Jump to content
alexxxxx

EFL charge Derby over ffp

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GenBr said:

We can't compete with any of the parachute payment clubs. If they want a player we want they will win that particular race every single time.

However of the 12 teams promoted in the last 4 seasons and the 5 that were non parachute payment teams -  Shef Utd, Wolves, Brighton, Huddersfield, Boro none of them breached FFP. Brentford are doing well without spending big as well. There is no reason why you have to overspend to get promoted from this league.

Wrong. 

Without looking up the rest I can tell you Wolves wracked up losses of over 1 mil per week in 17/18. And they did all those dodgy transfers, with dodgy ownership and agents. 

Edited by R@M

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Danelaw Rams said:

How about we come to a agreement so the Efl save face (because its partly there fault), we accept a fined , Gibson & Boro can't sue the Efl for not punishing us then,  and Everyone lives happily ever after 🙏

Not that simple - by bringing the charge, the EFL have acused Derby of cheating in order to meet the FFP requirements - as Charirman/owner, that has implications for Mel's reputation - can't see him taking that on the chin by accepting a fine so it will almost certainly go to the courts - unless the EFL back down and admit they've made (another!) mistake and drop the charge.......(at which point they then have to fight a lergal battle with Boro...). Very little likelihood of the EFL not ending up in sort of court case - though thoroughly deserved due to their own incompetence....

Share this post


Link to post

If the EFL have admitted to a mistake as Derby suggest, and no reason not to believe that, surely that makes them more open to being sued by Gibson, regardless of what happens to Derby.

Unless there is a deal in place maybe that Boro wont pursue if Derby are punished.

The EFL really are arse covering here by the looks of it. Maybe the punishment will be a small(ish) fine, and/or suspended with the veiled threat that and subsequent legal action from Derby could see a great punishment imposed (a bit like if you appeal a red card and the number of games is increased if you fail).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

No that isn't the problem. The problem is buying players who end up nearly valueless on massive wages.

Which we have proved to be very good at 

only Ince and Vydra have shown any kind of profit and at least both of them actually contributing to various seasons 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, R@M said:

Wrong. 

Without looking up the rest I can tell you Wolves wracked up losses of over 1 mil per week in 17/18. And they did all those dodgy transfers, with dodgy ownership and agents. 

lol - I can do that too - WRONG!

I think you will find that Wolves were within the FFP limits - the cost you mistakenly quote was vastly inflated by promotion bonuses as well as additional transfer fee payments due to promotion. Promotion doesn't stop the EFL chasing them if they did breach FFP, as we have seen on numerous occasions.

We were only talking about breaching FFP, but if you want to bring up other ways to get around FFP I fail to see why anything they have done is any dodgier than anything we have done - we just aren't as good at it. Is that your issue here - jealousy?!?!?!?!?

Boro and Brighton both spent big like us, btu they actually managed to get promoted. Shef Utd and Huddersfield managed to do it on relatively modest spends. Three of the teams in the top 6 are non parachute teams who are still within FFP and 2 of them have also used alternative methods to beat FFP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GenBr said:

lol - I can do that too - WRONG!

I think you will find that Wolves were within the FFP limits - the cost you mistakenly quote was vastly inflated by promotion bonuses as well as additional transfer fee payments due to promotion. Promotion doesn't stop the EFL chasing them if they did breach FFP, as we have seen on numerous occasions.

We were only talking about breaching FFP, but if you want to bring up other ways to get around FFP I fail to see why anything they have done is any dodgier than anything we have done - we just aren't as good at it. Is that your issue here - jealousy?!?!?!?!?

Boro and Brighton both spent big like us, btu they actually managed to get promoted. Shef Utd and Huddersfield managed to do it on relatively modest spends. Three of the teams in the top 6 are non parachute teams who are still within FFP and 2 of them have also used alternative methods to beat FFP.

 

So you get personal? Lol. 

Are you trying to say that the circa 53 mil over spend registered for that season was all down to promotion linked payments? They would have been fine if they hadn't been promoted? 

I'm not overly fussed, they gambled and won, but using them as a moral yardstick to beat our club with is nothing short of hypocrisy. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, RamNut said:

there is an asset value and a transaction price.

the asset value was presumably  @ 41m and the price was @81m on order to register a 40m profit.

are the EFL saying that in the case of a transfer to a related party, the price must = the fair value = the asset value?

in which case - whatever value is set - you can't make a profit on the transaction??

That seems like the only way we can have ended up with an excessive loss. 

 

So when the south stand sing that "Pride Park Stadium is worth £80m" maybe that is exactly the point the EFL are making.

if its worth 80m then there is no paper profit when its sold for £80m.

Surely you make a profit somewhere, as the value of the asset increased in value somewhere along the line. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Surely you make a profit somewhere, as the value of the asset increased in value somewhere along the line. 

Maybe in the real world, but the EFL rules make it clear that the accounting for ffp is different. I think @Ramleicester is correct that this is to do with whether the purchaser of the ground was an arms length company - or not.

when I was told about the plans for the roof, I was told that another investor / partner was present at the meeting. In fact the person who told me, expected me to know who that was. The company that bought the stadium - Gellaw Newco 202 - has only got Mel listed a director as far as I am aware. Maybe the original plan was that it would be 50/50 owned. At what point does a “related party” become an arms length company? Maybe the delay in securing an investor has changed the nature of the deal. That changes the method of ffp calculation. And that could kill Mel’s cunning plan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GenBr said:

We were only talking about breaching FFP, but if you want to bring up other ways to get around FFP I fail to see why anything they have done is any dodgier than anything we have done - we just aren't as good at it. Is that your issue here - jealousy?!?!?!?!?

They gained an unfair competitive advantage by creating a closed market for players other Championship teams had no access to or ability to sign. They then signed those players for below what would have otherwise been their market value.

Well more dodgy.

We stupidly paid inflated fees/wages to secure our targets, but there was nothing stopping other teams identifying and signing those same players. 

Edited by Coconut

Share this post


Link to post

Just been having a read through of the Birmingham FFP/P&S ruling

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

I thought the bit I've bolded below was quite interesting:

Quote

37.The Commission is not persuaded that the signing of Pedersen was actually a breach of the applicable rule and this conduct will not be treated as an aggravating factor in this case. However the EFL was correct to state in its letter dated 1 August that the Club’s conduct had not fully embraced the objectives of the P&S Rules. It is evident from the correspondence that the officials of the EFL had been extremely helpful in providing clear guidance as to the effect of the rules on the Club’s finances and transactions, and it is regrettable that the Club did not consult the EFL before signing contracts and proceeded despite the increasingly obvious fact that the Club would fail to keep its expenditure below the permissible limits in the period ending 30 June 2018. The EFL is entitled to assume that a Club will fully comply with any notice given under the rules, but to avoid any lack of clarity in future cases it would be desirable for notice of a decision to refuse registration of players until a club has complied with certain conditions to clearly identify the relevant rule and the effect of the decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RamNut said:

Maybe in the real world, but the EFL rules make it clear that the accounting for ffp is different. I think @Ramleicester is correct that this is to do with whether the purchaser of the ground was an arms length company - or not.

when I was told about the plans for the roof, I was told that another investor / partner was present at the meeting. In fact the person who told me, expected me to know who that was. The company that bought the stadium - Gellaw Newco 202 - has only got Mel listed a director as far as I am aware. Maybe the original plan was that it would be 50/50 owned. At what point does a “related party” become an arms length company? Maybe the delay in securing an investor has changed the nature of the deal. That changes the method of ffp calculation. And that could kill Mel’s cunning plan.

 

Is it fair to say you're guessing?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Just been having a read through of the Birmingham FFP/P&S ruling

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

I thought the bit I've bolded below was quite interesting:

 

Because I'm now quite good at contract law I can confirm receiving information and not following it is quite bad (legal jargon).  If our statement is to be believed we received information and followed it.  And had it signed off.

Share this post


Link to post
On 17/01/2020 at 10:05, Carnero said:

You have the loss at £48m, Kieran Maguire (Price of Football twitter) has the loss at £53m, which is why I pieced it together as needing a stadium sale of £55m compared to your £50m.

Can you think of a reason why he has the loss £5m higher than you?

Kieran Maguire first used the £53m figure last April. It seems he’s based that figure on the Sevco 5112 accounts (holding company) giving a total EBITDA loss over 3 years of £72.9m, and guessed the exclusions at c£20m (3x £6m for academy, plus a little bit extra).

https://priceoffootball.com/Derby-county-2017-18-say-youll-be-there/

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Is it fair to say you're guessing?

I’m speculating like everyone else. But if you care to check back you will indeed find that I was the one who broke the story about the roof. That turned out to be true despite a lot of cynicism and snidey remarks in response to my thread.

I also believe what I was told about the second investor. I think if the new company was 50/50 it would be classed as arms length, but that’s not my area of expertise. I was told the second investor was someone who had been involved with Derby county previously. I offered a few names - all of which were rejected: Peter gadsby, Adam Pearson, Tom Glick, Andy Appleby. I still suspect it was one of the Americans or Adam Pearson. It seems plausible. It would explain why the EFL advice would have been correct at the time but wrong in hindsight. It ties in with what @Ramleicester has suggested.

we’ll soon find out. 
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Kieran Maguire first used the £53m figure last April. It seems he’s based that figure on the Sevco 5112 accounts (holding company) giving a total EBITDA loss over 3 years of £72.9m, and guessed the exclusions at c£20m (3x £6m for academy, plus a little bit extra).

https://priceoffootball.com/Derby-county-2017-18-say-youll-be-there/

Nice work!

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Kieran Maguire first used the £53m figure last April. It seems he’s based that figure on the Sevco 5112 accounts (holding company) giving a total EBITDA loss over 3 years of £72.9m, and guessed the exclusions at c£20m (3x £6m for academy, plus a little bit extra).

https://priceoffootball.com/Derby-county-2017-18-say-youll-be-there/

Kieran Maguire is a teacher who masquerades as someone with some sort of insight. He has none and, as you mention, guesses like the rest of us. Fancy website and all that but best ignored....

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, S8TY said:

“aware of the [amortisation] issue since June 2018“. Almost 2 years have passed before saying they don’t like it. Can’t see us being punished for that - maybe ‘encouraged’ to use a different method in future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

“aware of the [amortisation] issue since June 2018“. Almost 2 years have passed before saying they don’t like it. Can’t see us being punished for that - maybe ‘encouraged’ to use a different method in future

That would be a shame. Moor farm looks darn expensive...

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
×
×
  • 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.