Jog On Fawaz

[Paplane]

Gibson is pissing in the wind!

All that Morris has done is sell an asset - the ground.

He may have sold the ground to another one of his Companies but that is not illegal so long as he did so for a fair price; HMRC are the people who make that decision not the EFL.

Yep, they may change the FFP rules to discount this option. If nothing else it’s dangerous having clubs selling their major asset to private companies as Coventry will testify. Sounds like Sheff We’d May have done the same too.

The way to punish Derby is to carefully monitor how the grounds and income is now accounted. I would assume they now can no longer take any income from any stadium related activities? One thing that I was wondering, as stadium improvement costs are outside of FFP does that also apply to stadium costs. Is the repurchase of a stadium say? Hypothetically could they just repurchase it next year and the cost wouldn’t count towards FFP? (I think the rules will change before this happens)

They will still take in income from ticket sales but will have to pay rent to the Stadium owners; they will also lose out on any peripheral income which will now go straight to the stadium owner, such as conferencing and all of the concessions.

Buying the stadium back would not be a problem either; they would take out a mortgage or some other commercial loan and offset the cost over a number of years.

I cannot for the life of me see why this should impact on FFP or lead to a rule change; they have done nothing wrong.

They may have done nothing wrong buy you cant just keep playing these dodge tricks. I believe in the past they have moved employee costs from one company to another, now the stadium and I'm sure there's many many more dodges that are happening that are going under the radar. The Swiss Ramble commentator indicated recently that Morris had set up holding companies who had removed costs with the football club retaining all the revenue.

Sooner or later they'll find themselves in a heap of a mess and the whole thing will come crashing down upon them.

Gibson's threat to sue them might sound a little mad but he's clearly had a good look at their accounts and decided they've crossed a line somewhere and it's he who's been directly screwed over by them trying to be clever. It must have really hurt him watching the sheep walk out at Wembley and being just 90 minutes away from getting away with it.

[Jean_claude_killy]

Gibson is pissing in the wind!

All that Morris has done is sell an asset - the ground.

He may have sold the ground to another one of his Companies but that is not illegal so long as he did so for a fair price; HMRC are the people who make that decision not the EFL.

Yep, they may change the FFP rules to discount this option. If nothing else it’s dangerous having clubs selling their major asset to private companies as Coventry will testify. Sounds like Sheff We’d May have done the same too.

The way to punish Derby is to carefully monitor how the grounds and income is now accounted. I would assume they now can no longer take any income from any stadium related activities? One thing that I was wondering, as stadium improvement costs are outside of FFP does that also apply to stadium costs. Is the repurchase of a stadium say? Hypothetically could they just repurchase it next year and the cost wouldn’t count towards FFP? (I think the rules will change before this happens)

They will still take in income from ticket sales but will have to pay rent to the Stadium owners; they will also lose out on any peripheral income which will now go straight to the stadium owner, such as conferencing and all of the concessions.

Buying the stadium back would not be a problem either; they would take out a mortgage or some other commercial loan and offset the cost over a number of years.

I cannot for the life of me see why this should impact on FFP or lead to a rule change; they have done nothing wrong.

Well if they can legitimately buy the stadium back and it not impact FFP is this not just another way of an owner investing large capital into the club? Thus getting around FFP and making the rules redundant?

I think that is a strange way of looking at the situation.

They now pay rent for a facility they once owned; not only that but they miss out on around 3m worth of income each season.

If they decide to buy back the stadium they will still have a mortgage or loan to service.

All of this impacts on FFP because it decreases their income which has a negative impact.

If you think that selling the club to a related company is equivalent to injecting capitol into the football club, that's fine, but it cannot be done more than once.

The sale took place to avoid transgressing FFP, of that there is no doubt, it also left them in a far weaker position long term.

[wassy04]

Gibson is pissing in the wind!

All that Morris has done is sell an asset - the ground.

He may have sold the ground to another one of his Companies but that is not illegal so long as he did so for a fair price; HMRC are the people who make that decision not the EFL.

Yep, they may change the FFP rules to discount this option. If nothing else it’s dangerous having clubs selling their major asset to private companies as Coventry will testify. Sounds like Sheff We’d May have done the same too.

The way to punish Derby is to carefully monitor how the grounds and income is now accounted. I would assume they now can no longer take any income from any stadium related activities? One thing that I was wondering, as stadium improvement costs are outside of FFP does that also apply to stadium costs. Is the repurchase of a stadium say? Hypothetically could they just repurchase it next year and the cost wouldn’t count towards FFP? (I think the rules will change before this happens)

They will still take in income from ticket sales but will have to pay rent to the Stadium owners; they will also lose out on any peripheral income which will now go straight to the stadium owner, such as conferencing and all of the concessions.

Buying the stadium back would not be a problem either; they would take out a mortgage or some other commercial loan and offset the cost over a number of years.

I cannot for the life of me see why this should impact on FFP or lead to a rule change; they have done nothing wrong.

Well if they can legitimately buy the stadium back and it not impact FFP is this not just another way of an owner investing large capital into the club? Thus getting around FFP and making the rules redundant?

I think that is a strange way of looking at the situation.

They now pay rent for a facility they once owned; not only that but they miss out on around 3m worth of income each season.

If they decide to buy back the stadium they will still have a mortgage or loan to service.

All of this impacts on FFP because it decreases their income which has a negative impact.

If you think that selling the club to a related company is equivalent to injecting capitol into the football club, that's fine, but it cannot be done more than once.

The sale took place to avoid transgressing FFP, of that there is no doubt, it also left them in a far weaker position long term.

So you’re seeing it as either an £80mil loan or a minor loss in income. What I was wondering was whether an owner could inject £80m directly to repurchase the stadium and then class it as a stadium cost which sits outside of FFP?

[Username]

Obviously way off topic here but the Club (DCFC) own the Leasehold so will still benefit from non-football activities.

[stirred]

Isn’t Mad Mel trying to sell? So if they find yet another punter with more money than sense, they’ll presumably buy the ‘club’ and the ground and reconsolidate it all. In which case Derby get away with it?

As it stands the ruse seems to buy Morris time, flashing a profit for last year buys two seasons (though we’ve just had one of those) of running losses for his dice to land well or manage to sell whilst still challenging / maintaining a competitive squad. Only if no-one wants to buy the club does it seem to be a problem.

I’d be worried if I was a Derby fan nevertheless - it’s dreadful mismanagement when you look at the state of their finances.

They even elected to use a bizarre amortization rule that no other club uses, so instead of amortising the full transfer fee over the life of a contract, they only amortise part of it and leave them with a ‘residual value’ at the end. So again it reduces the losses for FFP each season, but if the player is still there at the end of the contract and leaves for free they’ll just have to write that amount off. Indeed, there was about £19million of ‘other costs’ that wasn’t broken down, maybe that was part of that?

Anyway you look at it, I’m glad those aren’t my clubs accounts, and it makes me glad our owner’s seem to have a more professional and commercial approach.

[wassy04]

Yeah it’s all gambling but it’d only take one promotion to wipe all those debts/issues so you can see the logic. They’ve come pretty close too in fairness on numerous occasions

[ozzyten10]

My issue with ffp is that it can lead to this sort of thing. Owners should be allowed to fund clubs to whatever they desire but not on debt. However, Man U would then be f****d so not going to happen.

[Jigglypuff]

The difficulty with that is finance just doesn't work that way. It's not as simple as transferring money into a clubs account...

[stirred]

The difficulty with that is finance just doesn't work that way. It's not as simple as transferring money into a clubs account...

But you could make it like that if you set the rules. 

In finance there’s been all sorts of regulations to make financial organisations safer, such as increased capital buffers and requirements on their funding plans. 

I don’t see why something couldn’t be put in place for football clubs, but you’d need people who are savvy with the finance industry to do it, and from what I can gather football associations and the like are the idiots in the room.

[Sausage Roll]

Forest have appealed against the ruling that they have to pay Fawaz that money.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Forest have appealed against the ruling that they have to pay Fawaz that money.

Hope we win it...

[Tricky]

Forest have appealed against the ruling that they have to pay Fawaz that money.

Hope we win it...

So do I!. Incidentally, was the sale money from Oliver Burke ever published in that year's accounts?