RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 I'd need to read it through again, but isn't the main issue surrounding SW's case that while all of these meetings and conversations took place in mid 2018, the actual transaction didn't happen until June 2019, so what was approved wasn't what happened as the sale was supposed to happen in early August 2018 at the latest? https://landregistry.data.gov.uk/data/ppi/transaction/8F1B26BE-A59E-53DB-E053-6C04A8C03649/current Actual transaction date for the sale of Hillsborough Football Stadium 28/06/2019 Not to mention that at a fans' forum in December 2018 Chansiri said they had failed P&S by "eight figures". https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46630885 Quote "The EFL changed the regulations at the end of last season. We didn't just break (FFP rules) a little, we broke them a lot - eight figures," he added to the forum. "We have problems with FFP, so it is hard, but we will try our best. "I am not looking to next season, I am looking now to solve FFP and how we can make this season as good as we can. "If we can solve those problems now, then next season can be better." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, angieram said: That's a good point, that if the sole issue over the sale is with the amount of the independent evaluation, then the independent commission will be taking on another body rather than just the club if they want to find us guilty. I accept that the principle of us selling the stadium to ourselves is fine but that was never in dispute. On balance then, we should be okay on this charge. On the other charge around amortisation I think the rules are less clear and we probably can no longer use the argument that the EFL 'let' us do it as a defence. Therefore the outcome will depend on whether the independent commission decides this broke the rules or not. How clear are the rules and will our interpretation of them be seen as a breach? I am less confident about this as the rules are so unclear. However, as our hearing has already happened, we haven't had the advantage of hindsight in preparing our defence accordingly. That may also influence the findings. there is some lightly veiled criticism of DCFC and SWFC of some collusion taking place during the SWFC hearing. Our defence lawyer also represented SWFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said: I'd need to read it through again, but isn't the main issue surrounding SW's case that while all of these meetings and conversations took place in mid 2018, the actual transaction didn't happen until June 2019, so what was approved wasn't what happened as the sale was supposed to happen in early August 2018 at the latest? https://landregistry.data.gov.uk/data/ppi/transaction/8F1B26BE-A59E-53DB-E053-6C04A8C03649/current Actual transaction date for the sale of Hillsborough Football Stadium 28/06/2019 that's how it reads to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: I still can't get my head around this bit... This translates as: "The points deduction would have been effectively meaningless and ineffectual, so we'll save it for next year when it might impact their season more." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 41 minutes ago, Ramraiders said: Hearing that 9 point deduction is on its way in the next week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarterForTen Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 And that their 'belated' Heads of Terms agreement - which the EFL seemed happy to accept for some reason - wasn't actually executed as the Club suggested it would be. To be frank, it's only the EFL's contribution to the mess that has got Wednesday off the second charge of, in a nutshell, acting dishonestly. Had the EFL had better leadership on this, Wednesday would be looking at -21 on September 12th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 14 minutes ago, angieram said: I accept that the principle of us selling the stadium to ourselves is fine but that was never in dispute. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Greenwood Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Just now, RamNut said: Really? It was within the rules at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 38 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: Derby reported losses of £7.9m in 2016-17, and £14.7m in 2015-16. - Derby Telegraph. So, with a cap of £39m, leaves about £16m spare for 2017-18. The stadium was sold with a valuation of £80m resulting in a pre-tax profit of £14.6m. EFL are arguing that as the stadium was listed as a £40m asset in previous accounts, the value was substantially inflated - so using this figure would blow a hole in the finances, and 17-18 would be a loss of £26.4m, £8m over the allowed figure. Taking the club statement as gospel, however, the sale had written agreement with the EFL after being professionally valued, and adjusted at the EFL's request - same story with the amortisation method. So, the EFL fluffed it, and now want to row back on all of it. I still don't particularly understand how this is possible. If I was told explicitly I could sell my house for £200k, after having it professionally valued - the estate agent couldn't turn round 6 months later and say sorry, rules have changed, can't do that now, it's only worth £150k... The club also announced a FFP loss of £9m in the 15/16 season. Based on the group accounts and deducting academy expenditure (c£6m) we made a combined loss of £19.4m. 15/16 = £9m FFP loss 16/17 = £21.2m accounts loss 17/18 = £1.1m accounts loss FFP exclusions of £6m in two seasons Based on the club accounts we made a combined loss of £2.3m 15/16 = £9m FFP loss 16/17 = £7.9m accounts loss 17/18 = £14.6m accounts profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, StarterForTen said: And that their 'belated' Heads of Terms agreement - which the EFL seemed happy to accept for some reason - wasn't actually executed as the Club suggested it would be. To be frank, it's only the EFL's contribution to the mess that has got Wednesday off the second charge of, in a nutshell, acting dishonestly. Had the EFL had better leadership on this, Wednesday would be looking at -21 on September 12th. not sure about that as there appears to be evidence that SW told them. I wonder what they told the auditors because it is a very strange way of dealing with a transaction. I just cant understand why anybody would think that was a correct way to do things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, Spanish said: that's how it reads to me Thanks, I thought I was on the right lines. Basically, it read to me as if the transaction had happened as agreed, they should have been ok. The argument that the EFL agreed to the transaction was on the basis the transaction happened when the EFL had given that permission, not that the permission was open-ended and could happen at any time in the distant future. I don't see why the EFL's argument in this case is relevant in ours, the part of ours relating to the sale appears to be solely based the valuation, from what we have been told. Our transaction date was 28/06/2018, so definitely within the time frame for those accounts. https://landregistry.data.gov.uk/data/ppi/transaction/75050A86-0816-9A88-E053-6B04A8C02390/current Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 16 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: And if they do question the value, I wonder if our valuers would have any kind of legal case? They're basically claiming that a professional valuer deliberately over-stated a valuation to help in what amounts to fraud. Obviously the EFL can claim they are querying the basis of the valuation was made on, not the value itself, but we were pretty clear that it's been consistently valued using the same methodology (depreciated replacement cost IIRC) every time it's been valued. So I don't see that argument working. Exactly this. EFL might end up having the valuers (and/or their trade governing body) against them for damaging their reputation. Depends if they got their own valuers in to PPS. Which doesn't seem to have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: Yeah, what I'm saying is, if they demand we reduce our £80m valuation to something close to Sheff Weds £60m value, then we're fine in FFP terms. We've just got less room to manoeuvre this season. If they demand we reduce it to £40m, then we have a case as to why they were happy with the Sheff Weds value, but unhappy with ours. I know different stadiums have different values etc, but I don't believe theirs is worth 50% more than ours. And if they do question the value, I wonder if our valuers would have any kind of legal case? They're basically claiming that a professional valuer deliberately over-stated a valuation to help in what amounts to fraud. Obviously the EFL can claim they are querying the basis of the valuation was made on, not the value itself, but we were pretty clear that it's been consistently valued using the same methodology (depreciated replacement cost IIRC) every time it's been valued. So I don't see that argument working. ? It wouldn't make a difference for us this season. The stadium sale fell within the 17/18 accounts. As we're entering the 3 year period ending in 2021 these accounts are no longer applicable. Instead, we'd be looking at the 18/19, 19/20 and 20/21 accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: The club also announced a FFP loss of £9m in the 15/16 season. Based on the group accounts and deducting academy expenditure (c£6m) we made a combined loss of £19.4m. 15/16 = £9m FFP loss 16/17 = £21.2m accounts loss 17/18 = £1.1m accounts loss FFP exclusions of £6m in two seasons Based on the club accounts we made a combined loss of £2.3m 15/16 = £9m FFP loss 16/17 = £7.9m accounts loss 17/18 = £14.6m accounts profit this is how swiss ramble described it FFP allows a maximum £39m loss over 3-year period, while #DCFC reported losses are much lower at £8m, even before allowable exclusions for academy, community & infrastructure. After excluding 2015/16 £12m gain on loan settlement, Derby would be comfortably compliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealhantsram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 52 minutes ago, angieram said: However, what the Independent Commission is saying is that they still broke the P & S rules so are guilty. This therefore could also apply in our case, that we accepted EFL advice that led us to do something that broke the rules. That is scary. This is grounds for appeal though, and in my opinion would be a good reason to see the points deduction switched to a suspended points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: The club also announced a FFP loss of £9m in the 15/16 season. Based on the group accounts and deducting academy expenditure (c£6m) we made a combined loss of £19.4m. 15/16 = £9m FFP loss 16/17 = £21.2m accounts loss 17/18 = £1.1m accounts loss FFP exclusions of £6m in two seasons Based on the club accounts we made a combined loss of £2.3m 15/16 = £9m FFP loss 16/17 = £7.9m accounts loss 17/18 = £14.6m accounts profit Thanks for the correction. Should have known better than to use DET as a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: It wouldn't make a difference for us this season. The stadium sale fell within the 17/18 accounts. As we're entering the 3 year period ending in 2021 these accounts are no longer applicable. Instead, we'd be looking at the 18/19, 19/20 and 20/21 accounts. I meant the 19/20 accounts, which we're yet to file (and 18/19 too - I think it's those that are overdue ATM?). I know we're passed the end of June, so we can't change anything now, but the amount of profit/loss from 17/18 may have affected whether we met P&S or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 12 minutes ago, RamNut said: Really? I can't see anything in the two reports that can be converted into something to attack DCFC with. Valuation/ sale and leaseback - if they have a problem with ours why has it not been aimed at SWFC the only thing I still have concerns over is amortisation. If the tribunal find that the EFL and DCFC are at fault they appear to not feel the club has the right to rely on misguided approval and will wish to restate. In effect acting for the protection other clubs in the division rather than EFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 It may depend on if the amortisation change would make us fall foul in P&S calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: It may depend on if the amortisation change would make us fall foul in P&S calculations. Swiss ramble again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.