Jump to content
markg

EFL Statement

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Blue and white said:

Milan had far more money than people gave him credit for but he wasn't in it for the long haul, like a property developer he bought clubs on the cheap, spent the bare minimum needed and sold them on at a profit, that's how he made his money and there is nothing wrong with that.

He knew his business, we were in safe hands, we saw year upon year progress and he made a profit, everyone was a winner.

 

He also borrowed money against the stadium in the latter couple of years let's not forget from some interesting characters

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

He also borrowed money against the stadium in the latter couple of years let's not forget from some interesting characters

He did but he didn't leave us up shitcreek, nor did he get us in trouble with the EFL and we were never under an embargo under his ownership.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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.

 

 

This is the most concerning point for me. The EFL via their kangaroo court, dressed up as an independent panel will likely ignore whatever defence is put forward.

 

While a swift resolution would be best for all, the EFL will likely wait until the back end of the season to look hard with a points deduction (like Birmingham), which has little material impact other than to ruin another season, due to idodtic and outdated FFP restraint of trade.

 

I genuinely hope we maintain a promotion push now and DC ties them up in appeals and legal action, to make it as difficult as possible. For the EFL.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milan got out when he realized the money needed was way beyond his risk appetite. He had the cash, but did a simple calc on risk and return and thought f that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, striker said:

This is the most concerning point for me. The EFL via their kangaroo court, dressed up as an independent panel will likely ignore whatever defence is put forward.

 

Persecution complex rears its head again. When you live in Leeds like I do you hear stuff like this all the time. We’re following in their footsteps again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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.

 

 

If that’s the case, and I really don’t know, then the accountants wouldn’t have signed off the accounts, the EFL wouldn’t have signed off the accounts. The lawyers wouldn’t have agreed to contracts etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 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 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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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 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

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Plonk said:

If that’s the case, and I really don’t know, then the accountants wouldn’t have signed off the accounts, the EFL wouldn’t have signed off the accounts. The lawyers wouldn’t have agreed to contracts etc etc.

Yeah but....the EFL adapt their rules to suit themselves . It's becoming more obvious as all this unfolds that the current set of rules are unfit for purpose. Until all the club's get together with the EFL and get the parameters changed then there will be clubs that try to get round the rules. Usually those with money available but not useable. There will be others who cannot compete because they do not have the money anyway .

There will be those receiving parachute payments who are happy that the "level playing field" is anything but level.

Then there is the EFL. 

They won't want to change the rules cos that would be tantamount to admitting they are wrong . 

The whole thing is a mess in its current state . Will it change? Not until a club with a lot of clout gets dragged into an investigation that they don't like. Are we big enough to have that clout? Not at the moment. We have too much baggage . 

As much as Mr Gibson is disliked then until somebody like him gets sh*t on its not going away.

Hopefully we escape with a lot less punishment than has been suggested or better still DC proves the EFL don't have a case and we get promoted out of this godawful organisation.

Have a good day everybody. 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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??

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, torres said:

 

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

They've been wanting to do it since the Semi report was published.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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)

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...