Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Suing Derby for allegedly breaching FFP rules over the sale of their ground to their owner. Could set a precedent if successful.

on TWTD several posters are all for it until a couple pointed out that Evans had bought their training ground and leased it back to them 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFP seems to have been a poorly constructed and implemented deterrent from the outset.

 

Must do better. Probably difficult though, but this might well put the cat among the pigeons.

I do not think that the club (ITFC) selling their training ground to Evans will present quite the same problem as long as the so-called market price was adhered to.

In Derby's case the owner paid far over the odds apparently in order to sidestep FFP.

I'll bet Evans would just love to sell that patch of land for development. Might happen one day as long as there are no caveats in the acquisition preventing this.

Edited by BroadstairsR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably an Antiques Roadshow scenario. Derby thought the ground was worth £20M but when they took it an expert (the owner) they discovered it was worth £40M.

Case Closed!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like sour grapes to me and can’t see it going anywhere.

How have Boro lost out? Finishing 7th instead of 6th? They can’t guarantee they would have won in the playoffs so we’re talking a couple of hundred thousand in TV rights money for finishing one place higher? 

A quick google search this morning suggests Boro’s wage bill is probably higher than Derby’s, which rather flies in the face of any argument Boro might have that “more money guarantees success”.

And they’d have to actually prove Derby have breached FFP (no idea whether they have or haven’t). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggy, the point boro will presumably make is that it has given Derby an unfair financial advantage - something that is clear for all to see.  It means they’ve been able to buy/loan players they’d otherwise be unable to afford which undoubtedly improved their performance/position.

 Boro are unlikely to win, but they have a very valid argument - it seems football is as much about flouting rules and all-but getting away with it, as it is about playing ‘fair’.  

There will always be sides with an advantage of ‘size’ (eg us or Leeds v Rotherham or whoever), and those with ‘legitimate’ income sources (eg PL money);  Boro’s wage bill will be higher as they still have the PL payments.

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aggy said:

Seems like sour grapes to me and can’t see it going anywhere.

How have Boro lost out? Finishing 7th instead of 6th? They can’t guarantee they would have won in the playoffs so we’re talking a couple of hundred thousand in TV rights money for finishing one place higher? 

A quick google search this morning suggests Boro’s wage bill is probably higher than Derby’s, which rather flies in the face of any argument Boro might have that “more money guarantees success”.

And they’d have to actually prove Derby have breached FFP (no idea whether they have or haven’t). 

This sounds not dissimilar to the QPR case, where a massive loss was supposedly wiped out, by writing off loans and claiming they were somehow income. And that ended badly for QPR.

A court case might not go anywhere but I suspect the football authorities will act against what looks like a pretty blatant attempt to avoid a massive loss on the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Aggy, the point boro will presumably make is that it has given Derby an unfair financial advantage - something that is clear for all to see.  It means they’ve been able to buy/loan players they’d otherwise be unable to afford which undoubtedly improved their performance/position.

 Boro are unlikely to win, but they have a very valid argument - it seems football is as much about flouting rules and all-but getting away with it, as it is about playing ‘fair’.  

There will always be sides with an advantage of ‘size’ (eg us or Leeds v Rotherham or whoever), and those with ‘legitimate’ income sources (eg PL money);  Boro’s wage bill will be higher as they still have the PL payments.. As I’ve said, it looks as though Boro have a higher wage bill than Derby. If Boro are spending more than Derby and finished below them, then that suggests you can’t simply say “more money equals higher finishing position”.

There’s a difference though between “suing” someone and having a moan to the EFL about them breaching EFL/FFP rules.

The EFL might take action and, if Derby are found to have breached FFP, then there might be a QPR-esque fine. But Boro wouldn’t benefit from that, and that isn’t Boro “suing” Derby.

I don’t think EFL action would be a surprise at all if Derby are found to have breached FFP. Boro risking tens/hundreds of thousands in legal fees to “sue” Derby for some lost TV revenue for 6th vs 7th place would be a surprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson's been unhappy with the execution of the FFP rules in the Championship for a while. He was trying to get a rule change to allow club and independent accountants to audit each others books.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/attempt-steve-gibson-change-efl-16176671

He's been gunning for Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday for a while now.

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...