NottsRam77 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 29 minutes ago, richinspain said: I was thinking pretty much the same. What is earned by a business renting a property isn't split with the owner, however maintainance costs may be? Agree, but in theory that could be down to the owner to maintain which could be to Derby’s benefit ? or vice Versa I’m sure mel is aware this a grey area and there to be manipulated as he see fit ... clever accounting and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamLad1884 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Loopholes in FFP have been around since it came in. Forest were sponsored by its owner's company, Villa have written off loans as equity, Wolves made some absolutely bizzare loan signings and Watford used a sister club. we've just found yet another loophole and exploited it. No doubt it'll be outlawed after we've gotten away with it this year like more of the loopholes were. Admittedly it was a sneaky move maybe even unethical, but any club in the position to do so would have done the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 10 hours ago, Duracell said: "Soft embargo." The language of football has finally entered oxymoronic territory. You are 110% right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB_DCFC Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Nick_Ram said: All the posts regarding finding loopholes and exploiting them, not necessarily breaking rules etc... Did you have the same views on spygate? I personally did. You can scrutinise the ethics behind it, and I understand if you do, but until there's a specific rule against something then I'm not going to question you that much (and I thought the rule they got done on, bringing the game into disrepute or something along those lines is too vague anyway) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, LazloW said: To echo previous comments... while I’m not particularly comfortable with the stadium being in separate ownership to the club, I can’t see how selling an asset to ensure financial sustainability can be against the rules or even considered to be a loophole. If we sold a player for £10m to balance the books then we would have sold an asset. Essentially the same thing as selling the ground (at least as far as the EFL are concerned I should think). Leeds spying on training has however been found to be against the rules (rightly or wrongly), so it is a bit different. It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 12 hours ago, JfR said: What exactly is a "soft" transfer embargo? It’s something that is not as bad as a semi or hard one lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 28 minutes ago, Leveller said: It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. good grief it's not a made up figure, independently provided. Boro have benefited from parachute payments and I am pretty certain they will use the strategy themselves unless they have already borrowed money against it. Out of interest do BCFC own their ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 30 minutes ago, Leveller said: It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. Or was the stadium vastly under valued in the accounts...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazloW Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 34 minutes ago, Leveller said: It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. Something is only worth what somebody else is willing to pay for it... if Mel desperately wanted to buy the stadium, but Mel was playing hardball over the price then Mel will have had to go above market value to get it. Seller’s market and I bet Mel is a tough negotiator ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 35 minutes ago, Leveller said: Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. "Taken the mickey"... are you having a laugh, we've had to sell the likes of Hendrick, Hughes, Ince & Vydra and have barely had a transfer net spend for 2 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 35 minutes ago, Leveller said: It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. A quick check indicates you guys have borrowed £50m secured against the stadium? Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BramcoteRam84 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Leveller said: Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. Seem to recall Derby have sold Ince Hughes Hendrick and Vydra in recent years to try and stay within FFP. Hardly taking the mickey is it?! Boro have spent £15m and 60k per week on Assombalonga, big money on Brathwaite Saville Flint and others, now it’s backfired they need to sell but still supported by parachute payments so don’t need to cut to the same level as Derby. Boro can hardly whinge and claim it’s an unfair playing field when it’s rigged in their favour. Middlesborough have ducked up and now they’re trying to take other clubs with them. Sour grapes and really hope they fail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BramcoteRam84 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 54 minutes ago, Carnero said: "Taken the mickey"... are you having a laugh, we've had to sell the likes of Hendrick, Hughes, Ince & Vydra and have barely had a transfer net spend for 2 seasons. Bang on! We’ve sold our best players for the past 3 seasons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Leveller said: It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. so it seems that BCFC don't own their ground, it is owned by one of the owners companies Incorporated in the 'tax haven' of Guernsey. They pay rent on it. The company owning the ground have borrowed £50m for ground improvements. So unless you can prove me wrong, BCFC have already been down this route with a connected party transaction and by comparison our ground valuation hardly seems dubious. On this basis how have we taken the 'mickey'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafiabob Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said: Bang on! We’ve sold our best players for the past 3 seasons! Some would say it was justified as they didn’t smile or celebrate enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tibbs Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said: Bang on! We’ve sold our best players for the past 3 seasons! I guess peoples argument is that whilst we've got rid of our better players we've spent those earnings and increased the wage bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 15 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said: Bang on! We’ve sold our best players for the past 3 seasons! Won't happen this summer! Can't sell your best players if they didn't belong to you in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Leveller said: It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it. We’ve sold major players each of the past 3 seasons and haven’t recorded a net transfer loss since 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslad1992 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 5 hours ago, Nick_Ram said: All the posts regarding finding loopholes and exploiting them, not necessarily breaking rules etc... Did you have the same views on spygate? I honestly didn’t see the issue with spygate... again there was no rule against it... frowned upon yes but not against the rules per-say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: May be wrong but I am pretty sure planning permissions can significantly increase the value of land and buildings. This ,if the proposed extension to the East Stand [ shopping leisure / area]had planning permission then the increased value would be feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.