Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DCFC1388

Soft Transfer Embargo

Recommended Posts

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 

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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) .

Edited by LB_DCFC

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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...?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 😜

Edited by LazloW

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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!

Edited by BramcoteRam84

Share this post


Link to post
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'?

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.