|
Post by kenthoop on Aug 17, 2020 7:02:09 GMT
EFL wanted to relegate them by applying the points deduction this season but admitted the botched the case ,full report is supposed the be out today I am sure Wigan and Charlton will love to see it although they can't do anything about it but it just shows what an incompetent bunch of idiots the really are rant over !!!
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Aug 19, 2020 7:34:14 GMT
Sheffield Wednesday to appeal points deduction The written reasons behind the 12-point deduction of points from Sheffield Wednesday heading into next season have been published, with the club immediately making clear it intends to appeal the decision in a strongly-worded statement. By Alex Miller Monday, 17th August 2020, 1:10 pm The two documents, prepped by the independent disciplinary commission that heard the case, confirms as suspected that the issues surrounding Wednesday’s handling of the case centred on the timing of the sale of their Hillsborough stadium rather than its valuation or the sale itself. It makes clear that the EFL wanted to pursue the deduction of 12 points or more this season, effectively relegating the Owls to League One. But the panel saw inconsistencies with the way they intended to deal with a similar case, that of Derby County, and ruled the points deduction would be enacted ahead of next season. After three club officials – chairman Dejphon Chasiri, former CEO Katrien Meire and former finance director John Redgate – were cleared of individual misconduct charges back in March, the club were also cleared of misleading the EFL’s investigations. The EFL received criticism for their handling of the investigation, which in their view was not carried out vigorously enough. Senior EFL figures including former CEO Shaun Harvey were accused of not devoting requisite attention to the case and took holidays at key times. The Star spoke to sports finance expert Dr Dan Plumley, of Sheffield Hallam University, to comb through some of the bigger talking points and discuss where this leaves Sheffield Wednesday’s appeal. So where are we at now that we weren’t earlier this morning? Stripping back, the independent commission have ruled that Sheffield Wednesday have breached FFP and P&S but have not deliberately mislead the EFL. The main thing that jumps out to me is the timing of the points deduction - the big issue was whether it would be last season or next. If we use the Birmingham case, which has been used as a bit of a yardstick, the sanctions should apply at the end of the reporting three-year rolling period the charge relates to. What the IDC are saying is that they should have been punished in the 2018/19 season. Wednesday were well clear of relegation that season. But it's dragged on and on and their reasoning is that it is unfair to put the deduction onto the 19/20 season because of how far it's dragged. It makes a nod that it would have been unfair to Wednesday when the restart occurred, that there were so many contracts out at the end of June and the club would have been playing at an unfair disadvantage and effectively battle relegation with a threadbare squad. All that is essentially why it's at the start of next season, not the one just gone. So without going after Chansiri and the club on aggravated charges, this could have effectively been dealt with during the season? It effectively says that charge two has lengthened the timing of all this and that most of the conversations were about charge two and not charge one. It does mention the way that Covid affected these things and how things needed to be done, but also that charge two has dragged this out a little bit longer. What about Derby? Why are they mentioned? The EFL are not looking for a points deduction for Derby for this season, so the argument is, why should they do so for Wednesday? The two cases are similar and it's a definite inconsistency. The document suggests all would have been well is they’d have pressed on with the sale of Hillsborough in August 2018. Is there an obvious reason they would have done so? I can't think of an obvious reason why they would hold on to it. The documents suggest that a lot of the sale was a little bit rushed or not fully thought-through, that all appeared to be the case. In effect the sale was linked to a third party owned by Mr Chansiri so there won't have been any attempt to hold anyone to ransom over the sale price or anything like that. There are no real financial sticking points. There's a bit of stuff about the valuations of the stadium and so on, but nothing too major in that regard. Is it fair to say that neither side comes out looking brilliant here? The wording of the document from the very start and to the conclusion is that there are lessons to be learned here for both parties, with suggestions moving forward, one of those being the communication and deadlines set. This has wider repercussions in terms of the league for the EFL, for the P&S regulations and maybe we will see a tweak in those further down the line. One summary of this is that both parties have not come out of this looking great. So what of the appeal? What’s next? What are the chances of a successful appeal? It means it's all going to drag on a little bit longer. I wonder if they're looking at that as a bit of a 'shot to nothing'. Assuming we know the points deduction is going to be applied next season, an appeal is not going to relegate them and they'll start on minus 12, so it might well be a shot to getting some points taken off during the season further down the line if they can get it overturned. The slight concern would be that they get a further deduction for aggravated offences which could be another three plus points. It's a tricky one. Sheffield Wednesday will appeal their 12-point Championship deduction
|
|
|
Post by kenthoop on Aug 19, 2020 12:36:23 GMT
imo they should take the decision but I would love to see them lose and get relegated 🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 22, 2020 19:13:05 GMT
Delaying Wednesday's points deduction until this season is Nick De Marco at his finest. Yes, both Wednesday's and Derby's cases involving selling their stadia, but they are not all that similar. The EFL's case against Wednesday was to do with them claiming the profit from selling Hillsborough in the set of accounts before it happened but their case against Derby is to do with them selling Pride Park at above market valuation (as well as having a "unique" method of amortising their players' registrations). While I'd agree that Chansiri paid over the odds for Hillsborough that wasn't pertinent to this case, but may surface when their 2018/19 accounts are reviewed.
For the purposes of perspective on this the recent stadium sales have been as follows:
Pride Park - £80m Hillsborough - £60m Villa Park - £56m Madejski - £26m St Andrews - £22m
|
|
|
Post by stylecouncillor on Aug 23, 2020 9:17:36 GMT
Can I ask as I can't actually remember a case . Has any club actually lost an appeal ? The whole thing with FFP is the EFL fine or deduct points or both a club appeals and this is then reduced. I'm thinking QPR Leicester Birmingham off the top of my head. It just seems go into administration points deduction set in stone FFP you appeal and get the points or fine reduced.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Aug 23, 2020 9:35:32 GMT
Can I ask as I can't actually remember a case . Has any club actually lost an appeal ? The whole thing with FFP is the EFL fine or deduct points or both a club appeals and this is then reduced. I'm thinking QPR Leicester Birmingham off the top of my head. It just seems go into administration points deduction set in stone FFP you appeal and get the points or fine reduced. I'm ready to be corrected but in the "early" days2 of FFP, I don't think that point deductions were a possibility & that fines could only be issued if you were promoted to The Premier. I think it was the change of regulations, following Rangers, Leicester & Bournemouth being promoted while breaking the rules, that fines & deductions arrived on the scene. If Rangers hadn't been promoted in 2014 I think we would have just faced a transfer embargo that would run until we complied with the regulations. Many clubs had this imposed (Blackburn, Bolton & Forest for definite), but wehether they appealed & lost or accepted their punishment, I don't know. In our case, it would have been many a season before we could come out of an embargo & we possibly/probabluy would have been relegated as were Blackburn & Bolton.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Aug 23, 2020 9:39:19 GMT
Can I ask as I can't actually remember a case . Has any club actually lost an appeal ? The whole thing with FFP is the EFL fine or deduct points or both a club appeals and this is then reduced. I'm thinking QPR Leicester Birmingham off the top of my head. It just seems go into administration points deduction set in stone FFP you appeal and get the points or fine reduced. We appealed and got sweet FA... Our ludicrous and punitive fine was completely OTT - no other club has come anywhere near that level of punishment since. The whole FFP thing is a ******* (feel free to fill in your own adjective/expletive here) joke.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Aug 23, 2020 14:38:31 GMT
Can I ask as I can't actually remember a case . Has any club actually lost an appeal ? The whole thing with FFP is the EFL fine or deduct points or both a club appeals and this is then reduced. I'm thinking QPR Leicester Birmingham off the top of my head. It just seems go into administration points deduction set in stone FFP you appeal and get the points or fine reduced. We appealed and got sweet FA... Our ludicrous and punitive fine was completely OTT - no other club has come anywhere near that level of punishment since. The whole FFP thing is a ******* (feel free to fill in your own adjective/expletive here) joke. "Our ludicrous and punitive fine was completely OTT - no other club has come anywhere near that level of punishment since." No other club has come close to matching the overspend that Queens Park Rangers did for the season 2013/14. We had a loss of more than £60 million knowing that the regulations specified that you would be fined £1 million for every million that you lost if the loss was greater than £8 million & you were promoted. Our board knew exactly what their punishment would be & still chose to operate in that manner. Ending up with a fine of circa £40 million rather than the £60 million was a result for our owners. I would agree though that fining £ for £ of the loss was excessive & was a major reason why the regulations were changed. I do find it amusing that the majority of Rangers supporters feel we have been treated the worst, while supporters of other clubs feel we have been treated the most leniently. A fine as opposed to a points deduction or transfer embargo? I would choose the fine every time!
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 23, 2020 14:44:00 GMT
The Sheff. Wednesday case seems to be more centred on accounting treatment. It is possible to provide for future income and expenditure and different methods for depreciation and amortisation but I have not seen how they actually accounted for their sale. It does however seem that if the accounting method they used was legal (presumably it was or their company accounts would not have been signed off by their auditors0 their case is similar to our own. Yes and no. I've read the report by the independent commission (and need to do so a couple more times to fully understand it), but to summarise events: 31st March 2018 – Wednesday failed to submit their future financial information (FFI) and were placed under a registration embargo. 25th April - They finally submitted FFI which included selling Hillsborough for at least £40m by 31st May. Despite extending their end of year until 31st July, Hillsborough wasn’t sold. Wednesday had been looking to sell some players instead to make up their FFP shortfall. August 2018 - A agreement was reached for Wednesday's owner Dejphon Chansiri to buy Hillsborough, senior personnel for EFL involved in the discussions. Wednesday filed a draft “head of terms” regarding the future sale. Even though a head of terms is not a binding document, all parties were satisfied and their auditors felt confident enough to include the sale in their 2018 accounts. Wednesday failed to submit their next FFI the follow March 19th June 2019 - Having still not submitted their FFI, the EFL launched their investigation into Wednesday. 21st June – Sheffield 3 Ltd incorporated 28th June – Sheffield 3 Ltd purchase Hillsborough for £60m. An independent auditor ruled that as the Head of Term had no effect on 31st July 2018, the profit from the sale of their stadium should not have been included in their accounts. It started as providing for future income as you suggested, but Wednesday only executed the sale once the EFL had finally lost patience with them. There is a lot more detail in the report (it is over 50 pages long), but I think these are the salient points.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 23, 2020 14:54:38 GMT
"Our ludicrous and punitive fine was completely OTT - no other club has come anywhere near that level of punishment since." No other club has come close to matching the overspend that Queens Park Rangers did for the season 2013/14. We had a loss of more than £60 million knowing that the regulations specified that you would be fined £1 million for every million that you lost if the loss was greater than £8 million & you were promoted. Our board knew exactly what their punishment would be & still chose to operate in that manner. Ending up with a fine of circa £40 million rather than the £60 million was a result for our owners. I would agree though that fining £ for £ of the loss was excessive & was a major reason why the regulations were changed. I do find it amusing that the majority of Rangers supporters feel we have been treated the worst, while supporters of other clubs feel we have been treated the most leniently. A fine as opposed to a points deduction or transfer embargo? I would choose the fine every time! As you well know I completely agree with you Terry. The £42m settlement included writing off £22m of debt. In other words converting a debt that was never going to be repaid into equally worthless shares. The fine was "only" £17m, with a further £3m covering the EFL's costs. Had we been subjected to a points deduction that season we'd have been relegated based on the current guidance.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2020 8:16:29 GMT
"Our ludicrous and punitive fine was completely OTT - no other club has come anywhere near that level of punishment since." No other club has come close to matching the overspend that Queens Park Rangers did for the season 2013/14. We had a loss of more than £60 million knowing that the regulations specified that you would be fined £1 million for every million that you lost if the loss was greater than £8 million & you were promoted. Our board knew exactly what their punishment would be & still chose to operate in that manner. Ending up with a fine of circa £40 million rather than the £60 million was a result for our owners. I would agree though that fining £ for £ of the loss was excessive & was a major reason why the regulations were changed. I do find it amusing that the majority of Rangers supporters feel we have been treated the worst, while supporters of other clubs feel we have been treated the most leniently. A fine as opposed to a points deduction or transfer embargo? I would choose the fine every time! As you well know I completely agree with you Terry. The £42m settlement included writing off £22m of debt. In other words converting a debt that was never going to be repaid into equally worthless shares. The fine was "only" £17m, with a further £3m covering the EFL's costs. Had we been subjected to a points deduction that season we'd have been relegated based on the current guidance. Echoing the above but yeah, much as I hated the outcome I always thought we were absolutely bang to rights on FFP. Rules were public, we knew what we were doing, the indications of where we would end up were there, but we ploughed on. I think the understandable annoyance comes from two things, though. Firstly, people tally FFP breaches up against general financial shithousery - both the domain of the EFL but very different things. People see what Wednesday have done, or how Derby or Brum or Villa etc seem to behave without decisive (arguably!) punishment and think, we were nobbled, why not them? Again, different rules and different offences, but it can still feel annoying. And secondly cos of how we actively leaned into a more sustainable model off the back of it. Having seen the consequences of breaching, we've made root n branch changes to the finances, slashing the wage bill etc. (won't repeat, we all know this part) and as a consequence, have had to dramatically reset our expectations and behaviour. So while I think long term, we are going to end up in a good place while other clubs eventually reap what they've sewn, it can be frustrating watching the likes of Forest add to their absurd amount of players, Derby shelling out dumb money on Rooney etc. I think fans think, we're doing all this painful work to behave but no-one else does. Different income, club size and all that - it can be a bit apples n oranges. But I get why it irks.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Aug 24, 2020 9:16:07 GMT
As you well know I completely agree with you Terry. The £42m settlement included writing off £22m of debt. In other words converting a debt that was never going to be repaid into equally worthless shares. The fine was "only" £17m, with a further £3m covering the EFL's costs. Had we been subjected to a points deduction that season we'd have been relegated based on the current guidance. Echoing the above but yeah, much as I hated the outcome I always thought we were absolutely bang to rights on FFP. Rules were public, we knew what we were doing, the indications of where we would end up were there, but we ploughed on. I think the understandable annoyance comes from two things, though. Firstly, people tally FFP breaches up against general financial shiteeehousery - both the domain of the EFL but very different things. People see what Wednesday have done, or how Derby or Brum or Villa etc seem to behave without decisive (arguably!) punishment and think, we were nobbled, why not them? Again, different rules and different offences, but it can still feel annoying. And secondly cos of how we actively leaned into a more sustainable model off the back of it. Having seen the consequences of breaching, we've made root n branch changes to the finances, slashing the wage bill etc. (won't repeat, we all know this part) and as a consequence, have had to dramatically reset our expectations and behaviour. So while I think long term, we are going to end up in a good place while other clubs eventually reap what they've sewn, it can be frustrating watching the likes of Forest add to their absurd amount of players, Derby shelling out dumb money on Rooney etc. I think fans think, we're doing all this painful work to behave but no-one else does. Different income, club size and all that - it can be a bit apples n oranges. But I get why it irks. I understand & agree with most, if not all, of that bow. I certainly want clubs to be punished rather than allow them to circumvent the rules. In particular, i get very annioyed with Derby! The valuation they placed on Pride Park is amazing, especially ss I understand that most of the retail park is vacant. However, if they are correct that the EFL were consulted throughout the process, including the valuation, & gave no reason to think the rules were being transgressed, I struggle to see how they can be charged. What really irks me with Derby is the Rooney situation. If they were paying him the full amount of his wages & they kept within FFP, then full marks to them, but for their sponsors to be picking up the bill grates. I'm yet to understand how this is not third party ownership at the least. What is worse is the perception from the media about how great Derby are for signing Rooney & spending millions on loan players. And how the club & supporters brag about the situation! I'm sure that in the long run they will suffer as their accountants can't keep up this lwevel of creativity indefinitely! Taking out a loan to repay a loan looks like the start of their slide IMO. I also don't understand how Forest keep scrapping tghrough FFP & can only come to the conclusion that their financial people are smarter than those we employed! Villa is different, as they openly decided to break FFP to reach the promised land (as Wolves did). It would have been very interesting if they had been relegated to see what punishment they would have received. I now expect them to stay in the Premier for a while & negoiate a settlement with the EFL that won't come close to reflecting the level of their offence. I should add that I think that in the eyes of the EFL, Queens Park Rangers have moved from public enemy number one to the blue eyed boys! Our club has shown the rest of football how they should operate & the change round has been phenomenal.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Aug 25, 2020 15:16:01 GMT
FFP case against Derby County dismissed.
On the BBC website, a lot of waffle and blah blah...
Perhaps the most telling point comes at the end:
Now, having been found conveniently (ahem) 'innocent', the EFL won't have Boro suing them...
|
|
|
Post by surreychad on Aug 25, 2020 15:19:36 GMT
EFL is a joke. They cant even enforce their own rules
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Aug 26, 2020 14:07:41 GMT
Time to name and shame these frigging idiots. Who make up this EFL group of piss poor decision makers?
|
|
|
Post by surreychad on Aug 26, 2020 14:28:41 GMT
TO make things worse, Sky Sports are saying that the FL case against Derby has cost all Championship clubs £1 million. As they lost they have to pay costs it means that funding will be reduced to all other clubs.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 26, 2020 18:47:04 GMT
I've just skimmed through the independent commissions report on the EFL v Derby County. The commission had a few chartered surveyors calculate the depreciated replacement cost of Pride Park based on a cost per seat basis from other stadia adjusted by construction tender price indices. The mid point of these re-build costs was £83.45 million and so they were happy to accept the sell price of £81 million as a fair market price.
There are over 100 pages in the report and this isn't my field so I hope I've used the terminology correctly.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 26, 2020 19:26:55 GMT
TO make things worse, Sky Sports are saying that the FL case against Derby has cost all Championship clubs £1 million. As they lost they have to pay costs it means that funding will be reduced to all other clubs. Derby rather pointedly say that in their official statement too, saying it's something that clubs who 'encouraged' the EFL to look into it should reflect on. Quite the gloat.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 26, 2020 19:30:40 GMT
I've just skimmed through the independent commissions report on the EFL v Derby County. The commission had a few chartered surveyors calculate the depreciated replacement cost of Pride Park based on a cost per seat basis from other stadia adjusted by construction tender price indices. The mid point of these re-build costs was £83.45 million and so they were happy to accept the sell price of £81 million as a fair market price. There are over 100 pages in the report and this isn't my field so I hope I've used the terminology correctly. That does sound odd, and bear in mind I know next to nothing about any of this...but why would it be based on a replacement cost? It feels a bit like if you're selling a house and an estate agent values it at 250k but notes that if you rebuilt it and modernised it in the same area it could be worth 500k one day. But you'd never get away with that because whoever takes charge of the property would have to pay to make that happen. I kinda get that logic for selling land, like an empty wasteland could be expensive if it had permission to build a big Tesco on it. But I don't get why a stadium would be valued on a replacement cost. OR does depreciated replacement cost mean..what it's worth if they were to build it again now? Again though, I may be missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 26, 2020 19:47:50 GMT
That does sound odd, and bear in mind I know next to nothing about any of this...but why would it be based on a replacement cost? According to the experts that is the "primary method of valuation appropriate to the valuation of a football ground".
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 26, 2020 19:52:42 GMT
That does sound odd, and bear in mind I know next to nothing about any of this...but why would it be based on a replacement cost? According to the experts that is the "primary method of valuation appropriate to the valuation of a football ground". Hmm. Well on that basis, either Derby have a strangly valuable stadium compared to others, or the other clubs mentioned have absolutely mugged themselves off with cheap valuations. Worth 20m more than Villa Park and if it's the primary valuation method, presumably Villa went through the same hoops.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 27, 2020 6:18:31 GMT
According to the experts that is the "primary method of valuation appropriate to the valuation of a football ground". Hmm. Well on that basis, either Derby have a strangle valuable stadium compared to others, or the other clubs mentioned have absolutely mugged themselves off with cheap valuations. Worth 20m more than Villa Park and if it's the primary valuation method, presumably Villa went through the same hoops. That was one of my first thoughts Bow, the other being that this would probably encourage others to follow down this route. Reading and Birmingham must be kicking themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 27, 2020 6:23:19 GMT
Hmm. Well on that basis, either Derby have a strangle valuable stadium compared to others, or the other clubs mentioned have absolutely mugged themselves off with cheap valuations. Worth 20m more than Villa Park and if it's the primary valuation method, presumably Villa went through the same hoops. All strange to me. Sounds like someone (probably EFL) getting their wires crossed - maybe deliberately to get out of the Derby situation. I'm out of date on these rules now but it used to be that for Derby's accounts the ground would normally be valued at the lower of purchase cost or market value which would be different to replacement cost. If replacement cost is a true measure what could we say Loftus Road is worth given the cost of buying land locally and the cost of construction in London. All very strange and I still smell a rat in Derby's case. It is not the value of Pride Park in Derby's accounts that is in question though is it? That was £40m. It is the fair market value. It was the independent commission that went down this route for valuation, not the EFL. The EFL estimated the fair market value of Pride Park at £50m. I can only assume that there is a consensus among chartered surveyors that this is the way of calculating market value, the ones used by the commission agreed this was the correct method.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 27, 2020 8:23:09 GMT
Hmm. Well on that basis, either Derby have a strangle valuable stadium compared to others, or the other clubs mentioned have absolutely mugged themselves off with cheap valuations. Worth 20m more than Villa Park and if it's the primary valuation method, presumably Villa went through the same hoops. That was one of my first thoughts Bow, the other being that this would probably encourage others to follow down this route. Reading and Birmingham must be kicking themselves. Definitely. The unexpected outcome is now the likes of Reading and Birmingham have both achieved less cash than they could have got away with and end up looking more sheepish about what they were doing..! Turns out they may have missed out on potentially tens of millions to have on the club's books for being less brazen. Edit: of course those may be the accurate valuations derived from the same calculation method. But I really struggle to see how Pride Park has, say, almost four times as much value as St Andrews.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 28, 2020 6:59:59 GMT
It is not the value of Pride Park in Derby's accounts that is in question though is it? That was £40m. It is the fair market value. It was the independent commission that went down this route for valuation, not the EFL. The EFL estimated the fair market value of Pride Park at £50m. I can only assume that there is a consensus among chartered surveyors that this is the way of calculating market value, the ones used by the commission agreed this was the correct method. Not exactly but if the club have it valued on their accounts at 40 million and sold it at 81 million they have an Extraordinary item in their P&L from the sale of the ground. Should that be allowed for FFP anymore than TF making a cash injection of 60 million being ruled not allowed? It simply brings me back to the concept that as long as clubs comply with the law and run their accounts properly, but the EFL and sporting authorities and tribunals have a different interpretation of club finances these situations will continue to arise. I have not been following this closely or reading all the documents but the whole thing does not sit right and again looks one rule for one club , another rule for others. I'm sure that in accounting terms you are correct, but these two transactions strike me as being quite different. One is selling an asset at what would now appear to be market value, the other Santa Claus turning up with a present. To continue the Santa analogy, if the waiving of loans was allowed to count as profit for FFP purposes, what would stop this happening every Christmas Day? FFP would simply not exist. I would look upon more as one rule for one scenario, another rule for others. I wouldn't personalise it; there are enough people thinking that the EFL have got it in for QPR as it is. Personally I think that owners should be allowed to inject funds into their club to their heart's content, not as loans which should be strictly controlled, but if they want to pour their money it, that should be their choice. Likewise I'm not in favour of the salary cap the EFL. Why shouldn't Sunderland be allowed to spend their greater revenue how they see fit? And if FFP has shown us anything, it is that the clubs will seek ways around these restrictive regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Sept 8, 2020 11:51:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Sept 12, 2020 17:57:27 GMT
3 points towards their cause after a win this morning/yesterday UK time.
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Oct 9, 2020 15:58:36 GMT
It get even murkier and a bit of a worry for Wednesday fans...
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 9, 2020 19:36:00 GMT
Now this is really interesting - clubs have always amortised transfer fees over the life of a players contract so they have no residual value at the end of their contract. Obviously not a true reflection of normal life but those were the accounting rules which Derby have ignored by allocating a residual value to players thus overstating the value of assets in their balance sheet. Now if we had done that with Eze , signed for nothing but then included him as worth 20 million in our last year end accounts we would have had a paper profit pf 20 million which in theory we could have spent legally under FFP even though we had not sold Eze at the time. Another FFP loophole and clear case od Derby being at best inventive at worst dishonest. When will this mess ever end. I suspect there is a little bit of devil's advocate in your comments, but my understanding of what Derby were doing is not inflating any values but amortising at a slower rate than all the other clubs in the EFL. Rather than reducing the book value of a player bought for £4m on a 4 year contract at £1m per season, they were amortising them at £0.5m per season and risking a larger write off in the last season of the players contract should they leave on a free. It could be argued that this tracks the value of the player more accurately than the traditional model.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 9, 2020 19:46:25 GMT
It get even murkier and a bit of a worry for Wednesday fans... It is even murkier than that. Wednesday sold their stadium to a company called Sheffield 3 - who are still to pay for it. There is now a charge over Hillsborough held by a company called New Avenue Projects Ltd who are controlled by Nigel Weiss. Weiss is a known associate of Laurence Bassini who briefly owned Watford before being banned from owning a football club by the EFL for 3 years (and how bad must anyone be for that to happen?). The details of the charge are unknown, so it may be negligible but, then again, it may not. To make matters worse, Wednesday are still to publish their 2018/19 accounts; these are distinctly overdue. The only other Championship club yet to publish their accounts for that season are Derby County. All information courtesy of Kieran Maguire.
|
|