The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

We know a few key facts.

Derby's revenue is higher than originally budgeted for. Derby cannot pay transfer fees.

Wigan had a revenue of £8m and had a wage bill (including bonuses) of £13m. Wigan were allowed to spend money on players - one believed to be about £700k.

 

A worst case scenario would have put Derby at a revenue of £16m, with a realistic figure being in the low to mid £20 millions. Derby's wage budget is estimated to be below what Wigan spent on wages.

There's no doubt in my mind that the EFL haven't been fair.

But didn't we come in with a low estimate of our revenue?  Salary cap for all other clubs in League one  is 60% of "turnover" so if in low to mid £20millions we should be £12m to £15m, not £8 million less employer NI which is what Percy is quoting. Also "turnover" can include monies injected by the owner, which I guess is how Wigan got away with it?  Is that right GoC?  

[Tamworthram]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

My educated guess would put the figure close to £16m

So we don't really know and therefore we don't KNOW the actual revenue exceeds the budgeted revenue or, if it does, by how much.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Tamworthram

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But didn't we come in with a low estimate of our revenue?  Salary cap for all other clubs in League one  is 60% of "turnover" so if in low to mid £20millions we should be £12m to £15m, not £8 million less employer NI which is what Percy is quoting. Also "turnover" can include monies injected by the owner, which I guess is how Wigan got away with it?  Is that right GoC?  

https://wiganathletic.com/news/2023/march/08/phoenix-2021-limited-publish-accounts-for-2021-22-/

 

[Ambitious]

1 hour ago, GenBr said:

We got raked over the coals for attempting to bypass FFP with the stadium sale. All these clubs selling players to themselves get away completely scot free though. I know ultimately we weren't punished for the stadium sale but it didnt stop the EFL coming after us. Why is what we did a heinous crime in the eyes of the EFL, but these clubs can bypass FFP this way with not a care in the world. Baffles me.

This is the problem with FFP/P&S because the league should be encouraging outside money to the table, especially with the Premier League being as dominant as it is. 

It seems extremely simple to me that a club should be able to spend the money they turnover, figures based on a rolling three year period, the rest covered by a separate escrow account controll d by the league that an owner can front money to in order to cover any additions. If Luton (for example) had a takeover and the owner could pump £100m in to cover transfer fees and wages then they absolutely should be able to, just not at the risk of the football club. The owner should be able to risk his own money without jumping through daft loopholes.

Money in football is good for business, despite the narrative it’s ruining the game. We should want investment in clubs, not hammering prospective owners with restrictions.  

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, Ambitious said:

I have absolutely no problem with the Watford transfer, obviously it is against fair play financially but in a league where parachute payments decimate ‘fair play’ then it really makes no odds.

As long as the money has been paid and it’s not just a paperwork exercise, it gives Watford (the company) a cash injection. You wouldn’t be thrilled if you were an Udinese fan, of course. It impacts their accounts. 

I have a problem with it. It’s an artificial transaction, not on arms’ length terms. The directors of the club on the other side of the deal (Udinese?) are doubtless in breach of Italian law and the Watford directors ought to refuse to let the owner force it through. 
 

Of course we had amortisation rabble rouser Prof McGuire on here telling everyone that there’s noEFL rule against this sort of thing so it’s fine. Says it all 

Edited March 11, 2023 by kevinhectoring

[Ambitious]

19 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I have a problem with it. It’s an artificial transaction, not on arms’ length terms. The directors of the club on the other side of the deal (Udinese?) are doubtless in breach of Italian law and the Watford directors ought to refuse to let the owner force it through. 
 

Of course we had amortisation rabble rouser Prof McGuire on here telling everyone that there’s noEFL rule against this sort of thing so it’s fine. Says it all 

In light of the current rules, of course, my standpoint is purely from the stance of an owner putting money into a club (again, assuming the money was legitimately transferred and it’s all above board on an accounting level). 

[RadioactiveWaste]

It's a bit more a vague notion than a plan but surely the problems come from debts, so capping clubs debts relative to turnover might be something to look at.

[ram59]

It's ridiculous that one person/organisation can own two separate clubs any where. What's to stop an extremely wealthy person/organisation buying a no hope club in a minor European league with little or no restrictions, then buying world beating players before selling them at a loss and/or loaning them to the English club? 

[i-Ram]

7 hours ago, ram59 said:

It's ridiculous that one person/organisation can own two separate clubs any where. What's to stop an extremely wealthy person/organisation buying a no hope club in a minor European league with little or no restrictions, then buying world beating players before selling them at a loss and/or loaning them to the English club? 

Nothing. Equally there is nothing to stop an extremely wealthy person/organisation owning a no hope club in a Premier European league with little or no restrictions, then buying crap players before selling them at a loss and/or loaning them to a Greek club.

Edited March 12, 2023 by i-Ram

[Tyler Durden]

14 hours ago, GenBr said:

We got raked over the coals for attempting to bypass FFP with the stadium sale. All these clubs selling players to themselves get away completely scot free though. I know ultimately we weren't punished for the stadium sale but it didnt stop the EFL coming after us. Why is what we did a heinous crime in the eyes of the EFL, but these clubs can bypass FFP this way with not a care in the world. Baffles me.

At that point I was far more concerned about the solvency of the club then the EFL coming after us.

This remarkably "clever" move by Morris just served to separate the stadium from the club and make us a far less attractive prospect for potential suitors when inevitably we did go into administration due to Morris' reckless stewardship.

That has nothing to do with the EFL. 

[jimtastic56]

3 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Nothing. Equally there is nothing to stop an extremely wealthy person/organisation owning a no hope club in a Premier European league with little or no restrictions, then buying crap players before selling them at a loss and/or loaning them to a Greek club.

Manchester City own or part- own Twelve different clubs all over the world. They are heading for a major clash over where the money is coming from. On the flip side , The Premiership is the biggest success in sport and we live off handouts from them.

[GenBr]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

At that point I was far more concerned about the solvency of the club then the EFL coming after us.

This remarkably "clever" move by Morris just served to separate the stadium from the club and make us a far less attractive prospect for potential suitors when inevitably we did go into administration due to Morris' reckless stewardship.

That has nothing to do with the EFL. 

Nobody is arguing that Morris was a competent custodian of the club.

The point is that the stadium sale and selling players to yourself are the same thing. Both methods to bypass ffp. We got absolutely vilified for our method and we had to endure the EFL trying to get us points deducted for doing so. And yet our glorious regulator does nothing about Watford or Forest doing exactly the same thing. It absolutely has to do with the EFL - one rule for us and a different one for everyone else.

[Tyler Durden]

12 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Nobody is arguing that Morris was a competent custodian of the club.

The point is that the stadium sale and selling players to yourself are the same thing. Both methods to bypass ffp. We got absolutely vilified for our method and we had to endure the EFL trying to get us points deducted for doing so. And yet our glorious regulator does nothing about Watford or Forest doing exactly the same thing. It absolutely has to do with the EFL - one rule for us and a different one for everyone else.

Yes do take on board what you're saying.

It's the root cause that never needs to be forgotten though - why was Morris intent of finding some Byzantine method of circumnavigating the FFP rules for then the EFL to be caused to give it closer scrutiny - and always comes down to the financial mismanagement of the club as the key instigator in all this. 

I haven't seen many other football clubs having to go to the lengths of effectively selling their grounds back to themselves to get around their owners making a total cack of its finances. 

 

[Sparkle]

13 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Yes do take on board what you're saying.

It's the root cause that never needs to be forgotten though - why was Morris intent of finding some Byzantine method of circumnavigating the FFP rules for then the EFL to be caused to give it closer scrutiny - and always comes down to the financial mismanagement of the club as the key instigator in all this. 

I haven't seen many other football clubs having to go to the lengths of effectively selling their grounds back to themselves to get around their owners making a total cack of its finances. 

 

Stoke, sheff Wednesday, Aston Villa spring to mind 

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Stoke, sheff Wednesday, Aston Villa spring to mind 

Reading, Birmingham too. Forest couldn't do it because they didn't own the ground in the first place. 

[Walkley Ram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Reading, Birmingham too. Forest couldn't do it because they didn't own the ground in the first place. 

Plus not even forest would want to buy that dump.

[rsmini]

Burnley seem to be the next in line. Even though the transfer window has closed 

 

 

[Mr. P]

Transfer embargo when you can’t buy players anyway! Classic. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Reading, Birmingham too. Forest couldn't do it because they didn't own the ground in the first place. 

How much is the going rate for 1000 tonnes of asbestos and crumbling concrete nowadays.

[jimtastic56]

36 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

How much is the going rate for 1000 tonnes of asbestos and crumbling concrete nowadays.

Florists are now selling out their corporate seats where you start off at Trent Bridge test ground and walk to the match at , wait for it - £500 per person!