|
Post by harr on Feb 7, 2020 19:30:42 GMT
Anyone get the Telegraph ? would like to give it a read... You can view the article for for without taking out a subscription. Not a lot in it though: Profitability & Sustainability (FFP) causing battles off the pitch as some clubs bend the rules - others want punished. Clubs all reducing their wage bill - Nahki was the highest EFL transfer in the window at £4m. Second highest transfer was £800k Only 25 permanent transfers in the window. Of the 3 clubs facing sanctions speculation as follows: Birmingham - max of 3 pts deducted Derby will fight the charge with all they can muster Sheff. Wednesday could face 21 point deduction. There is an EFL meeting later this month when it will be debated and it is likely that the rules will be changed again for 2020/21. Many thanks Ricky
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Mar 7, 2020 12:25:37 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51773298Birmingham escape further punishment! Birmingham City have avoided a second points deduction in two seasons after an independent disciplinary commission dismissed an EFL misconduct charge. The charge, which was in relation to an alleged breach of an agreed business plan, was brought against the Championship club in January. The EFL said in a statement the decision is "subject to an appeal". Birmingham were deducted nine points last season for breaking profitability and sustainability rules. The club, who had denied the charge, said they "welcome the decision of the disciplinary commission and we have worked closely and amicably with the EFL on this matter since we were charged in May". Blues were deducted nine points in March 2019 after incurring losses of nearly £48.8m between 2015 and 2018, almost £10m more than the accepted adjusted losses of £39m over a three-year period. Birmingham, who are 15th in the Championship, host Reading on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Apr 9, 2020 17:38:33 GMT
‘Five to eight’ Championship clubs could start 2020-21 season with points deduction due to Financial Fair Play breaches By Josh Fordham 9th April 2020, 4:39 pm A row is threatening to break out between Championship clubs on whether to relax Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. All professional football in England is currently suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic. A number of Championship clubs could start next season with a points deduction The reporting period for Championship clubs’ profit and sustainability (P&S) is due to end on June 30 with clubs having to show they have not lost more than £39million over the last three seasons. The Daily Mail report that between five to eight clubs are likely to breach the regulations but had planned to sell players when the transfer window opened in June to make sure they complied. The coronavirus pandemic is likely to mean the transfer window will be pushed back. Therefore a number of clubs could be at risk of starting next season with a points deduction. The financial reporting window is likely to be put back but there is increasing uncertainty around the transfer window, especially with uncertain financial futures at the moment. Clubs could ask for the rules to be relaxed due to the circumstances but there could be opposition from clubs who have done all they can to stay within the rules. One chief executive told the Daily Mail: “There is a feeling there are some who have overspent and are now looking to wriggle out of P&S. “If they have broken the rules, they should be punished.” The EFL proposes plan to complete 2019/2020 season by playing 113 games in 56 days atest Transfer news LIVE: Arsenal vs United for France ace, West Ham eye ex-Chelsea player The English Football League, meanwhile, has laid out tentative plans to complete the 2019-20 season over a period of approximately 56 days over the summer, including the play-offs. A letter from EFL chairman Rick Parry to its member clubs advises them to prepare for a return to training activity no earlier than May 16 as the country remains on lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic. Parry said the “working assumption” was that the remaining matches in the 2019-20 season would be played behind closed doors. talksport.com/football/efl/693055/championship-clubs-points-deduction-ffp-breaches-coronavirus/
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Apr 10, 2020 8:39:59 GMT
If the talksport version is correct I can only say that the EFL have lost all common sense. Yes we have FFP but surely they must realise that under current circumstances all Championship clubs must be running up losses, or at best losing significant income, as they continue to pay players and staff but have lost all income from gate money and TV and are likely to have to repay TV money if the season is not finished. That plus the inability to sell players, the fact that games will likely be played behind closed doors (if at all) means that all clubs will take a significant financial hit which is totally beyond their control. If the EFL want to punish clubs for these circumstances beyond the clubs control I really wonder about their sanity. Surely this is case where this season should be wiped from FFP calculations or massive adjustments to the rule should made to reflect the financial impact of the virus. Head in sand time again (putting it politely) In a way, this is a typical Talksport non-story. I posted it for completeness rather than any real news value. But it may not be as daft as you suggest though. I think that pre- Covid, it was known that up to 6 clubs were in trouble this year with FFP - some already had cases to face. That is because clubs have to supply forecasts and even though these may have been conservative in may cases, they still would probably flag up the problem. The final analysis for 19/20 can not be based on the real financials because as you say, provision will still have to be made for the loss of income. But forecasts were required for after the January window closed at which point most income and costs can (usually) be projected pretty accurately. So the EFL are looking at 24 projections and trying to decide if they punish the sinners and support the better housekeepers. Given that we have worked so hard to tidy up our act, I would like to see the sinners punished - just as we were - but on the basis of their January projections But I do agree though that the EFL do not have a great record for common sense, so anything could happen. The only news worthy part was that it looks like the EFL are preparing to conclude the season albeit behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Apr 10, 2020 10:12:38 GMT
I would agree that FFP should be suspended/reduced for season 2019/20, but the figures under consideration at present were for the previous three seasons. The virus has no bearing on those losses.
Whether any action should be postponed to when clubs have got through the current position is another matter. Personally, I can't see how it could help to implement action at present, but many want point deductions to be at the start of a season & this could easily be the case for season 2020/21.
From our clubs point of view, The Independant published an article yesterday on championship wages for season 18/19 & Queens Park Rangers were one of only four clubs that kept to the required income/wage ratio.
I do expect many more clubs to achieve FFP in the next few seasons as club owners won't be in a position to chuck as much capital into their club as they have been doing!
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on May 22, 2020 13:02:04 GMT
Increasingly looking like only the Prem will play out all their games - and even that is by no means certain. FFP has been a mess from the start. The EFL is a mess. EFL points deductions as penalties (for a range of offences) appear to be completely arbitrary to me, or design for effect - like Birmingham last season. Macclesfield have flaunted the rules - not playing games, not paying staff and players etc. and were lucky to survive (financially) before Covid. Then the EFL decide on a penalty (during lockdown) that leaves Stevenage only 3 points behind Macclesfield - a very convenient gap. But then League 2 teams agree that the season should be abandoned with no team relegated, but with Barrow replacing the unfortunate Bury. But the incompetent EFL over rule that recommendation and it seems that Stevenage are to be relegated out of the League. They just missed out on the Play-Offs last season (Thanks mainly to Chair!!) So Stevenage are relegated by virtue of the EFL penalty imposed on Macclesfield who in turn have not been punished at all now. Fair? Meanwhile, the EFL has not reached a decision on any of the prior Championship FFP cases. They wish to relegate Charlton, Luton and Barnsley but if they then impose points deductions on the likes of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday that are meaningless or calculated to only impact league position not relegation, is that right? I think that Sheffield Wednesday has a big case to answer? I think that the various points deductions should be imposed for next season - assuming we get a full season. But hard to see how 2019/2020 FFP can be anything other than suspended. But when clubs are facing financial ruin through Covid, any punitive action from the EFL is going to really hurt and may just mean more clubs going into administration. Answers on a postcard please...…..
|
|
|
Post by terryb on May 22, 2020 13:48:13 GMT
I think that the EFL have to relegate a club from Division Two if they are to have three clubs promoted to The Premier. If they were to ignore National League play offs they couldn't expect Championship play off winners to be promoted.
Mind you, The National League have to show that there will be a competition next season for Stevenage to be relegated. How they can demonstrate that I have no idea. I don't think the EFL could do so either!
As far as FFP points deductions go, surely it is pure guesswork as to whether Wednesday, Derby etc would have been affected enough for relegation. I have read that Barnsley are threatening legal action if deductions are not imposed this season though.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on May 22, 2020 15:09:47 GMT
I think that the EFL have to relegate a club from Division Two if they are to have three clubs promoted to The Premier. If they were to ignore National League play offs they couldn't expect Championship play off winners to be promoted. Mind you, The National League have to show that there will be a competition next season for Stevenage to be relegated. How they can demonstrate that I have no idea. I don't think the EFL could do so either! As far as FFP points deductions go, surely it is pure guesswork as to whether Wednesday, Derby etc would have been affected enough for relegation. I have read that Barnsley are threatening legal action if deductions are not imposed this season though. I understand Barnsley's frustration (and others), it seems to me that any FFP punishment for past misdemeanors should be dished out next season - and at the start of the season so that it is not a calculation, but a penalty to befit the transgression. Likewise with Macclesfield, so many issues to answer to and yet their pain will be zero. Ok to relegate Stevenage given how far they were adrift as well, but why deduct a second tranche of points from Macclesfield during lockdown, leaving them 3 points clear of relegation when it is meaningless. Carry the points deduction forward to next season seems fairer. The National League are yet to announce how they will react to the EFL's final decision. If they elect to have play-offs to League Two but not have any relegation or promotion down the pyramid, then next season there will only be 23 clubs in the National League (because of Bury's demise). Assuming no more clubs fold of course. It is impossible (I think) to find a fair answer and presumably legal wrangles could go beyond the start of next season. But even if there were, I doubt the EFL would take the right option.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on May 22, 2020 17:21:02 GMT
I don't think there will be vacancies down the pyramid ricky.
I'm totally aware that the FA stated there will be no promotions/relegations in steps 3-6 & voided the season at those levels, BUT that does not mean that they won't invite clubs to play in a higher league. They do have a history of fulfilling positions that are contrary to their own rules & then upholding their own decision on appeal!
How they would decide which club would step up to the NL Premier I've no idea etc., but they have brought the problem upon themselves!
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 23, 2020 10:11:28 GMT
But hard to see how 2019/2020 FFP can be anything other than suspended. Actually I think it is relatively straight forward. For an established Championship club like ours, our permissible losses over a three-year rolling period are £39 million. This is calculated from an allowance of £13 million per season. For this season, that permissible loss needs to be adjusted to reflect lost income. A formula based on the number of missed or behind closed doors home matches multiplied by the average home match revenue (ticket sales, sponsorship, food and drink sales etc) would be the starting point. Clubs could then appeal to have any other provable lost revenue included. This way, clubs that have budgeted properly to be FFP compliant still would be, those who have overspent would still fail. I'm sure a similar adjustment will be needed for next season as well.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on May 23, 2020 11:11:42 GMT
But hard to see how 2019/2020 FFP can be anything other than suspended. Actually I think it is relatively straight forward. For an established Championship club like ours, our permissible losses over a three-year rolling period are £39 million. This is calculated from an allowance of £13 million per season. For this season, that permissible loss needs to be adjusted to reflect lost income. A formula based on the number of missed or behind closed doors home matches multiplied by the average home match revenue (ticket sales, sponsorship, food and drink sales etc) would be the starting point. Clubs could then appeal to have any other provable lost revenue included. This way, clubs that have budgeted properly to be FFP compliant still would be, those who have overspent would still fail. I'm sure a similar adjustment will be needed for next season as well. hanks 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....
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on May 23, 2020 14:08:35 GMT
Also, don't even know how you'd argue it/make it quantifiable, but some clubs could argue that their expenditure on transfers in January and/or decisions on contract renewals etc. prior to Covid and (potentially) curtailing the season, were made based on reasonable expectations for their season performance. While FFP is supposed to discourage betting the house on promotion, you could argue there's a pretty big grey area between massively unsustainable spending to have a real crack at promotion and sensibly hedging your bets if you feel you've got a decent shout of challenging for promotion. Likewise, if your decision making is based on staving off a decent chance of getting relegated.
So hypothetically...say you've got a valuable player who's attracting big money offers in January with a year left on their deal and you're flirting with the bottom three. You may reasonably decide to not sell them in January, knowing you'll lose a few million off a fee in the summer, but their impact on keeping you in the division is worth that level of risk. Makes me think of us not selling Austin when his value was at its highest because he was worth more to us in the team than heavily risking relegation without him. If relegation ceases to be a possibility, you've arguably lost money there. Likewise, if you're in the top 8 and in decent form, you may spend cash on a player you wouldn't normally, just to give you that extra push for the second half of the season. Similarly, players may agree to sign extensions on the basis that promotion is looking to be on the cards.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on May 23, 2020 16:09:49 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. 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?
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on May 24, 2020 3:08:09 GMT
This FFP issue should have been dead and buried 5 years ago. Like Warren farm, it is just dragging on and on and on and on and on. FFS, either pay it OR sort it.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on May 24, 2020 10:59:14 GMT
This FFP issue should have been dead and buried 5 years ago. Like Warren farm, it is just dragging on and on and on and on and on. FFS, either pay it OR sort it. I mean in our case, FFP is sorted (or at least, to the extent you can sort something that is a constant, rolling thing to be adhered to). We've sorted and paid (well, paying, on a payment plan) for our breach and are compliant moving forward due to the massive backroom changes put in place, change in transfer policy and slashing the wage budget. I mean Warren Farm has its own thread but that's effectively sorted now by purchasing a different option that wasn't available at the time. I'm sure improvements could have been made in the process, though the amount of legal roadblocks and campaigns put in the way of the Warren Farm acquisition were huge. I'm sure if we had a crystal ball that told us the Imperial Uni property was to become available at an affordable price in 2020, they'd have simply kept the money in the pocket til now, but hindsight is 20/20.
|
|
|
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 rickyqpr on May 26, 2020 7:41:28 GMT
Thanks again Roller for Chapter and Verse as ever. Going back to my Stevenage relegation point above, their Chairmaan is not surprisingly complaining about the EFL Board who overturned the will of the clubs who voted for no relegation from the 4th tier. ruling that it was integral to the integrity of the pyramid.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 11, 2020 15:22:13 GMT
Birmingham City: EFL wins appeal but Blues avoid further points penalty Birmingham City are 16th in the Championship table The English Football League has won its appeal against an independent disciplinary commission's decision to clear Birmingham City of a misconduct charge, reports BBC Radio WM. However, the Championship club will not be deducted any points. Blues were originally cleared on 6 March and a new commission was appointed to hear the EFL's appeal. The charge was brought against the club in relation to an alleged breach of an agreed business plan. That was implemented after Blues were deducted nine points last season for breaching the EFL's profitability and sustainability rules. Blues' nine-point penalty in March 2019 came after incurring losses of nearly £48.8m between 2015 and 2018 - almost £10m more than the accepted adjusted losses of £39m over a three-year period under EFL rules. After initially being cleared of the second charge in March, Birmingham said they had been working "closely and amicably" with the EFL on the matter since May last year. Birmingham will resume league action on 20 June against West Bromwich Albion at The Hawthorns lying 16th in the Championship table - eight points above the relegation zone with nine games remaining. Birmingham City will hope that this latest ruling finally draws a line under a difficult period for the club. The St Andrew's board had strongly contested the charge of breaching the business plan imposed by the EFL. It is worth recalling that the club pleaded guilty to last year's charges, taking a nine-point penalty. They were then restricted to five signings for the season, all of whom had to be free transfers or loans, with limited salaries. Needing to raise further revenue to satisfy the EFL's business plan, they were understandably reluctant to sell key assets such as strikers Che Adams and Isaac Vassell for bargain prices in the January 2019 transfer window, especially with no scope to recruit replacements. Both commanded higher fees when sold in the summer window. Birmingham have paid the penalty for overspending that was largely concentrated on the summer of 2017. After taking on board the lessons from that period of time, they will now have to show that they can continue to live and compete within their means. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53011517
|
|
|
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 rickyqpr on Jun 20, 2020 11:21:19 GMT
I think if Sheffield Wednesday escape serious penalty, then FFP credibility will be critically compromised. But as their case is to be heard next month, before the season concludes, true penalty may be unlikely. If the penalty is of no consequence then it should be carried forward to the following season IMHO. But the Sheffield Wednesday case is potentially as serious as that of the QPR case. Our penalty was purely financial (as was Leicesters) - but subsequent penalties have involved points deductions.
|
|
|
Post by stylecouncillor on Jun 20, 2020 12:52:17 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.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Jun 20, 2020 12:59:03 GMT
I think if Sheffield Wednesday escape serious penalty, then FFP credibility will be critically compromised. But as their case is to be heard next month, before the season concludes, true penalty may be unlikely. If the penalty is of no consequence then it should be carried forward to the following season IMHO. But the Sheffield Wednesday case is potentially as serious as that of the QPR case. Our penalty was purely financial (as was Leicesters) - but subsequent penalties have involved points deductions. Definitely - and sounds like there may well be some more aggravating factors involved for them too (i.e. not only flagrantly breaching it, but then doing a really bad job of fudging things to cover it up...allegedly).
|
|
|
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 londonranger on Jun 21, 2020 16:11:56 GMT
Im staying out out of this. Not being able to score v Barnsley is my top worry.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 24, 2020 20:24:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Jun 25, 2020 8:34:55 GMT
I'm told that the Sheffield Wednesday being represented by Nick de Marco. It is rumoured that he is also in charge of the Derby defence.
The same man who defended us in the Ale Faurlin affair & I believe our FFP appeal.
|
|
|
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 surreychad on Jan 20, 2021 7:54:36 GMT
|
|