Soft Transfer Embargo

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, coneheadjohn said:

Played football like he was 12.

Ouch! ?

[Coneheadjohn]

15 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Worse than Evans?

I’m not getting drawn into that one because it will start drama but it’s an interesting and divisive question?

Would you rather have Julien De Saart Or George Evans at CDM?

Or(as an afterthought)George Thorne as he is now?

[Ghost of Clough]

52 minutes ago, coneheadjohn said:

I’m not sure it isn’t made up?

Like the story we sold Will Hughes for 4 million?

Pretty sure someone pointed out it was £1.9m based on what it says in the accounts (for Rowett, not Hughes ?)

[ilkleyram]

Why is anyone using the word 'loophole' in relation to our selling the ground? It is (was) an asset that belonged to us and like any asset, player or otherwise, we're entitled to sell it whenever we want and to whomsoever we want. Leasing it back afterwards is perfectly legal and perfectly normal business practice done all the time.

'loophole' suggests sharp practice/bending the rules/edges of legality - this is anything but. You can debate whether it was a wise decision but that's a completely different argument. 

[Ramslad1992]

1 hour ago, coneheadjohn said:

I’m not getting drawn into that one because it will start drama but it’s an interesting and divisive question?

Would you rather have Julien De Saart Or George Evans at CDM?

Or(as an afterthought)George Thorne as he is now?

I’d rather have you at CDM mate ?.

[Mafiabob]

Interesting thread to read, what’s depressing that at the current exchange rate it’s less than Derby’s wage bill

[RamNut]

3 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Why is anyone using the word 'loophole' in relation to our selling the ground? It is (was) an asset that belonged to us and like any asset, player or otherwise, we're entitled to sell it whenever we want and to whomsoever we want. Leasing it back afterwards is perfectly legal and perfectly normal business practice done all the time.

'loophole' suggests sharp practice/bending the rules/edges of legality - this is anything but. You can debate whether it was a wise decision but that's a completely different argument. 

Normally when an asset is sold, its a commercial deal with an external party.

i don't pretend to understand this transaction, but the value previously stated apoears to have been @£58m. when the very brief details of the sale were reported, it was stated that we sold a £40m asset for £80m to a company owned by same person who owns the club. I presume there would be no point selling a £40m asset for £40m or even a £58m asset for £58m. The whole raison d'etre seems to be to generate a profit. The £40m profit on the deal then turns a £25m loss into a £15m profit. How this changes our compliance or non-compliance with ffp remains to be seen.

the values are bound to come under scrutiny. Its a very unusual deal.

if the value was £58m, and the sale £80m then the £22m profit would have turned the £25m loss into a £3m loss. Presumably this has a significant effect on our ffp compliance / non-compliance.

assuming that the sale of the ground is indeed relevant to ffp then the figures will matter.

Now......it may all be perfectly valid but it is surely understandable that other clubs aren't happy.

i read that at a meeting of the EfL clubs in Nottingham to discuss ffp, some clubs allegedly directed their anger at derby and i wondered why. 

Presumably this is why. 

 

[Comrade 86]

11 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Normally when an asset is sold, its a commercial deal with an external party.

the values are bound to come under scrutiny. Its a very unusual deal.

i read that at a meeting of the EfL clubs in Nottingham to discuss ffp, some clubs allegedly directed their anger at derby and i wondered why. 

Presumably this is why. 

 

Not sure either of the bolded statements are really factual...

https://www.propertyweek.com/news-analysis/who-owns-premier-league-stadiums/5090883.article

As for other clubs throwing hissy fits, I wonder how many of the outraged few will be doing likewise in the very near future...

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

Normally when an asset is sold, its a commercial deal with an external party.

i don't pretend to understand this transaction, but the value previously stated apoears to have been @£58m. when the very brief details of the sale were reported, it was stated that we sold a £40m asset for £80m to a company owned by same person who owns the club. I presume there would be no point selling a £40m asset for £40m or even a £58m asset for £58m. The whole raison d'etre seems to be to generate a profit. The £40m profit on the deal then turns a £25m loss into a £15m profit. How this changes our compliance or non-compliance with ffp remains to be seen.

the values are bound to come under scrutiny. Its a very unusual deal.

if the value was £58m, and the sale £80m then the £22m profit would have turned the £25m loss into a £3m loss. Presumably this has a significant effect on our ffp compliance / non-compliance.

assuming that the sale of the ground is indeed relevant to ffp then the figures will matter.

Now......it may all be perfectly valid but it is surely understandable that other clubs aren't happy.

i read that at a meeting of the EfL clubs in Nottingham to discuss ffp, some clubs allegedly directed their anger at derby and i wondered why. 

Presumably this is why. 

 

You make my point for me Ramnut, reinforced by 86points' link.

This is not an unusual deal, nor on the face of it is it exploiting any 'loophole'. It is perfectly normal practice in business, and football, for the stadium to be owned by a different company from the football side of the business. You could do the same with the training ground and any other asset that the club owns. That the ownership of the two companies might be the same is immaterial - from the point of view of exploiting a 'loophole' - and the two companies are separate from each other and can trade with each other and reach agreements perfectly properly (so long as they trade within the law).

You can argue - and no doubt Boro are doing so - that the value that was paid was inflated. Two points on that. The value in the books is not necessarily the same as what someone is prepared to pay for an asset. And secondly, I would be very surprised if Mel and Stephen Pearce didn't anticipate someone from the EFL questioning what was paid, never mind anyone else.  If they haven't got independent valuations on the deal that stand up to external scrutiny then I would be amazed. Bear in mind that this deal was done months ago and I would be pretty certain that the EFL would have been told about it then.

The last company I worked for before I retired had over 500 different legal entities all trading with each other, all producing annual accounts, all with their own directors. There were lots of reasons why but prime amongst them were tax benefits and regulatory benefits. All perfectly legal and above board. There were also similar deals to the one Mel has set up. Looking at it from the outside you would just see one brand, one company.

You can argue that it's an unwise move to sell the ground (though that depends upon the deal), you can argue that in selling our biggest asset we are in a potentially weaker position at some unknown point in the future and you might even argue that Mel has overpaid (and that might be a good thing for the football club) but using the word 'loophole' to imply some kind of shady dealing is wrong (and I don't think that you have used the word, though you may tell me differently).

[RamNut]

@ilkleyram

i hear what you say. You may even be right. As i said....."it may all be perfectly valid".

but....a few points:

I don't think that i have used the term loophole.(just stating that before myth becomes fact)

if this is all hunky dory, business as usual then why are middlesbro and others unhappy?

My own gripe is really.....Why was this not announced previously? At the time of the sale or at the forum if it was relevant to our compliance with ffp. And......whether its legitimate or not, the underlying issue appears to be one of poor financial discipline.

If you're right then we having nothing to fear from scrutiny and the soft transfer embargo will soon be lifted.

 

 

[RamNut]

Ditto. A few gremlins.

 

 

[Coneheadjohn]

7 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Pretty sure someone pointed out it was £1.9m based on what it says in the accounts (for Rowett, not Hughes ?)

I know mate,it’s just difficult to believe still.

[Ellafella]

9 hours ago, coneheadjohn said:

I’m not sure it isn’t made up?

Like the story we sold Will Hughes for 4 million?

Yep. That still sounds ridiculously cheap. 

[IlsonDerby]

12 hours ago, Nick_Ram said:

Which arguably we have also broken.

Paragraph 3.4 of Section 2 – Membership states: “In all matters and transactions relating to The League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and The League with the utmost good faith.”

It could easily be argued that exploiting FFP breaks the rule above. I personally don't care, but I wouldn't be surprised to see retrospective action from the Football League.

This winds me up about the whole thing. Mel had it independently valued, he didn’t just pluck a figure out of thin air and pump that into the club. Has Gibson got this problem with all clubs who don’t own their own ground or just those that are A threat to their play off bid? 

He’s paying flint and assombalonga around 100k a week between them and wants to talk about fair. 

11 hours ago, coneheadjohn said:

I’m not getting drawn into that one because it will start drama but it’s an interesting and divisive question?

Would you rather have Julien De Saart Or George Evans at CDM?

Or(as an afterthought)George Thorne as he is now?

De Saart. He’d have developed. 

[ilkleyram]

7 hours ago, RamNut said:

@ilkleyram

i hear what you say. You may even be right. As i said....."it may all be perfectly valid".

but....a few points:

I don't think that i have used the term loophole.(just stating that before myth becomes fact)

if this is all hunky dory, business as usual then why are middlesbro and others unhappy?

My own gripe is really.....Why was this not announced previously? At the time of the sale or at the forum if it was relevant to our compliance with ffp. And......whether its legitimate or not, the underlying issue appears to be one of poor financial discipline.

If you're right then we having nothing to fear from scrutiny and the soft transfer embargo will soon be lifted.

 

 

I've no idea why Boro and co are unhappy - they wouldn't complain if we had sold players and made ourselves weaker and players are just as much assests as the ground and the training ground. I suspect that they are either bothered about the amount paid or that we had the ability to do so to get us out of a financial hole.

Because this is where you and I completely agree. I think Mel should have announced it at the last Forum. It's big news. But we now know why they were able to say confidently that we would be within P and S guidelines so early.

And we also agree about financial discipline - and so do Mel and Pearce, which is why Mel referred at the Forum to having made mistakes and why they made a big deal about the cost of those players who hadn't contributed. Any business that spends more than its income on wages alone is not being managed well. Mel has been guilty of supporting a succession of managers and thinking like a fan - laudable in many ways but unsustainable. I suspect that Stephen Pearce has had some behind the scenes influence over time. It's why I hate with a passion the likes of Ramage and his 'go on Mel look down the back of the settee and find the money for a centre half'. We've been making that gamble for several seasons and he is too stupid to realise it.

The good news is that we appear to have a manager who knows and accepts what the situation is, that we have over this season and next the opportunity to move on/not renew the contracts of a number of the high earners that will give us some financial control back, that selling the ground gives us some (not much) financial room to manoeuvre (but we can only do that once) and that we appear to have a couple of younger players coming through who might be able to fill some of the gaps. We (the fans) have also helped by renewing season tickets in greater numbers. 

But. In my view this season (18/19) is not the transitional season on the pitch. It's next season (19/20). If we are able to buy/free transfer/loan well, if we have luck with injuries and form, if the young players match their promise (like Bogle has done) and if we have some luck then we could be OK. But there are a lot of ifs in that sentence and a lot of strong and financially strong clubs to compete with. Should be fun.

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I've no idea why Boro and co are unhappy - they wouldn't complain if we had sold players and made ourselves weaker and players are just as much assests as the ground and the training ground. I suspect that they are either bothered about the amount paid or that we had the ability to do so to get us out of a financial hole.

Because this is where you and I completely agree. I think Mel should have announced it at the last Forum. It's big news. But we now know why they were able to say confidently that we would be within P and S guidelines so early.

And we also agree about financial discipline - and so do Mel and Pearce, which is why Mel referred at the Forum to having made mistakes and why they made a big deal about the cost of those players who hadn't contributed. Any business that spends more than its income on wages alone is not being managed well. Mel has been guilty of supporting a succession of managers and thinking like a fan - laudable in many ways but unsustainable. I suspect that Stephen Pearce has had some behind the scenes influence over time. It's why I hate with a passion the likes of Ramage and his 'go on Mel look down the back of the settee and find the money for a centre half'. We've been making that gamble for several seasons and he is too stupid to realise it.

The good news is that we appear to have a manager who knows and accepts what the situation is, that we have over this season and next the opportunity to move on/not renew the contracts of a number of the high earners that will give us some financial control back, that selling the ground gives us some (not much) financial room to manoeuvre (but we can only do that once) and that we appear to have a couple of younger players coming through who might be able to fill some of the gaps. We (the fans) have also helped by renewing season tickets in greater numbers. 

But. In my view this season (18/19) is not the transitional season on the pitch. It's next season (19/20). If we are able to buy/free transfer/loan well, if we have luck with injuries and form, if the young players match their promise (like Bogle has done) and if we have some luck then we could be OK. But there are a lot of ifs in that sentence and a lot of strong and financially strong clubs to compete with. Should be fun.

 

in 2016-2017 it was thought to be 2017-2018 that would be the transitional season.

 

the date of that season gets kicked down the road as much as the Brexit date.......?

[Archied]

11 hours ago, RamNut said:

@ilkleyram

i hear what you say. You may even be right. As i said....."it may all be perfectly valid".

but....a few points:

I don't think that i have used the term loophole.(just stating that before myth becomes fact)

if this is all hunky dory, business as usual then why are middlesbro and others unhappy?

My own gripe is really.....Why was this not announced previously? At the time of the sale or at the forum if it was relevant to our compliance with ffp. And......whether its legitimate or not, the underlying issue appears to be one of poor financial discipline.

If you're right then we having nothing to fear from scrutiny and the soft transfer embargo will soon be lifted.

 

 

Jeez ramnut anybody would think you don’t want our. Owner to do everything he possibly can to help us compete financially with these parachute multi millions clubs

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Am I the only person concerned by Frank's comments regarding the embargo, or am I reading to much into it?

He says he wants to see how it develops into the summer because we as a club need to strengthen due to so many players leaving.  They don't sound like the words of a man that isn't concerned by the embargo.

Maybe more to this than many of us hope?

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Am I the only person concerned by Frank's comments regarding the embargo, or am I reading to much into it?

He says he wants to see how it develops into the summer because we as a club need to strengthen due to so many players leaving.  They don't sound like the words of a man that isn't concerned by the embargo.

Maybe more to this than many of us hope?

Not seen frank comment

[Srg]

3 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Am I the only person concerned by Frank's comments regarding the embargo, or am I reading to much into it?

He says he wants to see how it develops into the summer because we as a club need to strengthen due to so many players leaving.  They don't sound like the words of a man that isn't concerned by the embargo.

Maybe more to this than many of us hope?

Exact quotes...

"Obviously, I am massively interested in how it goes across to the summer because we want to know what business we can do. We need to do business in the summer because of the players we are losing who are out of contract."

He preceded this, by saying "I have only read and heard reports of a soft transfer embargo."