How can we be guaranteed of arms length impartiality?

I still have doubts about about the valuation and how the proposed annual rent fell from £4.16m to £1.1m. 

The profits method of valuation is debatable given that a lot of football stadia run at a loss. 

On the other hand the above could well be acceptable IF commercial revenue doesn't flow to the club. Or the rent or price should be restated- can't have it both ways.

Profits method was used for obtaining a value for the sale, but DRC was used for P&S, later to be revised up to be equivalent to the profits method. The decision from the hearing, after consulting with the credible EFL valuer, was an acceptable DRC range of £77.4m to £89.5m (mid value of £83.5m). Kind of suggests the £81.1m figure was also acceptable

£1.1m figure is based on 100 days of use a year, proportional to £4.16m. I’m surprised that’s been passed, but must mean reduced non-matchday income for the club as a result. 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The report so far makes for interesting reading. Don't think EFL come out so well. 

Bit of a way to go on it. Certainly don't see good grounds for the one eyed jubilation on Dcfcfans.

In conclusion, I still consider Mel Morris to be a fairy entitled disreputable (albeit legal) *****. Appears to have a bit of a persecution complex too.

Stephen Pearce and good governance don't appear to go hand in hand. Get him off the EFL board. 

Derby are a scuzzy club throughout, and their fans have all the balance and grace of that King who lost his eye. However in the Kingdom of the blind, one eyed man is King!

Charge 1 - Stadium
The independent panel reaches the conclusion of fair value. £81.1m falls inside their concluded fair value range of £74.4m to £89.5m. 

Charge 2 - Amortisation
Concluded that the policy wasn’t made clear in the accounts. Review of the policy actual revealed it is acceptable and meets the relevant accounting standards. 

The EFL don’t have a leg to stand on any appeal. Especially when you look at one of their key experts, Mr Messenger using stadiums such as Burton, Shrewsbury, Colchester, Chesterfield and Doncaster to draw accurate comparisons. He got mixed up between capacity, number of seats and square meters!

Edited August 26, 2020 by AnotherDerbyFan

[reddoh]

On 25/08/2020 at 17:16, Harry said:

As Pops mentions above, the loan is from a company called MSD, and supposedly to the tune of £30m. 
MSD have previously loaned money to Southampton & Sunderland. 
The loan has been charged on Companies House to the football club - but surely they can’t inject money to the football club secured against a stadium that the football club do not own. It’s like you lending me money and saying if I don’t pay you back you’ll take my neighbours house (not mine). 
 

In essence, if Morris doesn’t pay MSD back their £30m if they ask for it, then they’ll own the ground. Even though the club don’t own the ground any more!! 
 

It’s a bloody farce. The fact Derby’s CEO sits on the EFL board is surely a conflict of interest in this matter. 
 

I just can’t see how, within FFP rules, this £30m can form part of any calculations, as it’s not ‘football club’ income - it’s technically a loan to Morris himself (as he bought the stadium). 
 

There’s got to be some sort of investigation into this. 

Is it better than yours ?

[Harry]

24 minutes ago, reddoh said:

Is it better than yours ?

Nah. I just got a brand new paved drive too. Much better. 

[reddoh]

15 minutes ago, Harry said:

Nah. I just got a brand new paved drive too. Much better. 

hope that was in ffp and not one up manship? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thought about it a bit, and I think the aspect I dislike most about Derby is Mel Morris.

A bowling/cue ball of an owner who thinks he's bigger than the game or at least the League in which his side play. Quite clearly a horrible man with a sense of entitlement.

In short, zero redeeming features.

Fair few gobshites on their forum but it all stems from him tbh, a fish rots from the head down after all.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thought about it a bit, and I think the aspect I dislike most about Derby is Mel Morris.

A bowling/cue ball of an owner who thinks he's bigger than the game or at least the League in which his side play. Quite clearly a horrible man with a sense of entitlement.

In short, zero redeeming features.

Fair few gobshites on their forum but it all stems from him tbh, a fish rots from the head down after all.

So which aspect of these charges should we have been found guilty of?

You dislike Mel? Seems to stem back to Mel pushing for a better TV deal, to benefit all clubs within the EFL. That a bad thing?

[Hxj]

9 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Charge 1 - Stadium
The independent panel reaches the conclusion of fair value. £81.1m falls inside their concluded fair value range of £74.4m to £89.5m. 

Charge 2 - Amortisation
Concluded that the policy wasn’t made clear in the accounts. Review of the policy actual revealed it is acceptable and meets the relevant accounting standards. 

The EFL don’t have a leg to stand on any appeal. Especially when you look at one of their key experts, Mr Messenger using stadiums such as Burton, Shrewsbury, Colchester, Chesterfield and Doncaster to draw accurate comparisons. He got mixed up between capacity, number of seats and square meters!

There were the four main issues highlighted in the decision from my perspective:

1.   The EFL appointed 'Experts' who frankly were not up to their roles.  An 'academic' accountant and a partner in a four partner practice would not be my choice.
2.   The EFL jumped to the main charge too early, which caused them difficulties.  They should have got an adjusted stadium valuation agreed by the EFL Board first as a first step.  
3.   All of DCFC's and Morris' rants claims around bias and injustice were totally dismissed with minimal words. 
4.   Derby will be back in front of the EFL Disciplinary Commission very shortly based on the current rules.  If the FFP losses exceed £12 million for 2019/20 the club is in default, if the combined losses for 2019/20 and 2020/21      exceed £5 million (unless a profit is made in 2021) they will be in breach for that year as well.

 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

49 minutes ago, Hxj said:

There were the four main issues highlighted in the decision from my perspective:

1.   The EFL appointed 'Experts' who frankly were not up to their roles.  An 'academic' accountant and a partner in a four partner practice would not be my choice.
2.   The EFL jumped to the main charge too early, which caused them difficulties.  They should have got an adjusted stadium valuation agreed by the EFL Board first as a first step.  
3.   All of DCFC's and Morris' rants claims around bias and injustice were totally dismissed with minimal words. 
4.   Derby will be back in front of the EFL Disciplinary Commission very shortly based on the current rules.  If the FFP losses exceed £12 million for 2019/20 the club is in default, if the combined losses for 2019/20 and 2020/21      exceed £5 million (unless a profit is made in 2021) they will be in breach for that year as well.

 

1. The EFL can't appeal based on them not choosing good enough 'experts'.
2. Again, the can't appeal based on that. As was proven, based on their 'expert', their stadium valuation of £50m was far too low.
3. I was surprised the legal and bias claims were dismissed so easily. The fact we didn't even have to rely on them, with the facts doing the talking just shows how wrongful the charges were. I also expected comments on the lack of outside investment and player recruitment was significantly impacted as a result.
4. Confirmed P&S profit/loss from what I can see are:
   • 2017 = -£13.407
   • 2018 = £7.207
   • 2019 = -£31.517
   • 2020 therefore must not exceed £14.69m. My revised estimates suggest we are about £5m over that. However, we would have sold at least one player by now if that was the case.
   • Seems clubs approved a new P&S rule last week. We're moving from a 3 year cycle to 4 years. Losses for 19/20 and 20/21 are averaged (presumably to minimise the coronavirus impact) and use with the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons. It means Our combined losses for 19/20 and 20/21 therefore must not exceed £29.38m. I'm not sure if this replaces the 2020 or 2021 P&S period.

Here's a summary table of the losses based on the Decision document:

[Hxj]

24 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

1. The EFL can't appeal based on them not choosing good enough 'experts'.
2. Again, the can't appeal based on that. As was proven, based on their 'expert', their stadium valuation of £50m was far too low.
3. I was surprised the legal and bias claims were dismissed so easily. The fact we didn't even have to rely on them, with the facts doing the talking just shows how wrongful the charges were. I also expected comments on the lack of outside investment and player recruitment was significantly impacted as a result.
4. Confirmed P&S profit/loss from what I can see are:
   • 2017 = -£13.407
   • 2018 = £7.207
   • 2019 = -£31.517
   • 2020 therefore must not exceed £14.69m. My revised estimates suggest we are about £5m over that. However, we would have sold at least one player by now if that was the case.
   • Seems clubs approved a new P&S rule last week. We're moving from a 3 year cycle to 4 years. Losses for 19/20 and 20/21 are averaged (presumably to minimise the coronavirus impact) and use with the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons. It means Our combined losses for 19/20 and 20/21 therefore must not exceed £29.38m. I'm not sure if this replaces the 2020 or 2021 P&S period.

Here's a summary table of the losses based on the Decision document:

If you apply my earlier comment on appeals generally, I agree that the EFL have no hope of succeeding on appeal.

As to the revised methodology the revised wording, plus the actual measurement periods will be important.  l still expect the club to fail 2020/21 by a large margin based upon the information available.  The club is clearly burning huge amounts of cash, and whilst not a measure of profit it is a good indication that things are not healthy.

If such a revised system is in operation it will likely depress transfer values as clubs have to deal with a lack of income and that impact on losses for some time.  This could have a significant impact on the club as the residuals will drop as well, all of which will need to be reflected in the relevant accounts.  Other clubs, which use a straight line method, will be significantly less impacted by a drop in residuals.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

So which aspect of these charges should we have been found guilty of?

You dislike Mel? Seems to stem back to Mel pushing for a better TV deal, to benefit all clubs within the EFL. That a bad thing?

The stadium valuation is hard to credit once looking at all the others. Similarly, Ricoh Arena which has some similarity in profile to Pride Park, £60m- that's £60m inclusive of naming rights. Once that contract ended, it fell to £51m.

Leicester's stadium, East Midlands and similar capacity which is inclusive of naming rights falls below £50m. £45m perhaps, would have to double check. They have events there too, sure they've had concerts at Walkers Stadium eg.

Pride Park is worth all that despite no enhancement via naming rights.

Amortisation, seems odd. HOWEVER, if it is all accounted for then maybe. 

With respect to Mel Morris. He thinks the rules or spirit therein are not for him. Every trick in the book.

1) Amortisation- not clearly disclosed.

2) Stadium sale.

3) Rooney sponsor.

4) Keogh being sacked but Lawrence and Bennett staying. Hope Keogh wins his case!

5) Possible questions over the loan arrangements.

As for Stephen Pearce. Foxes and henhouses spring to mind.

To have an Executive from such a club on the board for betterment of all feels similar! By which I mean the EFL board.

Not so much him as his club that he represents. I'd feel less than happy were I Ashton having to deal with him, that's for sure.

FFP 4 years? Interesting. Suppose it emulates UEFA in a sense.

Seems like 2 years of normal then last and this season averaged into one. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

1. The EFL can't appeal based on them not choosing good enough 'experts'.
2. Again, the can't appeal based on that. As was proven, based on their 'expert', their stadium valuation of £50m was far too low.
3. I was surprised the legal and bias claims were dismissed so easily. The fact we didn't even have to rely on them, with the facts doing the talking just shows how wrongful the charges were. I also expected comments on the lack of outside investment and player recruitment was significantly impacted as a result.
4. Confirmed P&S profit/loss from what I can see are:
   • 2017 = -£13.407
   • 2018 = £7.207
   • 2019 = -£31.517
   • 2020 therefore must not exceed £14.69m. My revised estimates suggest we are about £5m over that. However, we would have sold at least one player by now if that was the case.
   • Seems clubs approved a new P&S rule last week. We're moving from a 3 year cycle to 4 years. Losses for 19/20 and 20/21 are averaged (presumably to minimise the coronavirus impact) and use with the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons. It means Our combined losses for 19/20 and 20/21 therefore must not exceed £29.38m. I'm not sure if this replaces the 2020 or 2021 P&S period.

Here's a summary table of the losses based on the Decision document:

Re the bold bit...does Morris ever adjust asset values down during a players time here, ie is there ever an amortisation line in the accounts?.  So for example you buy Tom Lawrence for £5m.  Is he still sat at £5m?  If so, would you need to sell him for £10m to make £5m “Transfer Profit”?

[Mr Popodopolous]

On a side note, the legal and bias claims being dismissed so readily is good on two levels.

IIRC, they tended to be dismissed I think in the Sheffield Wednesday case too.

1) Means that the EFL are well within rights. 

2) Could it mean that a Derby legal claim against the EFL would be rather ill-advised? One of the sensible posters on Dcfcfans would appear to think so!

On point one, it's unclear if there is a statute of limitation that means it must fall within the 5 years ie T-2 to T+2 (assuming the stadium sale within 'T' which it was) or if there is none at all. If it's the latter that would be excellent.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

57 minutes ago, Hxj said:

If you apply my earlier comment on appeals generally, I agree that the EFL have no hope of succeeding on appeal.

As to the revised methodology the revised wording, plus the actual measurement periods will be important.  l still expect the club to fail 2020/21 by a large margin based upon the information available.  The club is clearly burning huge amounts of cash, and whilst not a measure of profit it is a good indication that things are not healthy.

If such a revised system is in operation it will likely depress transfer values as clubs have to deal with a lack of income and that impact on losses for some time.  This could have a significant impact on the club as the residuals will drop as well, all of which will need to be reflected in the relevant accounts.  Other clubs, which use a straight line method, will be significantly less impacted by a drop in residuals.

 

Just noticed the 19/20 amortisation line... £25m up from £5m the year before. My newly revised 19/20 P&S estimate is about £35m! OUCH! 

I don't think we're burning through anywhere near as much cash now. More likely accounts catching up with reality.

 

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The stadium valuation is hard to credit once looking at all the others. Similarly, Ricoh Arena which has some similarity in profile to Pride Park, £60m- that's £60m inclusive of naming rights. Once that contract ended, it fell to £51m.

Leicester's stadium, East Midlands and similar capacity which is inclusive of naming rights falls below £50m. £45m perhaps, would have to double check. They have events there too, sure they've had concerts at Walkers Stadium eg.

Pride Park is worth all that despite no enhancement via naming rights.

The Disciplinary Commission disagree with you. For example, The EFL's 'expert' arrived at the £50m valuation by scaling up costs of stadiums for Morecombe, Chesterfield, Clochester, MK Dons, Doncaster, Shrewsbury, and Burton. He failed to note a variety of differences: built corners, possibility to expand, roof, quality of facilities. Somehow, the 'expert' concluded PPS was "bog-standard", and further devalued the stadium by using average attendance instead of capacity.

DRC is usually calculated by multiplying the cost per seat by capacity to attain a new build cost. This figure is then reduced by a depreciation factor to reach the DRC value with land value added on. The panel concluded that anything less than £3000 per seat would be considered basic. As PPS is certainly above basic, £3k is the very minimum that should be used. Guess what... that's the exact figure JLL used to reach the £81.1m value. If you disagree with PPS not being basic, then you need to visit more grounds.

The rebuild of your own stadium cost a reported £40-45m, with a capacity of 27,000 - equivalent to cost per seat of £1.67k. However, it was a replacement/refurbishment of the original stadium meaning it was the equivalent to £2.84k for a new stadium. Facilities of your stadium are inferior to ours, and you haven't filled in all corners. This supports the claim that £3k for ours is correct.

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Amortisation, seems odd. HOWEVER, if it is all accounted for then maybe. 

All accounted for, so nothing to get your knickers in a twist over.

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

With respect to Mel Morris. He thinks the rules or spirit therein are not for him. Every trick in the book.

1) Amortisation- not clearly disclosed. 

2) Stadium sale.

3) Rooney sponsor.

4) Keogh being sacked but Lawrence and Bennett staying. Hope Keogh wins his case!

5) Possible questions over the loan arrangements.

As for Stephen Pearce. Appointment of a fox to a henhouse board would be rather silly.

Executive from such a club on the board for betterment of all feels similar!

Not so much him as his club that he represents. I'd feel less than happy were I Ashton having to deal with him, that's for sure.

FFP 4 years? Interesting. Suppose it emulates UEFA in a sense.

Seems like 2 years of normal then last and this season averaged into one. 

1. Oversight from the club not to clearly define it. It's all out in the open now, and there are clearly no issues with it.
2. Rules say it was acceptable. We weren't alone in doing it.
3. Are you saying recruiting a player of Rooney's calibre means we should increase our sponsorship income? Bizarre that you think increased exposure shouldn't mean more sponsorship. Comes across more like jealousy of not having the pull we do.
4. Most likely a financial issue, but we don't know the full facts. At the at the end of the day, Lawrence and Bennett still have value and could/can still perform the job they're paid to do, whereas Keogh couldn't. With Keogh joining MK Dons I think that's the end of the matter. If the case was still ongoing, we'd still hold his registration and he wouldn't have a club.
5. I can't believe you're trying to argue against a club pursuing loans to cover losses given the coronavirus circumstances.

Perhaps if Pearce was on the board much earlier the EFL would be in better shape now. He's clearly well respected by most clubs, hence why he's in the position he is. The fact he's clever enough to see where the rules allow a club to maximise it's potentially shouldn't be considered a bad trait. Other club's follow his lead - they copied our stadium sale, and it's only a matter of time before clubs copy our amortisation policy. There's little benefit in copying what everyone else does, as without parachute payments, it's unlikely you'll earn promotion. Every club should be continuously looking at ways of doing something better than they already are.

 

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re the bold bit...does Morris ever adjust asset values down during a players time here, ie is there ever an amortisation line in the accounts?.  So for example you buy Tom Lawrence for £5m.  Is he still sat at £5m?  If so, would you need to sell him for £10m to make £5m “Transfer Profit”?

Asset values are updated every 6 months. Some of the considerations are age, injury status, and favourability with the manager. I'd be surprised if there's is no amortisation for any player, but for younger players most likely it will be a very small amount. In the case of Lawrence, he still has 2 years left on his contract so still has a high book value of more than £4m (but less than what he's cost us so far). So to make the £5m profit a sale of £9m would be required.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On a side note, the legal and bias claims being dismissed so readily is good on two levels.

IIRC, they tended to be dismissed I think in the Sheffield Wednesday case too.

1) Means that the EFL are well within rights. 

2) Could it mean that a Derby legal claim against the EFL would be rather ill-advised? One of the sensible posters on Dcfcfans would appear to think so!

On point one, it's unclear if there is a statute of limitation that means it must fall within the 5 years ie T-2 to T+2 (assuming the stadium sale within 'T' which it was) or if there is none at all. If it's the latter that would be excellent.

I can't see us pursuing any legal case based on the claims already made. There may be a case of us pursuing damages due to missing out on investment, being put under a wrongful embargo, missing out on recruitment, and potentially reduced sponsorship. Given the club statement about all clubs being financially punished due to just a few clubs pushing for a penalty, I can't see us dragging things out further and causing more financial reductions to clubs.