Tribunal Update

[RandomAccessMemory]

58 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

I've just realised that the Yorkshire paper spoke to Kieran Maguire. He's the one who reported us isn't he ?

Yep, apparently in June 2018 he contacted the EFL to tell them he didn't think our amortisation policy was correct.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51322797

I remember reading this tweet of his after we were charged

I wonder if he thinks our 'good potential defence' for that is either or both of

1. They signed it off for 2 years before (if it was a problem then we should/would have been told/charged previously)

2. He knows/has the evidence that he warned them and they still didn't say anything about it until they decided to charge us in January 2020?

[therealhantsram]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

 

, If Sibley’s contract is due to expire in June 2021, there would rightly be a value applied to his registration in the accounts year ending June 2020 but nil for the accounts submitted for June 2021. 

 

Not so. Academy players have a residual value of zero. As do players who signed on a free transfer. 

This is one reason Mel is so into the academy. Selling an academy lad for 20m is pure profit from an FFP perspective. 

[Sith Happens]

9 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Yep, apparently in June 2018 he contacted the EFL to tell them he didn't think our amortisation policy was correct.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51322797

I remember reading this tweet of his after we were charged

I wonder if he thinks our 'good potential defence' for that is either or both of

1. They signed it off for 2 years before (if it was a problem then we should/would have been told/charged previously)

2. He knows/has the evidence that he warned them and they still didn't say anything about it until they decided to charge us in January 2020?

Didnt they actually respond saying 'if you have a problem with it take it up with the club not us'?

 

[Brammie Steve]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Then I suggest you give him a ring

pull yourself together!?

[Sith Happens]

2 minutes ago, Brummie Steve said:

pull yourself together!?

I usually like a gud pun fest but im not getting drawn into this one.

[hintonsboots]

16 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I usually like a gud pun fest but im not getting drawn into this one.

I think we’re poles apart on that being a good pun.

[Mihangel]

39 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Yep, apparently in June 2018 he contacted the EFL to tell them he didn't think our amortisation policy was correct.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51322797

I remember reading this tweet of his after we were charged

I wonder if he thinks our 'good potential defence' for that is either or both of

1. They signed it off for 2 years before (if it was a problem then we should/would have been told/charged previously)

2. He knows/has the evidence that he warned them and they still didn't say anything about it until they decided to charge us in January 2020?

If you read the article posted further up and then this, you can see how reliable Maguire is - 'Pure guesswork', 'in the public domain', 'I think', 'I believe'.

He's a fantastic trying to scrape a living talking to local newspapers and radio stations. 

[RandomAccessMemory]

8 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Didnt they actually respond saying 'if you have a problem with it take it up with the club not us'?

 

Not quite, the article says

Quote

The EFL's supporter services department responded to his email, suggesting he should contact Derby County or its auditors and saying that the information he provided would be handed to the finance department.

If it took the finance department 18 months to find the evidence that was in the accounts that anyone can see to charge us then the EFL definitely need a new finance department! ?  It would also answer a few other questions people have been asking lately!

I don't know if he contacted the club, or it's auditors, as suggested though? It doesn't make that clear, though it does say as part of their 'BBC Sports understands' that we were not aware there was any issue, so maybe not, unless because it wasn't the EFL themselves then we couldn't know they actually had a problem with it.

Quote

However, BBC Sport understands he was never contacted by the relevant finance team at the EFL, and Derby were not aware there was any issue with the way it accounts for player registration fees.

 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:

Not so. Academy players have a residual value of zero. As do players who signed on a free transfer. 

This is one reason Mel is so into the academy. Selling an academy lad for 20m is pure profit from an FFP perspective. 

That's why I added Sibley was a bad example.

[Rev]

1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:

Not so. Academy players have a residual value of zero. As do players who signed on a free transfer. 

This is one reason Mel is so into the academy. Selling an academy lad for 20m is pure profit from an FFP perspective. 

Not quite true. 

Both these examples, academy players and free transfers would have some residual value attached, based on any agents fees, typically 10%, we'd have paid whenever they signed any extensions or indeed their original contract.

 

12 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

That's why I added Sibley was a bad example.

Not necessarily, Bryson was a 400k signing I believe, yet due to contract extensions etc could have been valued as high as 850k in the accounts.

Hard to know what Sibley's being paid, but probably 10% of that will be his book value, accounting wise.

[rammieib]

1 hour ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Not quite true. 

Both these examples, academy players and free transfers would have some residual value attached, based on any agents fees, typically 10%, we'd have paid whenever they signed any extensions or indeed their original contract.

 

Not necessarily, Bryson was a 400k signing I believe, yet due to contract extensions etc could have been valued as high as 850k in the accounts.

Hard to know what Sibley's being paid, but probably 10% of that will be his book value, accounting wise.

Don’t think at any point you can increase a players value above what was paid for them.

We just do that for the stadium haha.

[Rev]

2 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Don’t think at any point you can increase a players value above what was paid for them.

We just do that for the stadium haha.

It's not a valuation as such, more a cost of keeping them on the books.

Agents fees are paid by the club, so those costs are registered against the player in the club's accounts.

[Andicis]

Financial fair play isn't fit for purpose anyway. It's a misnomer because there is nothing fair about it, big clubs like Man City can breach it and have nothing happen to them. If you're successful at cheating and get into the Prem, nothing happens. Then you come back down and you have parachute payments factor in which means you can spend 10x what any other Championship club can pay ensuring you consistently bounce between leagues (Fulham, WBA etc). 

Regardless of if we get done for it or not, the whole thing is an absolute sham. It's designed to keep the elite clubs at the top and the peasants below them. They don't give a duck about fairness. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, Andicis said:

Financial fair play isn't fit for purpose anyway. It's a misnomer because there is nothing fair about it, big clubs like Man City can breach it and have nothing happen to them. If you're successful at cheating and get into the Prem, nothing happens. Then you come back down and you have parachute payments factor in which means you can spend 10x what any other Championship club can pay ensuring you consistently bounce between leagues (Fulham, WBA etc). 

Regardless of if we get done for it or not, the whole thing is an absolute sham. It's designed to keep the elite clubs at the top and the peasants below them. They don't give a duck about fairness. 

Nail on head.

[G STAR RAM]

16 hours ago, SamUltraRam said:

This is from the sports writer at a Yorkshire paper mainly about Sheffield Wednesday but also about us - not sure of his expertise/knowledge but is interesting reading

Derby are also being charged for the way they account for players.

Without getting too technical, they appear to be saying that at the end of a players' contract they could sell him for a fee which appears to be inconsistent with our understanding of the Bosman ruling.

We also saw with Derby that they physically received the cash from the sale of the stadium whereas Wednesday didn't receive any money.

They have this unusual scenario where it's being paid for over eight years. You wouldn't normally expect that to be the case for a property deal.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-wednesday-finance-money-questions-18734944

I'd say that the paragraph regarding the stadium being paid could prove that this person has some inside knowledge, because that is not information that is available in the public domain. 

[Sith Happens]

3 hours ago, Andicis said:

Financial fair play isn't fit for purpose anyway. It's a misnomer because there is nothing fair about it, big clubs like Man City can breach it and have nothing happen to them. If you're successful at cheating and get into the Prem, nothing happens. Then you come back down and you have parachute payments factor in which means you can spend 10x what any other Championship club can pay ensuring you consistently bounce between leagues (Fulham, WBA etc). 

Regardless of if we get done for it or not, the whole thing is an absolute sham. It's designed to keep the elite clubs at the top and the peasants below them. They don't give a duck about fairness. 

I agree with the concept to a degree.

Its simple, dont spent what you dont have. If you have a rich owner who is prepared to bank roll the club without expectation of being paid back (unless say the riches of the PL are reached etc) then let it be. If clubs put themselves hugely into debt and run the risk of not being able to pay staff, or business that provide them services then absolutely there should be a sanction.

You are right about those clubs that get promoted though....the club most people seem to put on a pedestal is Leicester, yet they are probably responsible, at least partly so, for the restrictions that EFL clubs find themselves under today.

Without Leicester throwing themselves into Administration and ripping off lots of local businesses plus ripping off the builder of their stadium to the tune of millions, while still managing to maintain their playing squad and getting promoted back in the early 2000's, there would be no points deduction for administration.

And then this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43146018

Get yourself promoted and breach FFP and get hit with a £3 million fine after winning the Premier League is ridiculous, even if they, as claimed, only did it because they didnt understand the rules.

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

17 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I agree with the concept to a degree.

Its simple, dont spent what you dont have. If you have a rich owner who is prepared to bank roll the club without expectation of being paid back (unless say the riches of the PL are reached etc) then let it be. If clubs put themselves hugely into debt and run the risk of not being able to pay staff, or business that provide them services then absolutely there should be a sanction.

But it shouldn't just be about what a club does while the rich owner is there.

Example. Rich businessman spend £500m on new players, all funded from their own resources, all well and good so far.

To get these players though they have to wages of £250k per week and give 4 year contracts. 

At the end of year 2 the businessman becomes bored and decide they want out.

The club are now going to struggle to pay the wages.

This is where the S of P&S comes in. 

Unfortunately, I dont think below the Premier League hardly any clubs are run in a sustainable manner.

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

But it shouldn't just be about what a club does while the rich owner is there.

Example. Rich businessman spend £500m on new players, all funded from their own resources, all well and good so far.

To get these players though they have to wages of £250k per week and give 4 year contracts. 

At the end of year 2 the businessman becomes bored and decide they want out.

The club are now going to struggle to pay the wages.

This is where the S of P&S comes in. 

Unfortunately, I dont think below the Premier League hardly any clubs are run in a sustainable manner.

The old saying, the quickest route to a small fortune is to have a very big fortune a buy a sports team.

Ultimately, football as a sport and as a business is totally unsustainable and has moved from being TV bankrolled to betting bankrolled and apparently is intent on becoming "PR exercise for not notably pleasant regime" bankrolled. At some point it's going to crash.

 

[SECornerRAM]

21 hours ago, Shadowplay said:

The way the EFL go about things, starting to see the attraction of a Premier League 2

The championship is already premier league 2 governed by idiots 

Says it all regarding the gap when you are pushing salary caps of: 

League 2 - 1.5m 

League 1 - 2.5m 

Championship - 18.5m 

[GenBr]

28 minutes ago, Burtonram2066 said:

The championship is already premier league 2 governed by idiots 

Says it all regarding the gap when you are pushing salary caps of: 

League 2 - 1.5m 

League 1 - 2.5m 

Championship - 18.5m 

Is that really the number proposed for the championship? Half the division are well over that number - a few are more than double that. Its also more than double the entire revenue for some of the poorer clubs. I cant believe they'd be able to get the clubs to agree to it

As it stands one of the parachute payment teams could have a wage bill almost as much as the entirety of League 1 when the cap is implemented in that league. The gap is gigantic