kirksandallowl Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 49 minutes ago, Animis said: I can see why S3 (DC) would want a lease from the club to fund the charge, which £6.5m is due this September, but it would need declaring @ Land Registry - any lease over 7 years needs filing. I'll be honest, I've not looked but not heard anything official. Guess where the club get the £3m from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 49 minutes ago, Animis said: I can see why S3 (DC) would want a lease from the club to fund the charge, which £6.5m is due this September, but it would need declaring @ Land Registry - any lease over 7 years needs filing. I'll be honest, I've not looked but not heard anything official. Sheffield3 is registered at companies House as a Non Trading company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, S36 OWL said: Sheffield3 is registered at companies House as a Non Trading company. ...and owns Hillsborough - all £60m of it. Any lease still needs to be recorded - term; rent; parties etc., at Land Registry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, Animis said: ...and owns Hillsborough - all £60m of it. Any lease still needs to be recorded - term; rent; parties etc., at Land Registry. So a Non Trading company can afford to buy a football stadium for £60m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 28 minutes ago, S36 OWL said: So a Non Trading company can afford to buy a football stadium for £60m. Indeed - but DC's other non-trading companies are simply set up to channel cash into SWFC. If the charge and debt on the payments, is a cheaper way of paying for the annual costs of the £38m sale deal then ok - obviously the background of New Venture is a concern. DC could offset some of the risk by granting a lease, which could technically be sold onto a third party who pay S3 an investment value based on a term say 20 years and annual 'rent' of £3m. This one off payment goes straight to S3 (DC) and the debt on the lease sits with SWFC as an annual rent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mcguigan Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 On 16/01/2021 at 12:22, hirstyboywonder said: But we had this conversation a year ago when this came to light. Birmingham were deducted 9 points for their breach covering 2015-16 to 2017-18. In 2018-19 they lost another £8M, taking their 3-year rolling losses to around £60M so why didn't they incur another points deduction? Reading through the decision from the arbitration panel regarding BCFC, it's clear and does state that the EFL saw a very significant risk that BCFC would exceed the upper limit of £13m not just for 18/19 but going forward also without some sort of action being taken by the club. They issued the club a long list of conditions that had to be met, sustained and applied to avoid another visit to the disciplinary commission and more sanctions not to be applied. Much like we will have currently. The big difference being, other than delaying the sale of Che Evens till July 19 rather than Jan 19, they have stuck to the conditions and business plan proposed by the EFL and avoided any further punishments. Part of those conditions was get the 18/19 losses down to below the £13m maximum, which they did, as you say to £8m. Another part was to ensure, going forward, the club continued to adhere to the P&S rules and provide audited financial statements on time and in line with other Championship clubs. It also required future financial information and P&S forecast for 18/19 & 19/20, which they did. In fact as well as getting the 18/19 below the £13m, It looks like via player sales ie Jude Bellingham and Che Evens, they'll post a profit for 19/20 accounts which are due shortly. My fears for another visit to the disciplinary commission and more possible sanctions stem from the fact that, once again, DC seems hell bent on ignoring the EFL's conditions, sticking two fingers up to companies house and generally running the show at arms length and like a bloody amateur. The EFL's aim is not to keep continually punishing clubs but to try work with them to help become more P&S. Some clubs welcome the arrangement other, like us it appears don't. Without another COVID extension, our 19/20 accounts will be due in 3 months never mind the 18/19 ones. How are we supposed to be providing accurate financial projections for future P&S periods when we're this poorly organised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts