clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,338
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Derby charged for breach of spending rules
- Thread starter clapham_gull
- Start date
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
That'll piss off Mr Rooney
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
I suspect the punishment will be to go to their room and have a long think about what they have done.
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,081
And now we know why they didn't want to paying a crocked Keogh to sit on his arse
B-right-on
Living the dream
Selling the ground to the owner for £80m, one way to try and get around the rules. Gambled on PL promotion and lost the gamble last season and look like they arent going to do it this season either in 17th place.
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Is Frank an 'arry in the making ?
Creaky
Well-known member
I’m confused about this whole story - is the problem actually the sale of the stadium to the owner or the dates when the transfer actually happened?
If it’s the actual sale then why? We don’t own our stadium, TB does via The Community Stadium Ltd and Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd pays rent for its use.
If it’s the dates then presumably the profit on the sale of the Derby stadium will be allowed in this year’s accounts.
If it’s the actual sale then why? We don’t own our stadium, TB does via The Community Stadium Ltd and Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd pays rent for its use.
If it’s the dates then presumably the profit on the sale of the Derby stadium will be allowed in this year’s accounts.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
In the case of Wednesday, the problem is both the date upon which the sale was apparently made and where it appears in the accounts. I think with Derby it's more that the stadium is not worth what they've valued it at - purely to get round FFP.
I'm sure there's someone on here who know's better [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION]
Marty___Mcfly
I see your wicked plan - I’m a junglist.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 2,251
The ‘sale’ was for double the actual value-
‘The Rams have leased back the ground, which was said to have been independently valued at £80m despite it being on the club's books as an asset worth £41m, from a company owned by Morris.’
nwgull
Well-known member
The key difference is that we didn’t sell our stadium to try and offset FFP spending limit. BHAFC have never owned the stadium, and the loophole to sell it and use the profit only appeared in the regulations 2 seasons ago.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,590
Will we see Wayne Rooney gracing the likes of Fleetwood, Rochdale and Accrington Stanley next season?
Creaky
Well-known member
Surely the ‘actual value’ is what it was ‘independently valued’ at. By selling at market value that gives the club the £39m profit. Are the FA now saying that profits on the sale of assets aren’t now allowed in the calculation for FFP?
What if we sold a player contract to Royale Union Saint-Gilloise at a profit, would that be allowed?
£1k fine and week on the naughty step ought to show them.
Marty___Mcfly
I see your wicked plan - I’m a junglist.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 2,251
The owner sold the ground to themselves for double what it’s worth - to fiddle the books and pump cash into the accounts under false pretences.
I think that’s the problem.
Massive - it’s the date (a separate charge), and the over valuation.
Creaky
Well-known member
Well I’m glad someone understands it! Maybe you could enlighten me?
The stadium valuation was made by an independent group, accepted by HMRC and the EFL at the time. Was completed within the relevant accounting period. Allowed under the regulations.
I just don’t understand the EFL’s reasoning.