Trouble ahead?

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

The whole idea of FFP is to be a fair way of ensuring clubs can live within their means whilst still competing,

Not quite - there is a misconception that it's a method to try and stop some clubs spending more than others. They've even renamed it from "Financial Fair Play" to "Profitability & Sustainability". It's main purpose is to stop clubs going bust by making reckless financial decisions in the pursuit of promotion - the "fairness" element was always a bit of a misnomer. The small clubs coming up from League One were never going to be able to compete in the spending stakes against those with parachute payments and the clubs with massive fanbases.  Bottom line is that Mel hasn't done anything reckless here, here's just re-aligned the club's financial structure to ensure we sustain our financial stability. 

[Day]

12 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Not to mention West Ham.....

Or Man City, they paid £20m whilst the council paid £22m just to convert it into a football stadium, 250 year lease at £2m a year, plus £2m to control the naming rights which they and sold along with their shirt sponsorship to Etihad for £400m over 10 years. 

Or even Real Madrid that sold they training ground to the city for £334m, not to mention they got the land in the first place well below market value.

You even have PSG offering Napoli a Qatar Airways shirt sponsorship to buy Allen on the cheap.

Yet here’s the “unethical” Derby County in the Championship “cheating” because we sold our stadium for a price that was independently valued, no different to Sheff Wed or Reading have done, although our position in the table has attracted the spotline which Steve Gibson pointed in our directed as he finds himself in a half empty Riverside Stadium watching Tony Pulis somehow guide his team to score fewer goals than Rotherham United after blowing all his parachute money.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, HantsRam said:

Gibson could just flog the riverside to one of his other group companies and give pulis the profits to invest in some more 8ft sauropods if that's what's grinding his gears. It's all legit.?

 

Did someone say sauropods?

[Animal is a Ram]

3 hours ago, RamNut said:

No-one has yet explained how a £60m asset becomes a £40m asset sold for £80m generating a £40m profit.

Another issue seems to be the date at which this took place and which financial year it was in.

and finally, how the values were derived.

 

the efl must presumably be happy with it, in which case are we or are we not in a transfer emargo?

To an outsider, whether or not it is legit, it does seem to make a mockery of the financial regulations.

FFP is really struggling for credibility in many aspects.

This has been explained, to death.

The £41m valuation came from an old set of accounts. Potentially even when there was still a mortgage on the place?
Pride Park Stadium was independently valued at £80m. This will be standard practise, as with any property sale. A number of things have changed around PPS since the last valuation. Planning permission for a number of things, the big screen, perimeter boards, dugout improvements, sound 'improvements', The Yard, The Backyard (which, won't be business value but lease value) to name but a few. Let alone inflation.

I haven't read the accounts to know when this transaction took place, but clearly it falls within the last set of accounts, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The sale/rent back is not uncommon in football. In fact, it seems pretty rare for a club to own its stadium directly.

I'm not naive. I understand why it looks dodgy or unethical. But Mel is no cowboy, he and Stephen Pearce will have ensured it is watertight, and the fact that the League, or their independent auditors, and all but one of our competitors aren't (publicly) bothered by it would suggest all is above board.

Gibson should look closer to home. Parachute payments are not being used as intended, and make life difficult for those who don't have that advantage. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

I personally think parachute payments should only be allowed to be spent on liabilities taken on whilst in the Premier League. Contracts and transfers of existing squad etc, not £££££ to go mount your promotion challenge.

The intention of parachute payments was to stop clubs going into meltdown after relegation NOT to help them get back up because thays the way the Prem like it.

[cannable]

3 hours ago, Gritty said:

As an alternative view, what we've done is unethical and completely against the spirit of the rules.  Might comply with the 'letter' but certainly not the spirit. To my mind we have cheated because we've found a way to spend more than we were really entitled to. 

 

[Sith Happens]

50 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I personally think parachute payments should only be allowed to be spent on liabilities taken on whilst in the Premier League. Contracts and transfers of existing squad etc, not £££££ to go mount your promotion challenge.

The intention of parachute payments was to stop clubs going into meltdown after relegation NOT to help them get back up because thays the way the Prem like it.

Great post. Yes exactly. The purpose of parachute payments in my view is to make sure clubs 'give it a go' at staying up. Otherwise if there were none clubs would hardly spend.

Cardiff have hardly spent, will probably come down but be in a great position next season (in theory).

 

 

[Spanish]

29 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Great post. Yes exactly. The purpose of parachute payments in my view is to make sure clubs 'give it a go' at staying up. Otherwise if there were none clubs would hardly spend.

Cardiff have hardly spent, will probably come down but be in a great position next season (in theory).

 

 

well they have possibly spent a load on a guy that unfortunately will never play for them

[Sith Happens]

Pulis is at it now in his press conference today.

If the likes of Gibson/Pulis are actually naming Derby, or other clubs, as cheats, unless they can prove it they should be charged by the EFL.

 

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Pulis is at it now in his press conference today.

If the likes of Gibson/Pulis are actually naming Derby, or other clubs, as cheats, unless they can prove it they should be charged by the EFL.

 

well in a way they are claiming that EFL are not properly enforcing the rules really

[Animal is a Ram]

Quote

 

"Obviously Steve is one of many owners in the Championship who are not happy with the rules being broken by certain clubs so he’s got that on his plate at the moment."

 

The direct quote.

To say we have broken a rule is factually wrong, as the EFL - so far - are happy with what we have done and how. Unless Tony knows more than the EFL themselves?

 

[jono]

On 25/04/2019 at 13:32, G STAR RAM said:

Being a bit lazy here, but have their been articles or videos of Gibson actually accusing us or is it all paper talk?

This does make me wonder. Everything I have heard about Gibson over the years both at Boro and in his business ethics has always been more than complimentary. It doesn’t sound like his sort of tactic. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, Animal is a Ram said:

The direct quote.

To say we have broken a rule is factually wrong, as the EFL - so far - are happy with what we have done and how. Unless Tony knows more than the EFL themselves?

 

Who are these "many owners" - these paragons of fiscal virtue?

 

Not the Greek guy from down the road surely........?

[RamNut]

7 hours ago, Animal is a Ram said:

This has been explained, to death.

The £41m valuation came from an old set of accounts. Potentially even when there was still a mortgage on the place?
Pride Park Stadium was independently valued at £80m. This will be standard practise, as with any property sale. A number of things have changed around PPS since the last valuation. Planning permission for a number of things, the big screen, perimeter boards, dugout improvements, sound 'improvements', The Yard, The Backyard (which, won't be business value but lease value) to name but a few. Let alone inflation.

I haven't read the accounts to know when this transaction took place, but clearly it falls within the last set of accounts, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The sale/rent back is not uncommon in football. In fact, it seems pretty rare for a club to own its stadium directly.

I'm not naive. I understand why it looks dodgy or unethical. But Mel is no cowboy, he and Stephen Pearce will have ensured it is watertight, and the fact that the League, or their independent auditors, and all but one of our competitors aren't (publicly) bothered by it would suggest all is above board.

Gibson should look closer to home. Parachute payments are not being used as intended, and make life difficult for those who don't have that advantage. 

What a load of  owd cobblers.

the £60m valuation comes from the accounts . Therefore the rest of what you have put is rowlocks. I love the idea that the dug out improvements have made a difference. Proper made me laff that one.

[hintonsboots]

10 minutes ago, RamNut said:

What a load of  owd cobblers.

the £60m valuation comes from the accounts . Therefore the rest of what you have put is rowlocks. I love the idea that the dug out improvements have made a difference. Proper made me laff that one.

The dug outs were designed by Damien Hurst.....

[Ghost of Clough]

15 minutes ago, RamNut said:

What a load of  owd cobblers.

the £60m valuation comes from the accounts . Therefore the rest of what you have put is rowlocks. I love the idea that the dug out improvements have made a difference. Proper made me laff that one.

How did you deduct that when everyone else sees c£40m? ?

[Sith Happens]

I don't get how 80 million is considered too much. Considering the cost of spurs stadium at 1 billion i would think to build pp today would be circa 200 million 

[Pearl Ram]

Landan prices innit geezer, everyfings dearer dahn the smoke. 

[ram59]

The way the club's accounts are done is complicated for us normal people. 

Much is being of the £39m 'profit' on the stadium. People are asking how could the value be suddenly doubled, It hasn't. 

The club has to have the stadium revalued at least once every 5 years. The valuation in December 2007 revalued the stadium at £55m, so £80m in 2018 doesn't seem to be far out. 

Each year the stadium buildings depreciate in the accounts by a few million which reduces the net value. That is why the value on the books was so low, compared to the selling price. 

That's the way I understand it anyway. 

[RamNut]

2 hours ago, ram59 said:

The way the club's accounts are done is complicated for us normal people. 

Much is being of the £39m 'profit' on the stadium. People are asking how could the value be suddenly doubled, It hasn't. 

The club has to have the stadium revalued at least once every 5 years. The valuation in December 2007 revalued the stadium at £55m, so £80m in 2018 doesn't seem to be far out. 

Each year the stadium buildings depreciate in the accounts by a few million which reduces the net value. That is why the value on the books was so low, compared to the selling price. 

That's the way I understand it anyway. 

Sorry, but the  valuation wasn't in 2007. Jones Lang Lasalle undertook the valuation on 23 may 2013 and on the basis of that valuation adjusted accordingly , the valuation in the accounts for the period ending june 2017  - including the development of the Yard is - @£59.3m

 

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

How did you deduct that when everyone else sees c£40m? ?

Because that is what it states. Show me where you get £40m. 

thats the nub of the issue -  how did a £59.3m asset become valued at £40m (a year later?) with a pricetag of £80m?