|
Post by softboy on Jul 19, 2020 10:49:02 GMT 1
I get why selling the ground in one financial year and putting it through in a different year to get around FFP is a serious offence and if found guilty should carry a heavy penalty but buying the ground at an "apparently" inflated price - surely actually doing this is not against the rules (its the reason behind it) which I guess in a court of law is difficult to prove. On a personal note now we are safe I would prefer the points off next season so we can look down on them with a smile!
|
|
|
Post by Bassingham Terrier on Jul 19, 2020 10:56:41 GMT 1
I get why selling the ground in one financial year and putting it through in a different year to get around FFP is a serious offence and if found guilty should carry a heavy penalty but buying the ground at an "apparently" inflated price - surely actually doing this is not against the rules (its the reason behind it) which I guess in a court of law is difficult to prove. On a personal note now we are safe I would prefer the points off next season so we can look down on them with a smile! 1. It's fraud 2. Imposing the sanction this season will see us looking down at them next season from an even greater height. Think about it...
|
|
|
Post by 66738 on Jul 19, 2020 11:08:30 GMT 1
Clubs not allowed to post losses of more than £39 million over 3 consecutive financial years. Paying £60m for ground instead of the true value of what? £20million?? puts the club into profit. They don’t fall foul of the £39m rule. Fraud. It’s really tricky to explain but here’s my understanding of it. Say year 1 and year 2 were at £50 million loss. The stadium was bought in year 2 but put on the books of year 3. That £60m injection now puts the club running at £10m profit. They don’t break the £39 m rule. Year 3 now becomes the first year of another 3 that they can’t break £39m. They start the 3 years off already £10m up. They now have £49m of losses to play with over the 3 years, and still comply.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 19, 2020 11:21:18 GMT 1
All I am saying is that it is difficult for the EFL. If they have sold the ground in one year and put it through in another year they definately breach FFP and have committed fraud (false accounting to HMRC). And need a significant points reduction and investigation by HMRC. However as a Limited Company they will have needed to have a Surveyor/Valuer value the ground (which I believe they have) so its whether the EFL are better suited to value the ground or a specialist commercial valuer. I am in no way trying defend a club who have clearly either broken the rules/law or bent them as far as they can but trying to put a view on why it is not as easy for the EFL to impose sanctions as people think.
|
|
crux
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,873
|
Post by crux on Jul 19, 2020 11:34:36 GMT 1
All I am saying is that it is difficult for the EFL. If they have sold the ground in one year and put it through in another year they definately breach FFP and have committed fraud (false accounting to HMRC). And need a significant points reduction and investigation by HMRC. However as a Limited Company they will have needed to have a Surveyor/Valuer value the ground (which I believe they have) so its whether the EFL are better suited to value the ground or a specialist commercial valuer. I am in no way trying defend a club who have clearly either broken the rules/law or bent them as far as they can but trying to put a view on why it is not as easy for the EFL to impose sanctions as people think. I agree with this. The ground valuation issues for Sheffield Wednesday and Derby County are matters of opinion and will have been done by qualified valuers. The values may seem high, but are difficult to argue against unless they are ridiculously high. It is difficult for the EFL to rule on this. I'm not sure what rules are in place on clubs buying back their grounds. In theory you could sell the ground for £100m and then a few years later buy it back at a lower price? This means you may then be able to sell again to get round FFP rules? PS: It's a good job Ken Davey didn't value Hillsborough, £2 for 40% wouldn't raise much 😂. Mind you you could sell that for £2m a few years later 😉
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 11:41:28 GMT 1
All I am saying is that it is difficult for the EFL. If they have sold the ground in one year and put it through in another year they definately breach FFP and have committed fraud (false accounting to HMRC). And need a significant points reduction and investigation by HMRC. However as a Limited Company they will have needed to have a Surveyor/Valuer value the ground (which I believe they have) so its whether the EFL are better suited to value the ground or a specialist commercial valuer. I am in no way trying defend a club who have clearly either broken the rules/law or bent them as far as they can but trying to put a view on why it is not as easy for the EFL to impose sanctions as people think. I agree with this. The ground valuation issues for Sheffield Wednesday and Derby County are matters of opinion and will have been done by qualified valuers. The values may seem high, but are difficult to argue against unless they are ridiculously high. It is difficult for the EFL to rule on this. I'm not sure what rules are in place on clubs buying back their grounds. In theory you could sell the ground for £100m and then a few years later buy it back at a lower price? This means you may then be able to sell again to get round FFP rules? PS: It's a good job Ken Davey didn't value Hillsborough, £2 for 40% wouldn't raise much 😂. Mind you you could sell that for £2m a few years later 😉 As someone who lives in Hillsborough, and walks by the ground regularly, I can confirm that it's worth £2. Honestly, it's falling to pieces. And the land valuation can't account for the price. Just across the road are acres of untouched, unwanted brown field sites.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,292
|
Post by Tinpot on Jul 19, 2020 11:44:16 GMT 1
People are assuming 12 points deduction. Is that because that's what Wigan got (for a different violation)? Or is there something covering this specifically? Have to admit this is a story I haven’t been all over but can see it’s been dragging on for months & months & months for no apparent reason. If Wednesday, Wigan & Derby have done wrong, deduct them all the required number of points (12?) now and let the table show the points deduction. Never mind delaying it til next season or whatever, just get on with it. Can anyone advise why this hasn’t already been sorted? In Wigan's case, it is largely clearcut, because it is defined in the rules. With the other two, it appears that they have definitely broken the spirit of the rules, but not necessarily the letter of the "law", so interpretation is required which is open to appeal and debate. The EFL are in a difficult position, because whichever way they decide in a points deduction decision, they are likely to end up with a legal challenge that will create uncertainty ending the season with respect to relegation places or potential for liability claim from Wednesday or team in 21st place. That's how I see it anyway. Somebody else may have a different take on it. My understanding is that you can break the spirit of any law with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 19, 2020 11:49:07 GMT 1
If people would care to look at Companies House website (it is free) and key in Sheffield Wednesday Football Club you will see that as at 31/5/17 they had a Freehold asset worth £26,881 (which may or not be the ground as it could be owned by another subsidiary company) but it is not unusual for businesses not to update values of properties owned unless they are going to sell them due to tax implications. For some reason they extended the following financial year by 2 months (so 14 months) until 31/07/2018 altho this asset appears to still be showing at a similar value. Obviously there must be a reason to extend for extending the financial year and I guess this is where the issues lies. There next Accounts are due 31/07/2020 (2 weeks away) so the matter will have to be resolved by then as clearly this will show what happened and when. If I was a guessing man I would say that both the EFL and Company know exactly what the situation is and are trying to work a solution before then. As clear as mud.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 19, 2020 11:49:53 GMT 1
M that is
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 19, 2020 11:50:31 GMT 1
Dont think there is a definitive number of points they could be docked. Its up to the EFL or FA or whoever.
Seems a pretty clear case of fraudulently cooking the books to get round FFP from what Ive read about it. They could just be relegated outright, and no need for any actual points deduction. Whatever they really need to decide this immediately so clubs know where they stand.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 19, 2020 11:57:00 GMT 1
Mean't to say £26.881m. If the Accounts were extended (which is a perfectly legal request) so the sale of the ground could be included in one year and not another then this can be done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 12:14:54 GMT 1
As I understand, the points deduction depends on how far over the ffp limit they were. 12 being the maximum.
The EFL really need to announce today or tomorrow what is happening with both Wednesday and Wigan. Hull could still escape if points deductions are coming, it is going to affect how teams approach the midweek games.
|
|
|
Post by herefordaway on Jul 19, 2020 12:36:11 GMT 1
Didnt the EFL already state that Wigans points deduction will be applied once all matches are completed?
|
|
|
Post by griffa on Jul 19, 2020 12:43:50 GMT 1
Clubs not allowed to post losses of more than £39 million over 3 consecutive financial years. Paying £60m for ground instead of the true value of what? £20million?? puts the club into profit. They don’t fall foul of the £39m rule. Fraud. It’s really tricky to explain but here’s my understanding of it. Say year 1 and year 2 were at £50 million loss. The stadium was bought in year 2 but put on the books of year 3. That £60m injection now puts the club running at £10m profit. They don’t break the £39 m rule. Year 3 now becomes the first year of another 3 that they can’t break £39m. They start the 3 years off already £10m up. They now have £49m of losses to play with over the 3 years, and still comply. Earlier this season, I recall that although the agreed sale value was £60m, no monies were received for the sale of Hillsborough. According to the radio show, I heard, in year 1, no payments were made or received, payments being scheduled to be made over several years! Looks very convenient that the Club benefitted, immediately from the £60m deal! Could be argued that this was just the terms of a 'Commercial Deal,' it's the non-payment, of monies' that maybe questionable! It was also alleged, that Wendies were sponsored were by a local taxi firm. Further investigation, confirmed that the Taxi Company, didn't exist! All very dodgy & smelly. Let's hope that if they are found guilty, they are punished accordingly, we've not recently heard any detailed analysis recently, perhaps Media/Journalists are not wanting to effect the impending decision by EFL! Birmingham City were recently found guilty of breaking FFP Regulations, but were only fined, in 2020/21, unlike the previous season, when they were docked 9 points!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 12:49:33 GMT 1
Clubs not allowed to post losses of more than £39 million over 3 consecutive financial years. Paying £60m for ground instead of the true value of what? £20million?? puts the club into profit. They don’t fall foul of the £39m rule. Fraud. It’s really tricky to explain but here’s my understanding of it. Say year 1 and year 2 were at £50 million loss. The stadium was bought in year 2 but put on the books of year 3. That £60m injection now puts the club running at £10m profit. They don’t break the £39 m rule. Year 3 now becomes the first year of another 3 that they can’t break £39m. They start the 3 years off already £10m up. They now have £49m of losses to play with over the 3 years, and still comply. Earlier this season, I recall that although the agreed sale value was £60m, no monies were received for the sale of Hillsborough. According to the radio show, I heard, in year 1, no payments were made or received, payments being scheduled to be made over several years! Looks very convenient that the Club benefitted, immediately from the £60m deal! Could be argued that this was just the terms of a 'Commercial Deal,' it's the non-payment, of monies' that maybe questionable! It was also alleged, that Wendies were sponsored were by a local taxi firm. Further investigation, confirmed that the Taxi Company, didn't exist! All very dodgy & smelly. Let's hope that if they are found guilty, they are punished accordingly, we've not recently heard any detailed analysis recently, perhaps Media/Journalists are not wanting to effect the impending decision by EFL! Birmingham City were recently found guilty of breaking FFP Regulations, but were only fined, in 2020/21, unlike the previous season, when they were docked 9 points! It wasn't a taxi company. An energy drink company came out of nowhere to be their big sponsor. But this drink could not be purchased anywhere. Turns out that the company behind it was registered just days before the sponsorship was announced, and belonged to the chairman...
|
|
|
Post by 66738 on Jul 19, 2020 12:57:39 GMT 1
Just had a peep over on Owlstalk. The general consensus is that points deduction this season would be too complicated. Appeal process would take too long and mean effected teams could be days off the season commencing still not sure which League they would be in. They would not be financially be able to plan their transfer budgets. It would not be fair on Wednesday or the effected other clubs. Got to say that is my feelings too. Wednesday would drag it out for as long as possible to disrupt the EFL and other clubs. Unless both Wednesday and the EFL already know. The punishment has already been handed down and the appeals process is already lodged and being considered. They mentioned the bogus taxi firm, and the shirt sponsorship. I’d forgotten about them. Chansiri is proper bent. If that had happened at our club, I’d be embarrassed to fuck.
|
|
|
Post by araucaria on Jul 19, 2020 13:01:37 GMT 1
Didnt the EFL already state that Wigans points deduction will be applied once all matches are completed? They did, but if Wigan finished in the bottom three without the deduction (which hasn't happened of course) then they would start with a 12 point deficit in League one next season. Once it became clear, a few games ago, that they would have been safe without the deduction, the league table should have been amended accordingly because the deduction will be made this season.
|
|
|
Post by ilsonterrier on Jul 19, 2020 13:27:35 GMT 1
It's all a complete mess isn't it? We've got the final round of games less than 4 days away and we still don't know what the league table does/should look like after 45 games. Farcical. Don't forget Derby were having their case held this week. The EFL needs to show some bottle and deal with it, but they are so scared of the legal fallout from whichever club is impacted most - whether that is Wigan/Massive/Derby or the team that finishes 3rd bottom.
|
|
|
Post by specialun on Jul 19, 2020 13:30:44 GMT 1
If guilty of financial irregularities they should be thrown out of the league not deducted points
That’d put a stop to it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 13:32:29 GMT 1
Didnt the EFL already state that Wigans points deduction will be applied once all matches are completed? They did, but if Wigan finished in the bottom three without the deduction (which hasn't happened of course) then they would start with a 12 point deficit in League one next season. Once it became clear, a few games ago, that they would have been safe without the deduction, the league table should have been amended accordingly because the deduction will be made this season. what ever the decision is on Wednesday and wigan as some on here have said needs to be made before Wednesdays games.the efl are bringing the game in to dispute never mind Wednesday if found guilty or wigan.boro Birmingham Charlton hull luton and Barnsley have been treated badly by this indecision.
|
|
|
Post by ilsonterrier on Jul 19, 2020 13:36:20 GMT 1
All I am saying is that it is difficult for the EFL. If they have sold the ground in one year and put it through in another year they definately breach FFP and have committed fraud (false accounting to HMRC). And need a significant points reduction and investigation by HMRC. However as a Limited Company they will have needed to have a Surveyor/Valuer value the ground (which I believe they have) so its whether the EFL are better suited to value the ground or a specialist commercial valuer. I am in no way trying defend a club who have clearly either broken the rules/law or bent them as far as they can but trying to put a view on why it is not as easy for the EFL to impose sanctions as people think. I agree with this. The ground valuation issues for Sheffield Wednesday and Derby County are matters of opinion and will have been done by qualified valuers. The values may seem high, but are difficult to argue against unless they are ridiculously high. It is difficult for the EFL to rule on this. I'm not sure what rules are in place on clubs buying back their grounds. In theory you could sell the ground for £100m and then a few years later buy it back at a lower price? This means you may then be able to sell again to get round FFP rules? PS: It's a good job Ken Davey didn't value Hillsborough, £2 for 40% wouldn't raise much 😂. Mind you you could sell that for £2m a few years later 😉 I know what you're saying but is there a possibility that said commercial valuer could be "persuaded" to come up with the necessary value? Is there any previous relationship between the valuer used and the club/certain club officials? Consider Pride Park - as it stands as a football ground it's commercial worth is debatable. It's only any good to someone who needs a football stadium and, other than Derby, who else is going to use it? So then you're looking at the value of the land itself. Whilst there is a lot of development work going on around Pride Park and the surrounding infrastructure, there is no way that that parcel of land is worth £80m. Same applies to Hillsborough. It's a very murky business and people are using every legal loophole possible because they are spending unsustainable amounts trying to get to the promised land and failing year after year.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 20, 2020 11:35:30 GMT 1
There has always been a saying "something is worth what someone is prepared to pay" so in theory if a Valuer values the ground at say £60m and another business is prepared to pay that figure then not sure (legally) what law has been broken. Breaking the spirit of the rules of football is difficult to prove in law particulary if a Professional Commercial Valuer has come up with the £60m figure. Because of Covid19 it is highly possible that these grounds could be sold back at a massively reduced value on the basis they are sports grounds with no current income or likely income for the future than the whole transaction can be done again to inject monies into the club in a number of years when values are "perceived" to have increased again as fans are returning (providing income).
|
|
|
Post by Farsley Terrier (UK product) on Jul 20, 2020 11:37:07 GMT 1
If guilty of financial irregularities they should be thrown out of the league not deducted points That’d put a stop to it so much this.
|
|
|
Post by Bassingham Terrier on Jul 20, 2020 17:09:25 GMT 1
Are we EVER going to learn the outcome of this protracted affair?
|
|
buckers
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,772
|
Post by buckers on Jul 20, 2020 17:18:10 GMT 1
Are we EVER going to learn the outcome of this protracted affair? It feels like the EFL are bottling this decision.
|
|
|
Post by billy143 on Jul 20, 2020 17:21:49 GMT 1
They will have just enough points deducted NOT to be relegated
|
|
|
Post by hypotenuse on Jul 20, 2020 17:33:41 GMT 1
There has always been a saying "something is worth what someone is prepared to pay" so in theory if a Valuer values the ground at say £60m and another business is prepared to pay that figure then not sure (legally) what law has been broken. Breaking the spirit of the rules of football is difficult to prove in law particulary if a Professional Commercial Valuer has come up with the £60m figure. Because of Covid19 it is highly possible that these grounds could be sold back at a massively reduced value on the basis they are sports grounds with no current income or likely income for the future than the whole transaction can be done again to inject monies into the club in a number of years when values are "perceived" to have increased again as fans are returning (providing income). The phrase ‘something is only worth what someone will pay for it’ simply isn’t true. Try selling your house to your son for £50 if you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by hypotenuse on Jul 20, 2020 17:36:28 GMT 1
I agree with this. The ground valuation issues for Sheffield Wednesday and Derby County are matters of opinion and will have been done by qualified valuers. The values may seem high, but are difficult to argue against unless they are ridiculously high. It is difficult for the EFL to rule on this. I'm not sure what rules are in place on clubs buying back their grounds. In theory you could sell the ground for £100m and then a few years later buy it back at a lower price? This means you may then be able to sell again to get round FFP rules? PS: It's a good job Ken Davey didn't value Hillsborough, £2 for 40% wouldn't raise much 😂. Mind you you could sell that for £2m a few years later 😉 I know what you're saying but is there a possibility that said commercial valuer could be "persuaded" to come up with the necessary value? Is there any previous relationship between the valuer used and the club/certain club officials? Consider Pride Park - as it stands as a football ground it's commercial worth is debatable. It's only any good to someone who needs a football stadium and, other than Derby, who else is going to use it? So then you're looking at the value of the land itself. Whilst there is a lot of development work going on around Pride Park and the surrounding infrastructure, there is no way that that parcel of land is worth £80m. Same applies to Hillsborough. It's a very murky business and people are using every legal loophole possible because they are spending unsustainable amounts trying to get to the promised land and failing year after year. What you say is perfectly sensible. A woman I know was divorcing her husband and needed a low valuation on the property she lived in (as she was staying there while he had moved out). The valuation was £60000 to £80000 below what she’d have got if the house had been put on the market at the time (2012).
|
|
|
Post by bogart on Jul 20, 2020 17:44:19 GMT 1
They will have just enough points deducted NOT to be relegated No points for guessing that. The EFL are a bunch of spineless buggars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2020 17:58:14 GMT 1
They will have just enough points deducted NOT to be relegated No points for guessing that. The EFL are a bunch of spineless buggars. They'll probably impose a points AND goal difference deduction that'll keep them up on +1 GD. That'll teach 'em!
|
|