Financial Fair Play investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
TBF, if they were really serious, they would have league sanctioned sponsorship, 20 per year who pay the league to be in the group. They then bid between themselves at auction for which club shirt they will be placed on. The money raised at auction should go directly back in to grassroots football, with the clubs agreeing a charity for an equal share of the initial entrance fee paid to each year.

Kits get changed every year by all (I think) clubs in the league anyway.

If clubs still want to sponsor training grounds etc, it can only be up to a set price. That woud also stop the likes of city with their fake sponsorships.

Like this a lot I have to say.
 
I'm probably stating the obvious here so apologies in advance but remember:

1) Richarlison is Fee - Book Value=Profit or Loss.
2) £50m was it- Remaining Unamortised Portion of Contract.
3) Plus any sell on due to Watford.
4) Plus add ons only banked as they fall due etc.

Whereas Gordon sale hits the accounts at full profit instantly. No sell on to factor in either. Add-ons as in point 4 too.
 

People will probably think I'm just taking the proverbial by now but...

My suggestion to any club accused of FFP questions is to release the accounts at the earliest opportunity to show compliance and put the matter to bed. I thought the same about Derby in 2021.
 
I'm probably stating the obvious here so apologies in advance but remember:

1) Richarlison is Fee - Book Value=Profit or Loss.
2) £50m was it- Remaining Unamortised Portion of Contract.
3) Plus any sell on due to Watford.
4) Plus add ons only banked as they fall due etc.

Whereas Gordon sale hits the accounts at full profit instantly. No sell on to factor in either. Add-ons as in point 4 too.
Homegrown players are subject to tax like CGT at 20% whereas non-homegrown players the taxable amount is only on the profit made. With Gordon the entire 40m is profit
 

People will probably think I'm just taking the proverbial by now but...

My suggestion to any club accused of FFP questions is to release the accounts at the earliest opportunity to show compliance and put the matter to bed. I thought the same about Derby in 2021.
Other than a charge for non-submission of accounts, which I do not believe is the case with EFC, a club cannot be charged with FFP or P&S breaches without having already released accounts or at least their preliminary accounts, which are the expected accounts to be filed a few months later. It is only if something changes between the preliminary and final accounts, that the preliminary accounts would be amended. What accounts are u suggesting the club releases?
If EFC has not given the PL their accounts on what basis are they being charged for breaking P&S?
 
Other than a charge for non-submission of accounts, which I do not believe is the case with EFC, a club cannot be charged with FFP or P&S breaches without having already released accounts or at least their preliminary accounts, which are the expected accounts to be filed a few months later. It is only if something changes between the preliminary and final accounts, that the preliminary accounts would be amended. What accounts are u suggesting the club releases?
If EFC has not given the PL their accounts on what basis are they being charged for breaking P&S?

I think, and I stress think, its the accounts from 21/22 that have been questioned by some clubs. But as far as we were concerned, EFC and the PL had cooperated to ensure compliance. Hence the theory that the PL have been badgered after already saying we were ok into a commission, which, fingers crossed, is nowt more than some window dressing.

But despite that, no one has a clue.
 
Dont follow that at all.
EFC has a capital gains tax liability on profit when selling an asset. It's the same way you or I would have a tax liability on shares, if we bought 100k worth of shares and sold them for 130k we would have to pay 20% CGT on the 30k profit. Gordon is treated as an asset but as he is homegrown he is deemed to have cost EFC nothing (there is no ability to claim the cost of developing him for the purpose of CGT calculation). EFC sold him for 40m and HMRC takes 20% of that 40m from EFC.
 
I think, and I stress think, its the accounts from 21/22 that have been questioned by some clubs. But as far as we were concerned, EFC and the PL had cooperated to ensure compliance. Hence the theory that the PL have been badgered after already saying we were ok into a commission, which, fingers crossed, is nowt more than some window dressing.

But despite that, no one has a clue.
Yes, I agree, I obviously do not know the detail but it is widely reported that the alleged infringement is related to the 21/22 season.

Re Gordon, I was just pointing out to Mr P that all the Gordon money wasn't for EFC
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top