WalthamOwl Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 11 minutes ago, Hougoumont said: Ah! Bless....have a nice day. Thanks. I’m sure I will. Just got to change the sheets on my bed. Have a good one yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Starling Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 The value of something is what the purchaser is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Ronnie Starling said: The value of something is what the purchaser is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to accept. I don't think that will be an accepted mantra in this investigation. Somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 12 minutes ago, Animis said: MK - can you just confirm that the accountancy regs essentially leave the valuation up to the client to arrange through a regulated (RICS) company and that signed-off valuation is taken as correct, subject the correct checks on report process rather than the valuation methodology. Yes the auditors cannot do the valuation. They are there to check the figures within the company accounts. The auditing standard is very robust on the work that should be done - is it done by an appropriately qualified person (so it does not have to be a RICS valuer) - that the valuation mechanism chosen is correct, that the parameters used - that the valuation is independent and free from bias - is there an alternative approach, different assumptions that could be used What you can't do is just sign it off because it was prepared by a 3rd party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ronnie Starling said: The value of something is what the purchaser is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to accept. Not in this case - far more technical approach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinnssweetshop Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 They'll look at all three clubs and blame only us. It's nailed on. They phooking hate us. Any possible reason to get at us for the semi disaster they will. Anything to be seen that they are handing out justice, of any kind. Reading ? no chance... Derby... oh no... it's Wayne Rooneys Derby. US ? fizz em, they'll say, lets take em to phooking town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Ronnie Starling said: The value of something is what the purchaser is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to accept. Ive got a knackered old Transit van im selling and ive offered it to DC for £80k . Just waiting for him to get back to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Starling Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Maybe the EFL should also look at some of the recent transfer fees we have paid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 29 minutes ago, mkowl said: I can confirm my PI premium is a bit higher than that Bigger company/higher risk? I am actually a one-man band, but wrapped under a Limited company as I am a contractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Wicket Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 In Derby’s case, the owner and chairman Mel Morris used a separate company to purchase the ground for £80 million — with a deal to then lease it back to the club — when it was listed as an asset on the club’s books with a value of only £41 million. This will be the reason they are looking into it. If we have not valued our too high we should be alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andytrig Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Independent valuation committees no doubt headed up by the bishop of Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darra Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 (edited) From the article in the Star. Kieran Maguire, a lecturer in football finance at the University of Liverpool, said: "It's a strange one. "It's poor monitoring by the regulatory bodies, but the clubs have done nothing wrong from the perspective of compliance. "I think you can say from a sporting fair play perspective, they've shown the FFP rules to be a farce." Like when Leicester went into admin they'll close the loophole and anybody else will get sanctioned. At the time we and the other clubs did it it wasn't legal or illegal it was a loophole. Any good lawyer could get any sanctions against us thrown out Hopefully, the EFL will.realise that FFP needs scrapping or at the very least the debt amounts need revising upwards. Edited September 5, 2019 by darra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darra Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Only ever had a house valued but I do remember that when you are looking at insuring the house they take into account how much it would cost to demolish the house and rebuild it when looking at buildings insurance and it is more than the value paid for the house. Maybe that's how the valuation was made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn owl Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 What is the point in investigating it. He bought himself and paid whatever he wanted to pay. If they don't like it close the Loophole. Every club is trying to get round these rules from Man City to Bury. Maybe the rules don't work? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 13 minutes ago, mkowl said: Yes the auditors cannot do the valuation. They are there to check the figures within the company accounts. The auditing standard is very robust on the work that should be done - is it done by an appropriately qualified person (so it does not have to be a RICS valuer) - that the valuation mechanism chosen is correct, that the parameters used - that the valuation is independent and free from bias - is there an alternative approach, different assumptions that could be used What you can't do is just sign it off because it was prepared by a 3rd party Thanks - I think you'll find it does have to be a RICS valuer as the valuation will need to be 'red book'. To apply a value, an alternate use wouldn't be used in this case, as it could only be a use, which the assumptions proved could be actually developed. Of the alternative land values, residential has traditionally been the highest, and Hillsborough could feasible be residential subject to planning consent and restrictions (flooding etc.). If you deducted the demolition costs, the club could only feasibly raise up to £5m. To have got to £60m, it would have been based on existing use taking an hypothetic annual rent x an investment yield rate x the years of the lease. Hypothetical rent could be based on examples/comparables like Leeds when the rented their ground which was reported to have been £1.7m/annum, so say £2m/annum adjusted for inflation. The yield is likely to be mid range due to the competing risks of investors' view of the stability of a football club's ability to pay, and whether there is a market. Clearly football grounds are for the sole use of the particular football club so on one hand they ain't going anyway, but the financial sustainability is always in question - see Bury. Clearly this is all academic as DC essentially set two companies up to undertake the transaction. I do wonder whether he has to actual set up a rental stream between the two companies to justify the above - not in a valuation sense, but accountancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelcityowlsfan Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 A non event. We exploited a loophole as other clubs have done. What we have done hasn't broken the EFL's rules. They can't touch us. If they so much as tried they would have a lawsuit against them. The best they can do is re-write the rules yet again and actually get someone competent to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTacoSWFC Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 If its not one thing its another... I bet Chansiri is blooming sick of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigthinrob Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Can someone put me right on this. Whereas the Premier league seem to wrap their clubs in cotton wool & reward & protect them at every opportunity, it seems the EFL try and make it as difficult as possible for the clubs under their banner. They initially stabbed at a random figure for FFP before they were forced to ‘re brand’ it, made life harder for clubs season on season by not index linking the amount & then retrospectively trying to again, screw clubs that have been forced to try & maximise assets because of said arbitrary, non index linked FFP. It smacks of a teacher punishing a kid they are supposed to care for because the kid shows too much ambition & takes on private tuition. They will no doubt try & quote the Bury situation (laughably), as justification, which is down to one mans greed & the EFLs abject failure to comply with ‘due diligence’ checks by their own staff. Not unlike the SYP situation where they c*ck it up & then punish us for their admitted said c**k up. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ever the pessimist Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 It's their ridiculous P&S rules that have meant non-parachute payment clubs have had to undertake such drastic measures as buying their own grounds in the first place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsteel89 Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Well lets start with what we do know..we know programs are 3 quid, from here we can deduce a rough estimate of 169 billion, minus costs gives us 60.1 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now