|
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.
|
|
|
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 Sept 2, 2020 6:52:23 GMT
I would suspect these are four years contracts with a view to selling after two.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 29, 2020 9:13:00 GMT
If the figures quoted are true, then yes it will be our record fee received. The top few are
Samba - £12 or £12.5 million (we probably all have our own opinions on how that deal worked!) Remy - £10.5 million Sterling £10ish million (Liverpool - Man City)
I think Les Ferdinand himself may be next.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 29, 2020 9:03:42 GMT
Yes, it was thought that Dieng had been tapped up by Burm who have released 4 of their 5 keepers (including Camp) and are playing pre-season with a junior keeper between the sticks. They are on record as saying they are looking for 2 keepers. Call me a cynic, but yesterday WLS released the 'maybe Lumley could be leaving' tale. Today it is WLS who say that Brun may be interested in him and then all the Midland journos run with it quoting WLS. That is the way to oil the wheels! I thought that Brum were trying to sign Darlow of Newcastle. But yeah, Birmingham need a keeper, we need to offl-ioad at least one , two plus two equals the M42 - but perhaps I am too cynical. Meanwhile....... SportFootballHibs Dillon Barnes linked with Hibs as Jack Ross speaks on loan signings Head coach expecting movement in and out before window closes By Patrick McPartlin Friday, 28th August 2020, 7:07 pm Jack Ross could look to bolster his Hibs squad with loan signings from England as Queens Park Rangers goalkeeper Dillon Barnes emerged as a target for the Easter Road side. The 24-year-old Englishman began his career with Barnet and has since had spells at Farnborough, Colchester, Welling United and Hemel Hempstead Town. Barnes is yet to make a senior appearance for QPR, but was named on the bench for 13 matches in all competitions last term. Ross said: “We want to strengthen, but we've also got to make sure it does improve us, and that we identify the right player ability-wise and character-wise. "I believe we will add a couple. We may see movement going the other way as well, but I think the squad will have some changes between now and the window closing." Asked if English clubs resuming pre-season training could help the Capital club in terms of potential signings, Ross continued in his broadcast press conference: "Possibly, in terms of loans. "I think Scottish clubs have found it a bit difficult, with the season running out of sync. "When some English clubs decide what players they will put out on loan, the younger players are always available early but it's a case of weighing up whether they will improve or strengthen your squad. "It's the ones who are very close to first-team football at their respective clubs that you feel may improve you and the clubs probably take longer to decide on their situation. "That's been a little more of a waiting game and as they return to action it will probably accelerate that process. We will be into the guts of our season at that point but it will certainly help decisions to be made." You cynic!
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 28, 2020 18:40:46 GMT
I wouldn't expect the club to say anything different. Regardless of what their spending plans are there is no point advertising them.
It would also be an act of rank stupidity to abandon this plan now just as it has started to bear success.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 28, 2020 18:38:25 GMT
It has been worth the cost of my season ticket over the past few years just to watch Ebs. Fabulous player who will thoroughly deserve whatever success he gets.
This is very much a bitter sweet day. We all knew it had to happen for both QPR's and Ebs' sake and we will all watch his progress with pride.
|
|
|
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 Roller on Aug 28, 2020 6:24:00 GMT
The implication of those tweets is that we have just made this transition. To me, we turned the corner when Les Ferdinand was employed as Director of Football but were weighed down with so much baggage. The appointment of Lee Hoos a couple of years later gave us more impetus and ensuring that we didn't lose Chris Ramsey after he was mistakenly installed as manager was equally important. Turning the club around was never going to be a quick process and is not finished yet, but the nonsense stopped with Ferdinand's appointment. It has taken a long time to shake off the baggage and of course not every decision has proven to be correct, but we are now starting to see the results.
That is not to say that there weren't markers on the route. The purchase of Ryan Manning just after Ferdinand was appointed was the first sign and to pick a couple at random, the sales of Cole Kpekawa as a youth product and just a year ago Darnell Furlong showed that we were starting to produce results. Players like Eze and Chair weren't signed by accident, they are the embodiment of Ferdinand's plan, Eze signed in 2016, Chair in 2017. To my mind Ferdinand doesn't get the praise he deserves.
|
|
|
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Roller on Aug 22, 2020 18:43:20 GMT
I hope Manning stays to be honest. Play him in left midfield. He needs to sign a new contract for me to agree. We can't afford him to leave on a free at the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 22, 2020 18:33:33 GMT
I think its safe to say Ramkilde isn't likely to answer our striking requirements this season I'd be very reluctant to write anyone off after half an hour in the first pre-season friendly of the season. Then again, I didn't see the match. Was he really that poor?
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 12, 2020 19:06:06 GMT
Apparently they are going to start the season playing their home matches in Doncaster. Hopefully they can get themselves sorted before supporters are allowed into grounds.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Aug 12, 2020 6:59:17 GMT
I think the EFL have until Friday to appeal - 14 days from the announcement - so they haven't not appealed yet. Not that I'm suggesting that they will.
I was floating the idea elsewhere that in the FFP P&S sanction guidelines there maybe a cut off date that points deductions have to be applied by. These guidelines do exist but seem to be a heavily guarded secret. The sliding scale of point deductions will slowly get revealed as more cases get carried out, but I've little idea about what else is covered by them. Perhaps more will get revealed when the arbitration document is published.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 27, 2020 5:17:40 GMT
If this is showing the amounts actually paid, not all of the costs would have been incurred in the period the payments relate to. Agents' fees are spread across the length of the players' contracts and, on rae occasions, are still being paid after the player has moved on.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 27, 2020 5:04:06 GMT
Q&A on the EFL v Sheffield Wednesday case with football finance "guru" Kieran Maguire. www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-wednesday-expert-efl-charge-18473099Sheffield Wednesday have today begun their legal fight with the EFL, with the outcome of their hearing set to have a huge impact on the Championship season. Following complaints from a number of rival clubs, the EFL charged Wednesday with breaching Profitability and Sustainability rules. The club’s battle will be heard by an independent panel this week – they had been expected to appear in front of the three-man panel next month, but it is understood the proceedings have been brought forward. Given the complexity of the case, Yorkshire Live spoke with football finance guru and lecturer Kieran Maguire who runs the well-respected Price of Football website. Q: Why has the case been brought forward? KM : I think the likes of Barnsley and Hull have voiced their unhappiness with the slow process to date. Wednesday were originally charged in November and we're now in June so it does seem the wheels are turning quite slow on this one. Q: Does the dropping of individual charges against Chansiri, John Redgate and Katrien Meire bode well for the hearing? KM : That's got to be seen as more positive than negative. Effectively, the integrity of the three people involved, which perhaps was being called into question, doesn't appear to be the case anymore and therefore that has to increase the credibility of any evidence they provide in terms of the panel. Q: Nick De Marco is the QC representing the Owls. What do Wednesdayites need to know about him? KM : I've never met Nick but he's represented many clubs and he's been successful to date. He's very much seen as the go-to man for events of this nature. He represented QPR when they were charged and they avoided a points deduction. I thought that was a very successful case. And he's also represented Tyson Fury and Joey Barton in the past. Q: What does the EFL charge effectively boil down to? KM : It's mainly to do with the valuation of stadia in terms of the sales to other companies owned by the owners. The EFL changed the rules in 2016 which allowed clubs to do this, so they've effectively encouraged it to a certain extent. If you look at other clubs, Aston Villa have done it and not been charged, Reading too and they've not been charged. It comes down to whether the value is at a market rate. And the problem is that there is no market rate for a football ground. Because it's a unique asset. Trying to get a universal agreement as to the value would be a challenge to anyone. Q: Could Wednesday have looked into stadium sponsorship to get around this issue? KM : That may have been an alternative but we've seen in the case of Manchester City that there's been issues. Their case has ended up at CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). If there's any transaction between the club and the owner, or another company controlled by the owner, then it's got to be at a market rate. Now how we assess what a market rate is, becomes complicated. Q: There's been plenty of rumours about the Owls being docked nine, 12 or even 21 points - where do these figures come from? KM : There is a tariff for points deductions which is linked to the amount of Financial Fair Play limits of £39million loss over three years. So that part is actually relatively easy to calculate if we know what the fair value of Hillsborough is. That element of the charge should be able to be calculated with a degree of certainty once they establish the ground is worth X. For all we know there's no reason to say it's not worth the £60m that was paid for it. I'm not a surveyor. A surveyor did value it at that value. In respect of potentially going up to 21 points, this is where it gets a bit vague. The rules say that there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances which can increase the deduction by a further nine points. So if there's evidence that Wednesday were not helping the EFL with enquiries then the panel might decide to give an addition penalty. If you look at Birmingham's case, because they reported themselves when they realised they'd signed a player when they shouldn't have done, their points deduction was reduced. It's a bit like a judge in a court case, they will have a broad tariff that can be increased or decreased such as 'has the person turned themselves in' etc. So it's up to 12 points in respect of FFP, and it's up to a further nine points in terms of how far Wednesday have assisted with the enquiry. A total of 21 points is the worst-case scenario. Q: If Wednesday are relegated, then with the amount of big contracts they have and the uncertainty that the pandemic has caused would it be fair to say that it would be a cocktail of chaos? KM : I don't think there's ever been a worse time to be relegated. The Championship TV deal is worth about £7million and the League One TV deal is about £1.5m. That's a big sum of money in differences. You've also got to question whether matches will be taking place in League One, given that clubs are so dependant on matchday income. Can they physically afford to bring players out of furlough to incur matchday costs to incur additional transport costs? You can't get 25 players and a manager under social distancing rules, so you have to look at getting two or three coaches for an away game. Are clubs going to hire hotels? All of these costs add up and presumably there'll be testing for players also. In League One, when you start to crunch those numbers it's simply not worthwhile in football returning. In the Championship it's slightly more complicated with clubs having parachute payments and the better TV deal. Q: Is there a likely timeline on how long this case will take to come to a conclusion? KM : They are expecting the submission of evidence to take two or three days. Then the panel have to reflect on it, go through the small print and there will have been a large number of documents submitted These decisions don't tend to be rushed. I would be amazed if it was announced at the end of the week, but we're living in an unusual world at present. The evidence would have to be overwhelming, for one side over the other. Q: Whichever way it goes, are both sides likely to appeal? KM : The EFL have got into the habit of appealing for cases they've won and lost. Sometimes they've won a charge and they don't think the tariff has been high enough then they've appealed and tried to get it up that way. So I would anticipate an appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 27, 2020 4:54:56 GMT
Theo Foley has passed away. While more renowned for his work at other clubs, he was a important component of QPRs' back room staff in the late 70s and early 80s. RIP Theo Obituary: Theo Foley, the proud Dubliner who dared to dream bigwww.independent.ie/sport/soccer/obituary-theo-foley-the-proud-dubliner-who-dared-to-dream-big-39319693.htmlAs a boy, Theo Foley would not have to delve into the deepest recesses of imagination to summon up dreamy visions of a footballing life. For the last thing he saw as he pulled the curtains each night was a patch of green grass with goal-posts at either end. To him, it might have just been Wembley itself even though, beyond his back room window, through the tree-tops and over the coiling, churning Camac, Richmond Park was hardly even a distant relation of the famous Twin Towers. But for the young boy on the Inchicore Road, the home of St Patrick’s Athletic might have easily contained all a young boy could ever aspire to achieve in life. He would go on to attain so much more than he might ever have dreamed of in a wonderfully rich and accomplished career after sailing way from Dublin to seek his fortune all of 66 years ago. And yet he never forgot the ordinary beginnings which preceded such an extraordinary life. On his annual return visits home during the summer, he would meet up with Bill Hennessy in the Oblates’ Church, a few hundred yards up the hill on Tyrconnell Road, to thank the man who spotted enough in the fledgling baller to recommend him for a trial at Burnley. He would never make it at the then powerhouse but even then he would espy the mostly home-grown success of a well-managed side who became champions of England. They were in many ways a harbinger of the side he would help George Graham construct almost a half-century later to achieve a similar feat. Exeter City, in the old Division Three South, gave him his break in the pro game as a 17-year-old, making his debut in 1955 against Norwich City. When he married Sheila, a morning wedding was followed by an afternoon win against Crystal Palace; the honeymoon in the Lake District also included two league games. Changed times. His times changed, too. By 1961, he had moved to Northampton Town whom he helped to lift from the Third Division to the First Division. Having been called up twice without making the match-day squad, he would win all his nine Republic of Ireland caps (1964-67) while with the Cobblers. But there was always a lingering sense that he could have achieved more; he made 220 appearances for Town but when they finally made the top-flight, injury often scuppered the skipper’s chance to shine. They had never before – and have never since – appeared at the highest level of the English game. He featured for Ireland in the World Cup play-off against Spain in 1965 but a long-standing knee injury would limit the international appearances of this fast full-back, so fearsome in the tackle. As Joe Haverty rather cruelly told Sean Ryan later, “Theo couldn’t do anything but he could volley a good winger and he kicked Suarez out of the game.” The FAI took a bung so the match was played in Paris, rather than London. Many, including John Giles, felt that Shay Brennan, returning from injury, was shoe-horned into right-back when he should have been restored to midfield, where Foley continued to deputise. Nonetheless, so effective was his man-marking of the legendary Luis Suarez that he aptly ended up getting his shirt, too. His performance was masterful; the ultimate irony was that, when he was briefly injured and hesitantly returning to the fray, Spain seized their opportunity to score the 80th minute goal. And with that the 1966 World Cup passed Ireland by; symbolically, it seemed to sum up Foley’s playing career. So close, yet so far. Irish supporters recall his commitment; one contacted this writer on social media to recall a frenetic warm-up in Dalymount when Foley chased a ball and clattered over the railing into the terrace beneath the main stand. “He just picked himself up and clambered back into the fray.” In 1970, he began a management career which, like his playing one, seemed to fulfil far less than expected of so many others, except for himself. Which is not to say he lacked ambition; rather he was the author of much humility. It was while at Charlton that he gave Eamon Dunphy, who made his Irish debut in that fateful World Cup play-off,the chance to resurrect his dwindling career. Foley had finished playing with Charlton but during his spell in the dug-out, they slipped from the second to the third division. Patience was thin, even then. Days after receiving a rose bowl from the supporters and a fortnight before they were awarded£4,000 for being one of the highest scoring clubs, he was sacked. His canny eye for talent would linger after his departure thanks to Valley heroes such as Derek Hales, Colin Powell and Mike Flanagan, who between them would earn his erstwhile, penny-pinching employers over £1m in transfer fees. Thereafter, he flitted between coaching and broadcasting; at QPR, he teamed up with the irrepressible Terry Venables, then forging what would be a formidable career in management. Then, a propitious link up with George Graham at Millwall in 1986, heaving that club from the floor and eradicating dead wood, including Sam Allardyce. Three years later, they would make memorable history on a famous night – “it’s up for grabs now!” – as Arsenal denied Liverpool the 1989 league title. The partnership would soon sunder and Foley then coached at Northampton, again, as well as stints with Fulham, Southend – under Ronnie Whelan – before his last gig at Spurs, a reserve team coach, reunited with Graham once more. Fate almost reunited him with Ireland, and home, too; George Burley was believed to have been interested in acquiring him as an assistant had he taken the Irish job after Mick McCarthy’s 2002 departure. It would have been a fitting coda to a career so inextricably linked with so many pivotal moments in Irish and English football history, and yet one spent, albeit willingly, amongst its shadows. Those who worked with him, however, as the tributes still pouring forth amply testify, appreciated the special gifts of a proud Dubliner who dared to dream big. From Keogh Square to Anfield and beyond, Theo Foley’s deeds may not have reverberated as profoundly as they should have throughout the game. But his name always did.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 21, 2020 14:57:04 GMT
FFP really needs sorting out in advance of the season starting. fines to some are just a gamble worth taking. If you set out your stall in advance stating a sliding scale of points deductions starting at 7 going up to 20. Clearly lay down how the scale works. Then by all means gamble with FFP but you know you are certainly going to be deducted points. I would then put these in to the rules. hopefully cutting out legal cases. Quite simply at the moment its just potluck to your fine and points deduction on the day of your hearing if you even have one. There already is a sliding scale in place, it just isn't publicised. The EFL starting position is a 12 point deduction, but this only applies to breaches of over £15 million. For breaches under this amount, this notional figure is reduced according to a sliding scale. As an example, if a club is only up to £2 million over their FFP limit, the 12-point deduction is reduced by 9 points. Birmingham, who fell into the £8 million to £10 million bracket qualified for a reduction of 5 points and so their sanction was 7 points. These are the only fixed points I have definitely gleaned to date, although I do believe that I have deduced the rest of the scale. This points deduction is then subject to be increased depending on “aggravating factors” which is left to the disciplinary commission discretion. Birmingham were subject to a 3 point increase for ignoring their own forecasts that they were going to breach FFP. Rather than cut their cloth accordingly, they employed Redknapp and allowed him to sign 9 new permanent players and another 5 on loan at a cost of £23.75 million, nearly doubling the cost of the players’ wages in the process. The tribunal regarded this as an intentional breach of the rules and, as such, warranted the deduction of a further 3 points increasing Birmingham’s sanction to 10 points. However, as Birmingham admitted that they’d breeched FFP, albeit at a point at which they could hardly deny it, a point being deducted from their sanction, reducing it to a final total of 9 points. Up to 9 points can be deducted for aggravating factors. I don't know why they keep this quiet, but it is all very clearly laid out in the Disciplinary Commission's report.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 20, 2020 9:20:27 GMT
Macclesfield deducted 2pts but avoid relegation by one point. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53028810I must be honest, I cannot decide if this is the correct decision or not. On the one hand, the owners have behaved appallingly and do not deserve to survive. They have told the EFL that they intend to raise funds by selling shares. Those shares would only be sold if the club avoided relegation. The fans are the ones who would suffer and we know how that feels. But, with so many other lower league clubs in likely peril, some leniency and support is going to be necessary going forward. So I hope that it was the right decision. Ricky, do you know if there is some sort of agreed tariff for point deductions for these offenses?
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 20, 2020 9:18:54 GMT
Dean Parrett should never have left and gone to Spuds. It shows that real talent can be snuffed out in the name of glory. He really needed 3 or 4 seasons here to establish himself and then move on. But no, Big club comes in, whooosh, career goes nowhere. My understanding was that QPR were desperate for the money and could get Parrett out the door fast enough. I can't recall where I got that from and therefore if it is reliable onfo or not.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 20, 2020 7:19:40 GMT
FFP rules suspended for 12 months across European football to ease financial strain after Covid-19 To ease the strain on clubs unable to break even, Uefa has announced FFP break-even assessments for 2020 will be postponed for 12 months www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/06/18/ffp-rules-suspended-12-months-across-european-football-ease/Financial Fair Play rules have been suspended across European football to ease the strain on clubs facing huge losses after Covid-19. Billions of pounds has been wiped off the value of the sport globally in recent months. The Football Association announced this week it had taken out a loan to cover its losses of up to £300 million. To ease the strain on clubs unable to break even, Uefa announced FFP break-even assessments for 2020 will be postponed for 12 months and looked at alongside the financial year 2021. Uefa says it hopes to neutralise the impact of the pandemic by averaging the combined deficit of 2020 and 2021 and by "further allowing specific Covid-19 adjustments". An official statement added that the changes will address "the actual problem" of revenue shortfall and "not financial mismanagement". Also, as reported by Telegraph Sport in recent weeks, the governing body has advised that 2020 summer transfer windows across Europe can close as late as October 5, allowing leagues to align themselves with later season start dates. Guidelines restricting heading in youth football were also detailed following years of research showing links with dementia in older age. However, they go short of stricter guidelines to stop Under-11s from heading which were issued by the Football Association following a campaign by The Daily Telegraph. Instead, Uefa suggests using foam balls as an alternative in some cases as well as size-appropriate balls, and neck strengthening. In the wide-ranging announcement, Uefa also formally appointed Bobby Barnes, the deputy chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Union, as the first black member of its control, ethics and disciplinary body (CEDB), which judges on matters of racism. Neil Doncaster, the chief executive of the Scottish Professional Football League, has also been appointed to the CEDB. Uefa also approved the qualifying format for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. There will be five groups of six and five groups of five, with the 10 group winners qualifying for the finals. ---------------------- I'm sure the EFL will follow suit once the Premier League have adopted this. This is not abandoning FFP, merely not assessing anyone for this season until the end of next season, but strikes me as little more than kicking the can down the road as next season is going to be incredibly problematical as well. Adjusting the permissible losses is still a better solution in my opinion as it allows everyone to move forwards.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 31, 2020 21:07:43 GMT
Championship season set to restart on 20 June as coronavirus lockdown easeswww.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52834579The Championship season is set to resume on 20 June, more than three months after it was suspended because of the coronavirus pandemic. The EFL said the date was "provisional" and "subject to the strict proviso that all safety requirements and government guidance is met". There are 108 matches remaining, plus the play-off semi-finals and final. No Championship fixtures have been played since 8 March, with the campaign suspended five days later. The EFL said it is aiming to complete the Championship season with the play-off final "on or around 30 July", adding that there would be ongoing discussions on proposals to permit the use of five substitutes in the remaining fixtures and increasing matchday squads from 18 to 20 players. The announcement comes a day after the UK government gave the green light for domestic competitive sport to return, behind closed doors, from Monday. Horse racing and snooker will each resume competitive action on Monday, while the Premier League is due to restart on 17 June. "Following Saturday's announcement by the government to allow elite sporting events to return behind closed doors, the EFL has this weekend agreed to a provisional restart date of the weekend of 20 June 2020 for matches in the Sky Bet Championship," an EFL statement read. "After discussing various approaches and the importance of completing the season in a similar timeline to that of the Premier League to avoid any potential issues with promoted and relegated clubs, the Sky Bet Championship season is set to conclude with the Championship play-off final on or around 30 July 2020." Players have been back in training since 25 May, initially while following social distancing guidelines, and full contact training will begin next week. EFL chair Rick Parry said: "We must stress that at this stage the date is only provisional and will only be confirmed once we have met all the requirements, as the health, safety and wellbeing of all participants, staff and supporters remains our top priority. "Clearly completing the season in a safe manner is going to require a significant effort by all concerned and, whilst not unprecedented, it will need clubs to play a significant number of matches over a relatively short period of time." Parry added that the EFL was in talks about broadcasting the remaining 108 games and play-offs either live on Sky Sports or via streaming services. Three rounds of coronavirus testing have been conducted to date across the 24 clubs in the second tier, with more than 1,000 tests carried out each time. Two people at Hull City tested positive in the first round, while two unnamed Fulham players and Blackburn captain Elliott Bennett tested positive in the second round of results. Preston North End striker Jayden Stockley was one of 10 positive Covid-19 tests across eight Championship clubs in the latest round of testing, revealed on Saturday. When the season was paused, Leeds United were top of the table, one point clear of second-placed West Bromwich Albion. Fulham, Brentford, Nottingham Forest and Preston North End occupy the four play-off spots, while Barnsley, Luton Town and Charlton Athletic are in the relegation zone.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 24, 2020 20:24:26 GMT
Thanks again Roller, it is great that you have all the references to hand and can provide some clarity. But no doubt that when the clauses were captured, there was no thought given to the current exceptional circumstances. I interpret the clauses to mean that any club may have a different year end to mid Summer, or extend their accounting period (usually for something exceptional like a financial takeover). But no matter what, they are required to report Summer to Summer, 1st July to 30th June - the logic being that fixtures are concluded by 31st May, players contracts run to 30th June. It is neat and tidy - and easy for accountants (I was one for many years) and easily audited. But this year, if they continue playing beyond 30th June and players contracts are extended then it is by no means neat and tidy. If the window opens on the 1st July (it probably will be delayed) then we could even sign new players for next season before this one has concluded. So it is messy to extend the financial year end but not impossible. But if the spirit of the FFP clauses is that the annual reporting should reflect a complete season's activities, then reporting up to 30th June will not capture the full season - assume play is resumed. So I can see that the accountants would probably suggest an extended financial year end date to 31st July, but then for FFP it would depend if they were trying to stick with the 12 month cycle, or trying to capture a full season's activities. Certainly far simpler if they abandon the season and estimate the FFP based on their previous submissions. Good point about the EFL being the clubs themselves, my frustration with them is as much about the grey suits who sit in judgement for the discipliniary / breaches. In the case of the League 2 clubs voting for no relegation to the National League, then the EFL overruling that decision, is that the other 47 clubs over ruling the 24 League Two clubs then? You are, I'm sure, right that no thought would have been given when agreeing these regulations to the circumstances in which we now found ourselves. I would also agree that the spirit of FFP is to reflect a season, but the regulations state: A Reporting Period is the period over which a Championship Club is assessed for the purpose of the Fair Play Requirement. For each Season the Reporting Period is (subject to Rule 2.2 or Rule 2.3) the immediately preceding 12 month period recorded in the Championship Club’s Annual Accounts(Rule 2.2 being the one I mentioned previously, 2.3 stating that the additional accounts for club's whose financial year end does not coincide with the summer break must be prepared in the same manner and with the same degree of verified detail as if the Championship Club was obliged to lodge those additional accounts at Companies House) While reiterating that these circumstances would not have been considered, a 12 month period is specifically stated. It would be interesting to know exactly how Sheffield Wednesday's 2018 FFP submission was treated as they extended their financial year by two months to 31st July. That information may become available if the EFL do take Wednesday to the disciplinary commission, otherwise we will be left in the dark. As I read the regulations they would also have had to prepare 12 month accounts for FFP. Whatever happens, FFP should not be a driver in clubs picking their path through this crisis, but I also don't think that it will be shelved.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 23, 2020 15:28:06 GMT
Thanks Roller. Not sure it is that straight forward Roller. But I hope you are right. But I agree that it is possible to estimate and project the end of the season - and that was done in January before lockdown. Those estimates should be the start point IMHO. They can be compared / integrated with the 39 / 3 year measure. But as you say it is not just this year but for several years. But those figures would not be based on audited accounts, just an internal club projection. Anything else would mean taking some policy and accounting decisions - and involve the EFL acting sensibly. I assume that in the main, the FFP calculation is based on accounting principles/ published financial accounts adjusted for exempt expenditure (not just pure cashflow). So for example the wage deferments / cuts will be accrued to the correct accounting period. But if play tresumes, the season is unlikely to end on 30th June but instead run to the end of July. Will clubs apply for an extension to their financial year end as most clubs have a financial year end of 30th June? There is an accounting dilemma here. It is possible to move the year end date in exceptional circumstances, but that would render next Financial year as 11 months. If so would FFP move accordingly? There would have to be a policy / decision taken about loss of TV revenue. Season ticket refunds. (June /July year end issue again). Interest on loans /working capital - greater demand for cash - does interest feature in the calculation? This obviously is not just about this year but the run on cash is going to have a major long tern impact. Likewise, players taking either a wage cut or deferment. The deferment impacting on next season's cashflow. Players contracts may be extended into July, incurring additional expenditure - which year for FFP? All of which makes it all the more likely that play will not resume in the Championship, whereas FFP does not seem to be an issue for the top tier. The EFL will go for a quick fix and clubs will appeal and dispute and the lawyers will get rich. Meanwhile unscrupulous owners will throw their community clubs to the wall. But just by view.... In the EFL's FFP regulations it states that: If the Annual Accounts for any Championship Club are for a period other than the 12 months described by Rule 1.4, then that Championship Club must prepare 12 Month Accountsand any Championship Club has a financial year ending other than during the period May, June or July, then that Championship Club must prepare Additional AccountsI'm not aware that the club's financial years has to coincide with the closed season but, because of those two clauses, I'd think that they'd have little to gain by changing year end dates - at least with regard to FPF. I'd think that the accountants at all of the clubs are going to be busy juggling deferred income, accruals and prepayments. I think it is also important to remember that the EFL is the clubs and not a bunch of anonymous grey-suited men. As far as the Championship FFP regulations go, if 13 of the 24 clubs vote for a change it will happen. They can change the permissible losses, bring in allowances for extended contracts or reduced television income, I can't see UEFA objecting if they keep it sensible.
|
|