Day Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 15 minutes ago, 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? No quotes directly from himself in the papers, but Tony Pulis used his programme notes to take aim without mentioning specific clubs. Quote In his programme notes before last month’s game against Norwich, Middlesbrough manager Tony Pulis wrote: “Steve has worked hard to abide by the EFL’s financial rules, but it’s clear that a number of clubs aren’t, and that simply cannot be right. “Birmingham’s nine-point deduction should set a precedent now for those other clubs who are not complying with the rules. “Over the past year here, we have brought money in through the sales of players and reduced the wages, and we have cut our cloth accordingly. “Yet at the same time, there are others in apparent breach of the rules, and that cannot be right.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/23/middlesbrough-owner-steve-gibson-step-dispute-rival-championship/ Also Quote A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work and second-guess their FFP [Financial Fair Play] findings. “Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the league into disrepute. “We all realised after discussion that we need to leave non-sporting matters to the EFL. It is right to let the authorities do their job and not have interference from people with ulterior motives.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/24/championship-clubs-rejectmiddlesbrough-owner-steve-gibsons-proposal/ Derby clearly feel an accusation has been made about us by Boro, why else would we offer to let them look at our accounts? If this hasn’t come from Gibson, who at Boro would have made accusations without Gibson’s backing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbob Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, David said: No quotes directly from himself in the papers, but Tony Pulis used his programme notes to take aim without mentioning specific clubs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/23/middlesbrough-owner-steve-gibson-step-dispute-rival-championship/ Also https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/24/championship-clubs-rejectmiddlesbrough-owner-steve-gibsons-proposal/ Derby clearly feel an accusation has been made about us by Boro, why else would we offer to let them look at our accounts? If this hasn’t come from Gibson, who at Boro would have made accusations without Gibson’s backing? We're we (Derby) represented at this meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, bigbadbob said: We're we (Derby) represented at this meeting? All clubs are represented, although some send a bigger guy to hide behind. Reminds me of the kid at school who used to shout all kinds of stuff to the older kids, minute they came over to confront him he hid behind the taller one of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 25 minutes ago, bigbadbob said: We're we (Derby) represented at this meeting? Mel and Stephen Pearce went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Gibson proves he is only interested in spouting off rather than viewing the facts. Probably because he knows the facts will blow his toy throwing apart Clearly cut from the same cloth as warnock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrisoner Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Take it he didn’t attend after realising what a grave error he’d made. Like sending a text to an ex thinking the grass is greener! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Ram Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 John Percy in today’s paper: The attempt by Steve Gibson, the Middlesbrough owner, to force an independent review of Championship clubs’ finances was rejected yesterday. Following a six-hour meeting in Nottingham, Gibson’s proposal was overturned by the “majority” of the Championship. Gibson is unhappy with the conduct of Derby County, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday, after insisting they could be breaching the profitability and sustainability rules. Gibson is frustrated that Derby owner Mel Morris was allowed to buy then lease back Pride Park to ensure the club recorded a profit in their 2017-18 accounts. At yesterday’s meeting, Gibson raised the prospect of the English Football League appointing accountants to review clubs’ finances. A senior executive present at the meeting, said: “The EFL finance team did such a superb presentation on their processes and policies that everyone realised it was totally unnecessary to question their work. Taking potshots at clubs’ accounts when on-field results go badly, if encouraged, will lead to a free-for-all which will bring the League into disrepute.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Seems to me gison was onto a loser, mostly because even "if" they all thought there was something fishy, everybody also didn't want the fine toothed going into how they'd all met FFP (and etc). Gibson is a model chairman in so many ways, sensibly running Boro for years and years, kind of disappointed in this manoeuvre from him, which seems out of character he's usually low key, sensible type (seems, I don't follow Boro particularly closely). Do we have and visiting smoggies want to give a view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 Theres tons of stuff online mainly reported by the daily telegraph and the northern gazette. From it, you can see - unsurprisingly- boris issues are the same as ours more or less. - reduced losses to 6m odd last year by curtailing transfer market activity to fit inside the 3 year ffp 39m number, which they seem to have just about managed - spent big under monk to gamble on quick promotion - revenue collapsing as parachute payments run out - wage bill over 30m which is unsustainable - the football club own the riverside and the training ground with the costs of running both over 14m per annum. Unlike mel, Gibson runs a business group which makes money from haulage and this has historically been used to fund the football club by 1m per month. Bottom line is we've been saved by the stadium transaction (and if we put more farm into a separate company that would be helpful). But they've pee'd away parachute payments. So he can still naff off.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irobinson Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 Yeah Smog on Gibson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 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.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inglorius Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 1 hour ago, HantsRam said: Theres tons of stuff online mainly reported by the daily telegraph and the northern gazette. From it, you can see - unsurprisingly- boris issues are the same as ours more or less. - reduced losses to 6m odd last year by curtailing transfer market activity to fit inside the 3 year ffp 39m number, which they seem to have just about managed - spent big under monk to gamble on quick promotion - revenue collapsing as parachute payments run out - wage bill over 30m which is unsustainable - the football club own the riverside and the training ground with the costs of running both over 14m per annum. Unlike mel, Gibson runs a business group which makes money from haulage and this has historically been used to fund the football club by 1m per month. Bottom line is we've been saved by the stadium transaction (and if we put more farm into a separate company that would be helpful). But they've pee'd away parachute payments. So he can still naff off.? Let's be totally clear, they've peed away parachute payments as they've had the luxurious advantage of receiving them whilst we have not - they have been earned by being promoted to the Premiership something we have not managed to do. The rest is sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 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. Obviously I don't want an embargo or points deduction. But I'm not proud of our club over this. And let's not forget we don't own our stadium. If Mel sells the club he'll still own the stadium. Not a great long term position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 5 minutes 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. Obviously I don't want an embargo or points deduction. But I'm not proud of our club over this. And let's not forget we don't own our stadium. If Mel sells the club he'll still own the stadium. Not a great long term position We are not the first and certainly won't be the last to try and bend the rules. The whole idea of FFP is to be a fair way of ensuring clubs can live within their means whilst still competing, but how can this be the case when the Nick Blackmans of the world are demanding 28k a week and whilst premier league clubs are being relegated with guaranteed funds for the next 4 years? My only gripe is that it has taken this long for Derby to do something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: We are not the first and certainly won't be the last to try and bend the rules. The whole idea of FFP is to be a fair way of ensuring clubs can live within their means whilst still competing, but how can this be the case when the Nick Blackmans of the world are demanding 28k a week and whilst premier league clubs are being relegated with guaranteed funds for the next 4 years? My only gripe is that it has taken this long for Derby to do something like this. but you can only use this legal option once and it is a rainy day solution. I'm glad they waited and used it to sort out the last 3 years of appalling transfer activity. I just don't get why some Derby fans can't recognise that the club is a different 'person' to the owner. The club had an asset which they used to crystallize the otherwise unrealisable uplift in its value. They could have sold it to a third party or borrowed money against it but the option is better for the club and us as fans. Clubs that don't own their own stadium have already used this option or never funded the building of it in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, Spanish said: Clubs that don't own their own stadium have already used this option or never funded the building of it in the first place Good point. So you could argue that we have now merely levelled the playing field with those clubs who have never had to shell out for a new/upgraded stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram59 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 17 minutes ago, Wolfie said: Good point. So you could argue that we have now merely levelled the playing field with those clubs who have never had to shell out for a new/upgraded stadium. Totally agree, as I've already stated, Brighton's ground was built and paid for by an associate company. The club pays £1m per year on running costs of over £6m. So, in the 7 years since their ground was built they have benefitted to the tune of around £10m. Added to this they haven't had to finance the building costs of around £100m. The ground is actually in debt to the tune of £174m, which some would argue, the club should have to have paid for, to make things fair. Nobody questions Brighton's motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 52 minutes 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. If that was the case, wouldn't we have taken a rap for at least bringing the game into disrepute... i.e. "acting in a manner unbecoming of a member club", or whatever that wording was, that was used when discussing the DYS Spygate ? I see nothing unethical here, given the feedback so far, from the powers that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 25 minutes ago, ram59 said: Totally agree, as I've already stated, Brighton's ground was built and paid for by an associate company. The club pays £1m per year on running costs of over £6m. So, in the 7 years since their ground was built they have benefitted to the tune of around £10m. Added to this they haven't had to finance the building costs of around £100m. The ground is actually in debt to the tune of £174m, which some would argue, the club should have to have paid for, to make things fair. Nobody questions Brighton's motives. Not to mention West Ham..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.