Soft Transfer Embargo

[DCFC1388]

According to John Percy we are under a soft transfer embargo so cannot register Shinnie yet 

[Topram]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/15/middlesbrough-chairman-steve-gibson-pushes-efl-investigate-rivals/

[DcFc Dyycheee]

Looks like they've updated the article.

They've added

[JfR]

What exactly is a "soft" transfer embargo? 

[Millenniumram]

Always a concern to be under investigation, naturally if we were to be pulled up quite rightly all hell would break lose over the running of the club and we’d be in a serious situation. Fortunately the update to that article suggests this ain’t too much to worry about and everything will be cleared soon enough to allow shinnies arrival. Seems to just be Gibson talking out his arse from what I can see, have we not also had to sell players? Vydra? Hendrick? Hughes? Ince? They all still here? Exactly, we’ve barely made a transfer loss for years so no idea what he’s on about.

[Van der MoodHoover]

Gibson can naff off. Boro have gambled far bigger than the Rams and were lucky enough to land on the right side.

Losses of £31.9m declared in 2016-17 to gain promotion. Lucky that karanka shithoused them up....

 

 

[rynny]

Think someone is worried his team might be missing out on the play offs. 

[Nuwtfly]

A soft transfer embargo. My word. 

[ariotofmyown]

9 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

A soft transfer embargo. My word. 

No embargo is better than a bad embargo.

[RamNut]

Lets be honest......it is sort of cheating.

for a start the price paid is summat like £20m more than the asset was previously valued at.

 

[LB_DCFC]

6 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Lets be honest......it is sort of cheating.

for a start the price paid is summat like £20m more than the asset was previously valued at.

 

I'm pretty sure that Derby would've got the ground independently valued and sold it for that, otherwise it does leave the club open for some scrutiny.  It is sort of cheating, and you can criticise the ethics behind it I guess, but if isn't explicitly against the rules, what's the point of adhering to a rule that isn't there?

[Duracell]

"Soft embargo." The language of football has finally entered oxymoronic territory. 

[Ambitious]

29 minutes ago, LB_DCFC said:

I'm pretty sure that Derby would've got the ground independently valued and sold it for that, otherwise it does leave the club open for some scrutiny.  It is sort of cheating, and you can criticise the ethics behind it I guess, but if isn't explicitly against the rules, what's the point of adhering to a rule that isn't there?

FFP (P&S) isn't exactly 'ethical' though, it's sold on the premise that it will stop clubs from going under, yet it creates a huge financial gap between those teams that have parachute payments and those that don't. Consequently, in my opinion, it's stopped Championship and lower league clubs from being an attractive proposition for potential buyers, who potentially would invest money to gain promotion. They can't invest the money due to regulations, so it makes it difficult. We've got it good with a local fan, decent size following, etc. 

All said and done, I'd imagine this 'soft embargo' which will be lifted by the end of the week is simply due process for the P&S overlords to go through our processed accounts. I wouldn't believe it's anything to worry about. 

[Ramslad1992]

42 minutes ago, LB_DCFC said:

I'm pretty sure that Derby would've got the ground independently valued and sold it for that, otherwise it does leave the club open for some scrutiny.  It is sort of cheating, and you can criticise the ethics behind it I guess, but if isn't explicitly against the rules, what's the point of adhering to a rule that isn't there?

We’ve found a loophole and exploited it... a new rule will probably come in to force to stop it happening again but if we hadn’t have exploited it another team would have. Pleased it was us personally.

[JfR]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, and please correct me if I am, but isn't the scenario effectively as follows:

• Mel Morris owns Derby as a company
• Mel Morris also owns a separate company
• Derby used to own the stadium as an asset
• Derby have sold the stadium to Mel's other company
• Derby now make no money off the stadium and have lost it's worth as an asset from their accounts
• Mel's other company now makes the money from the stadium, but must also provide for it's upkeep
• The money made from the other company cannot just be pumped back into Derby, either directly as the stadium-owning company is a separate entity to Derby, or indirectly through Mel as there are limits put in place by the governing bodies on the level of investment an owner can make into a club
• As such Mel's ownership of both companies is irrelevant as they are separate entities with restrictions in place to stop the free flow of money between them

Because if that's right, then I can't really see any difference between what Derby have done and what countless other clubs have done when they have sold their ground to other parties, and can't really understand why it should be stopped or how it could be stopped. I don't see selling an asset to another company as a "dodge" of the rules just because the owner owns that other company when he's restricted to what he can invest from that other company into Derby.

If there's something I'm missing here though, then please someone run it by me.

[RamNut]

Amazing to think that the ground - even when valued at £80m ??? - just pays the wages for this lot for 2 years.

 

[Comrade 86]

Oh gawd. Here we go again.

If leveraging an asset is cheating then presumably it would not be allowed. If it is allowed, then how can it be cheating?

Furthermore, the valuation will clearly be independently assessed and scrutinised as part on the ongoing investigation, so before we start bandying around words like 'cheating', how about we just sit tight and await the outcome? 

[RamNut]

The purpose of ffp is get finances to be sustainable. We have increased our wages and made a £25m loss prior to this move.

(The value of the asset was recorded at a lot less than £80m). 

[G STAR RAM]

6 hours ago, JfR said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, and please correct me if I am, but isn't the scenario effectively as follows:

• Mel Morris owns Derby as a company
• Mel Morris also owns a separate company
• Derby used to own the stadium as an asset
• Derby have sold the stadium to Mel's other company
• Derby now make no money off the stadium and have lost it's worth as an asset from their accounts
• Mel's other company now makes the money from the stadium, but must also provide for it's upkeep
• The money made from the other company cannot just be pumped back into Derby, either directly as the stadium-owning company is a separate entity to Derby, or indirectly through Mel as there are limits put in place by the governing bodies on the level of investment an owner can make into a club
• As such Mel's ownership of both companies is irrelevant as they are separate entities with restrictions in place to stop the free flow of money between them

Because if that's right, then I can't really see any difference between what Derby have done and what countless other clubs have done when they have sold their ground to other parties, and can't really understand why it should be stopped or how it could be stopped. I don't see selling an asset to another company as a "dodge" of the rules just because the owner owns that other company when he's restricted to what he can invest from that other company into Derby.

If there's something I'm missing here though, then please someone run it by me.

I'd be absolutely amazed if the money made from the stadium now went through the company in which the stadium is held. 

That money will continue to be through the club with the club paying a rent of what looks to be in the region of  £1m per year to their new Landlord.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

The purpose of ffp is get finances to be sustainable. We have increased our wages and made a £25m loss prior to this move.

(The value of the asset was recorded at a lot less than £80m). 

The ground was last valued in 2013, I assume if you was selling your house you'd go on its current valuation rather than its value 6 years ago?

Not going to argue with the ethics of what we have done but I'm pretty sure the valuation will have had to have been carried out independently and in accordance with RICS practice plus the auditors would have to have been satisfied with the evidence of this or made comments to the contrary.