Jump to content

EFL Statement


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, steelowl said:

 

I'm hoping there's an element of this to it  (ie being seen to have a look at it)    I know mardy Gibson kicked off publicly,  have any other chairman had a pop at us ?

the fear is that we are a big keep off the grass example 

 

I'm fearing we will be made an example of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, torres said:

 

I'm fearing we will be made an example of.

New regime for an organisation smarting from the Bury debacle so if we are found guilty of the charges this may happen.

 

But, given it’s an independent inquiry and we have our own accountants and lawyers with their own reputations at stake who will fight their corner, there’s no reason to think it’ll be a stitch up. If we’re guilty we have to suck up the punishment. 

 

As ever it will be the fans that ultimately suffer but that’s always the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, nbupperthongowl said:

I think we all hope this, my concern is that they will just interpret their own unclear rules in a way that means they save face

 

I can't help but think back to the FF ban and how that was handled...... outside the legal process

 

There might have been a time when a player treated as such might have a case of "restraint of trade" or, in extreme cases, "unfair dismissal" but since presumably the club carried on paying FF during his ban, as long as he was getting paid and enjoying the other contractual requirements, he wasn't excluded from performing his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sherlyegg said:

Don't think we will lose this...just the efl appeasing a few other chairmen..

It could rest on if or when stamp duty was paid..my guess we paid it and the efl know this but are still pretending to go for the kill.

 

I mean what club would sell the ground and still end up with a points deduction, what were our lawyers advising. You would think it was water tight....wouldn't you?

When did Meire do a runner?

 

 

I'm hoping you're right but I cant see the EFL doing this just to appease the other chairmen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple of worked examples of football stadium DRC valuations on the RICS web site - the interesting thing in these below is the application of seat value @ £2,500 - doesn't say what this represents. If you apply the same formula, but change the seater stadium to say 40,000 as we are technically at present, you start with a figure of £100,000 for buildings before discounting. I suppose the age and condition of Hillsborough meant a bigger depreciated % to get to the £60m figure in the accounts. In the end, from the below, it's not the valuation figure that's our problem.

 

Football stadium: purpose-built

The property

The property is a 5-year-old, purpose-built football stadium with 30,000 seats.

The approach

As the valuation is for the football club's financial statements, and the property is a type that is rarely traded and is specialised, the valuer has adopted a depreciated replacement cost approach.

The land has been valued based on the highest employment land values in the town, on the basis that if the stadium had to be reprovided, the football club would secure a new site in a highly accessible location.

The valuer has assessed the cost of reproviding a new 30,000-seater stadium and has depreciated this cost by 10% to reflect the physical decline of the stadium being valued, and that new stadia would have better designed circulation space.

 

 

Football stadium: purpose-built

BUILDINGS

 

 

Modern equivalent stadium

 

 

30,000 seater @ £2,500 per seat

£75,000,000

 

Plus

 

 

Fees @ 10%

£7,500,000

 

Finance @ 7% for half build period of 2 yrs

£5,775,000

 

Gross replacement cost

£88,275,000

 

Depreciated by 10%

£8,827,500

 

Net replacement cost

 

£79,447,500

LAND

 

 

25 acre site @ £300,000 per acre

£7,500,000

 

Finance of land @ 7% for 2 yrs

£1,086,750

 

Cost of land

 

£8,586,750

Total depreciated replacement cost

 

£88,034,250

 

Say

£88,000,000

 

Football stadium: over-specified

The property

The property is a 20-year-old purpose-built football stadium with 30,000 seats. The football club has been relegated and they never managed to more than half-fill the stadium.

The approach

The valuer has reflected that the actual building is over-specified for the club. If the club were to replace the stadium, they would only build one that was half the size and on a much smaller site. So the valuer has assumed that the MEA is much smaller than the actual building, and has applied a 50% obsolescence factor. While the building is the same size as the one in the previous example, the value is significantly lower.

Football stadium: over-specified

BUILDINGS

 

 

Modern equivalent stadium

 

 

15,000 seater @ £2,500 per seat

£37,500,000

 

Plus

 

 

Fees @ 10%

£3,750,000

 

Finance @ 7% for half build period of 2 yrs

£2,887,500

 

Gross replacement cost

£44,137,500

 

Depreciated by 50%

£22,068,750

 

Net replacement cost

 

£22,068,750

LAND

 

 

10 acre site @ £300,000 per acre

£3,000,000

 

Finance of land @ 7% for 2 yrs

£434,700

 

Cost of land

 

£3,434,700

Total depreciated replacement cost

 

£25,503,450

 

Say

£25,500,000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

New regime for an organisation smarting from the Bury debacle so if we are found guilty of the charges this may happen.

 

But, given it’s an independent inquiry and we have our own accountants and lawyers with their own reputations at stake who will fight their corner, there’s no reason to think it’ll be a stitch up. If we’re guilty we have to suck up the punishment. 

 

As ever it will be the fans that ultimately suffer but that’s always the way. 

 

It's this bit that gets me angry about the whole situation more than anything.

 

As supporters we have done all that is asked of us  - put up with these sickening prices and for what??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, A12owl said:

Have the EFL ever been proved wrong or had a "prosecution" overturned to say they were wrong?

They make the rules and administer them. 

I think the whole current situation (correct me if I'm wrong) is due to the "sale" of the ground being back dated and entered in the wrong years accounts.

If that is the case then it seems to me that it's a black or white situation. If it has been put in the wrong years  accounts then we are guilty as charged but how do the EFL decide on the punishment. 

VAR ( Variable Accounting Review) could be used to decide whether the transactuon was in or out of the relevant accounts. 

Let's hope the football starting on Saturday gives us all some positiveness back after beating WBA.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if there is a precedent like this but one pointer as to how it is done was Alan Sugar taking the FA to the cleaners in 1995 after Tottenham had been booted out of the FA Cup, fined £600k and deducted twelve points for "financial irregularities" whilst under previous ownership. Although the fine was increased to over £1m, the points deduction and the FA Cup ban were both lifted.

 

Clearly, the FA picked on the wrong bloke there.

 

This compares to the way Swindon were treated in 1990 for "illegal payments to players" when they were relegated from Division One, without playing a game, to the third tier initially. This was then amended to relegate Swindon to the second tier after clubs lower down complained that it would mess up promotion and relegation lower down the divisions. (This was the season that losing Play-off Finalists, Sunderland, got promoted instead of Wednesday staying up to fill the vacant place)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

New regime for an organisation smarting from the Bury debacle so if we are found guilty of the charges this may happen.

 

But, given it’s an independent inquiry and we have our own accountants and lawyers with their own reputations at stake who will fight their corner, there’s no reason to think it’ll be a stitch up. If we’re guilty we have to suck up the punishment. 

 

As ever it will be the fans that ultimately suffer but that’s always the way. 

 

 

And given that Bury fans will have bought season tickets which technically makes them creditors but realistically means that they have paid a shed load of money not to watch football, surely it's a time for the FA, the EFL and the Premier League to think about the paying customers.

 

As a starter, maybe a small premium on ticket sales to pay for an "ATOL-like" arrangement that is deployed in the travel industry so that refunds can be made to fans who, through no fault of their own, either end up watching their club in a lower division then advertised or, as in the case of Bury, end up not watching them at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mr Farrell said:

 

Not really seeing a way out of this unless I'm missing something.

 

Looks like at best transfer embargos, and at worst points docked for some time.

 

All underpinned by the need to sort the squad out.

 

Really wish DC would bring somebody in to help him.

He did that but she left very suddenly without saying a word if you remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many holes in the EFL 'criteria' that a robust defence should seek to expose if the Club do not roll over...

 

Rigged competition in favour of relegated premier league clubs.

 

Potential restrictions of trade of otherwise solvent businesses.

 

Fixed amount for 3 year cycles etc. which do not reflect rising incomes within the Premier League.

 

Whilst the EFLs intention to achieve 'fairness' maybe honourable, the system is flawed and the EFL run the risk of equally being exposed to criticism.

 

I see this as a test case and perhaps the EFL need to use this process to establish a legal benchmark before they undertake a root and branch review of how they administer the competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Flat Owl said:

So many holes in the EFL 'criteria' that a robust defence should seek to expose if the Club do not roll over...

 

Rigged competition in favour of relegated premier league clubs.

 

Potential restrictions of trade of otherwise solvent businesses.

 

Fixed amount for 3 year cycles etc. which do not reflect rising incomes within the Premier League.

 

Whilst the EFLs intention to achieve 'fairness' maybe honourable, the system is flawed and the EFL run the risk of equally being exposed to criticism.

 

I see this as a test case and perhaps the EFL need to use this process to establish a legal benchmark before they undertake a root and branch review of how they administer the competition.

This is all well and good, but it isn't going to help a defence. 

 

The rules might be a joke, but they are the rules and if you have failed to comply/breach them, then it is tough sh*t. 

 

The only way we are getting off these charges is if we can show we haven't breached the rules. 

 

Complaining about how unfair/stupid they are isn't going to cut it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, torres said:

 

I'm fearing we will be made an example of.

It's no more than we deserve. Our owner has been sailing close to the wind since he arrived. It was only a matter of time before he was found out 

I expect his private jet is fuelled and ready at Robin Hood Airport 

His sort alway have an exit strategy. That's how they get Rich 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mrmason69 said:

It's no more than we deserve. Our owner has been sailing close to the wind since he arrived. It was only a matter of time before he was found out 

I expect his private jet is fuelled and ready at Robin Hood Airport 

His sort alway have an exit strategy. That's how they get Rich 

 

I don't think Chansiri can afford to just walk away. If he wants out he will have to take a big loss on the money he has put n and sell the club.
Chansiri has been a bit quiet lately, normally do a fans forum about this time of the season.
Might not be a bad thing he is keeping a low profile at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SiJ said:

This is all well and good, but it isn't going to help a defence. 

 

The rules might be a joke, but they are the rules and if you have failed to comply/breach them, then it is tough sh*t. 

 

The only way we are getting off these charges is if we can show we haven't breached the rules. 

 

Complaining about how unfair/stupid they are isn't going to cut it. 

 

As far as the EFL are concerned - I agree.

 

However, if the Club end up challenging the validity of any 'punishment' and 'rules' in so far as they are unreasonable and/or applied in an inconsistent manner or are breaching other aspects of the law then there maybe someway to go once the measures have been determined.

 

It may very well be that depending on the magnitude of any punishment, that the Club just accept it and move on and then clubs will need to await the next catastrophic failure.

 

Equally, if the magnitude is severe or even 'disproportionate' in order to send a message, then someone will or may have no option but to fight back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kameron

To be fair to Chansiri he's warned on numerous occasions we we're up sh it creek if promotion was not secured within two seasons of him arriving.  What I'm failing to understand is why the EFL signed off the accounts and removed transfer restrictions, this is not as straight forward as accusing the club of being dishonest with the sale of the club, it has implications for accountants, INDEPENDANT auditors and possibly legal advisors, the accounts are then ratified by the EFL who I would expect have these checked by  accountants, INDEPENDANT auditors and possibly legal advisors.  I find it difficult to be believe we could hide information or submit false documentation, doing so would have serious implications for those signing off the accounts and sale of the club.  There's no way you would get two sets of independent auditors to sign this off, problem is this could drag on years if it ends up in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kameron said:

To be fair to Chansiri he's warned on numerous occasions we we're up sh it creek if promotion was not secured within two seasons of him arriving.  What I'm failing to understand is why the EFL signed off the accounts and removed transfer restrictions, this is not as straight forward as accusing the club of being dishonest with the sale of the club, it has implications for accountants, INDEPENDANT auditors and possibly legal advisors, the accounts are then ratified by the EFL who I would expect have these checked by  accountants, INDEPENDANT auditors and possibly legal advisors.  I find it difficult to be believe we could hide information or submit false documentation, doing so would have serious implications for those signing off the accounts and sale of the club.  There's no way you would get two sets of independent auditors to sign this off, problem is this could drag on years if it ends up in the courts.

This is very true. 

 

This runs a lot deeper than Wednesday, Chansiri etc. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Boro looking to sue the EFL for failure to implement/adhere correctly to their own rules? 

 

Surely this whole fiasco only strengthens that case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe our chairman's strong actions when Newcastle were trying to shaft us and the fact that he appears to have won that contractual disagreement and would not let it drop will be something that the EFL will consider........he isn't the sort of guy to take things lying down and this could run and run, appeals won't be welcome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets say DC some how manages to get away with this and we don't get a points deduction and fine - does anyone think he will learn from it and chance his basic business plan that means we lose millions every season.

 

We have a 30-40,000 seater stadium that we are not allowed to use properly because it has not been updated since 1994 (for Euro 96), what needs to be done to get the SAG restrictions lifted - no one seems to know?

 

Ticket pricing that gets about 22-24,000 each game, if POTG was not such a rip off we could get another 2,0000 -4,000 a game at £30 a ticket that's another £1.38m to £2.76m a yr, sell the corporate boxes at a proper price £25k for 28 boxes that's another £700k a year, sell advertising to local business at prices they can afford for 2nd division football this could be a few million a year. Sell naming rights to the stadium and the stands again another £1-2m depending, sell the shirt sponsorship deals again another £1-2m based on other teams and how high profile we have become. Just a few measure could help to bring in another £5+m in revenue a season.

 

Then we manage the team better, Rhodes is on £40k at least a week or £2m a season we had offers in the summer for him and a fee as well, but we turn them down because of policy of not selling players. We currently have Winnall, Rhodes, Luongo, Odabajo, Baker, Bates, Wildsmith, Jones sat not playing because we continue to stock pile players just in case, but then in the same breathe don't develop or progress youth players which could offer the same cover if needed. We probably have in the region of £100k a week sat not playing or £5m a season.

 

We need a complete rethink the way our football club is run, the off the field activities need to be run as a business making money, the stadium needs to pay for itself outside of match days from corporate events, merchandising, clubs and activities. But at prices that people don't feel they are being ripped off.

 

The on the field needs running better and the first team trimming down, players not playing need to be sold or loaned out, the management of the team needs to vastly improve. We have had now for the last 3 season half of the squad out of contract, this is no way to run a football team, some are not needed so why are they still at the club and not sold to saving money and maybe even bringing in fees. But other that are key to the team, why are their contracts being allowed to get within 8 months. If everyone out of contract leaves at the end of this season we will have no strikers left at the club This is no way to run a football club but under Dc it has become the norm..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kameron said:

To be fair to Chansiri he's warned on numerous occasions we we're up sh it creek if promotion was not secured within two seasons of him arriving.  What I'm failing to understand is why the EFL signed off the accounts and removed transfer restrictions, this is not as straight forward as accusing the club of being dishonest with the sale of the club, it has implications for accountants, INDEPENDANT auditors and possibly legal advisors, the accounts are then ratified by the EFL who I would expect have these checked by  accountants, INDEPENDANT auditors and possibly legal advisors.  I find it difficult to be believe we could hide information or submit false documentation, doing so would have serious implications for those signing off the accounts and sale of the club.  There's no way you would get two sets of independent auditors to sign this off, problem is this could drag on years if it ends up in the courts.

And also PI insurers for all 3 who wont want to pay out if they think the process is flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...