Derby facing EFL investigation over "financial irregularities"

nyron4england said:
is that an EFL rule?
Click to expand...
yep -

5.4 A Related Party Transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between Related Party(ies), regardless of whether a price has been charged.

5.5 A Related Party Transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no Related Party relationship.



any transaction not done at fair value is punishable, this would appear to fall under that


here;s the whole sectionif you can be bothered

APPENDIX A - Transactions with Related Party(ies)

1 Introduction

1.1 Having set a limit on the amount of Contributions from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies) it is important that the principle is not undermined by other arrangements with Related Party(ies) which are other than for fair value.

2 Disclosure

2.1 If there have been transactions between Related Parties during a Reporting Period, the Championship Club must disclose the nature of the relationship with the Related Party(ies), as well as information about those transactions and outstanding balances, including commitments, necessary for an understanding of the potential effect of the relationship on the Accounts.

2.2 If under FRS 8, the Championship Club is not required to disclose such transactions with Related Party(ies) within the notes to the Accounts, the transactions should be detailed in a separate schedule attached to the Fair Play Calculation as described in Appendix G Part 1.

2.3 Items of a similar nature may be disclosed in aggregate except when separate disclosure is necessary for an understanding of the effects of Related Party Transactions on the Accounts.

3 Principle of Adjustment

3.1 Where any element of profit / loss before tax relates to any transaction(s) with Related Party(ies) above or below fair value then, for the purpose of the Fair Play Result, the Championship Club must determine the fair value of any Related Party Transaction(s). If the estimated fair value is different to the recorded value then an appropriate adjustment must be made in calculating the Fair Play Result, bearing in mind, however, that:

3.1.1 no upward adjustments can be made to income; and

3.1.2 no downward adjustments can be made to costs / expenses.

4 Examples of Related Party Transactions

4.1 Examples of Related Party Transactions that require a Championship Club to demonstrate the estimated fair value of the transaction include, but are not limited to:

4.1.1 sale of sponsorship rights by a Championship Club to a Related Party;

4.1.2 sale of corporate hospitality tickets and / or sale of the right to use of an executive box, by a Championship Club to a Related Party; and

4.1.3 any transaction with a Related Party whereby goods or services are provided to a Championship Club.

4.2 Examples of Related Party Transactions that must always be excluded from income are:

4.2.1 monies received by a Championship Club from a Related Party as a donation; and

4.2.2 settlement of liabilities on behalf of the Championship Club by a Related Party.

4.3 In effect, contributions from / savings in relation to a Related Party will be treated as Contributions from Equity Participants / Related Party(ies) as further described in Appendix F.

5 Related Party, Related Party Transactions and Fair Value of Related Party Transactions

5.1 A Related Party is a person or entity (or any Associate of that person or entity) that is Interested in the Championship Club (or any member of the Group that is included within the Accounts lodged in accordance with these Rules).

5.2 Interested and Associate shall have the meanings as ascribed to them in Regulations 105.2 to 105.4 inclusive and 106.1 of the Regulations. Regulation 105.5 (holdings of 10% or less held for investment purposes only to be disregarded) shall not apply for the purposes of these Rules.

5.3 In considering each possible relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form.

5.4 A Related Party Transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between Related Party(ies), regardless of whether a price has been charged.

5.5 A Related Party Transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no Related Party relationship.
 
Last edited:


cbwhu said:
yep -

5.4 A Related Party Transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between Related Party(ies), regardless of whether a price has been charged.

5.5 A Related Party Transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no Related Party relationship.



any transaction not done at fair value is punishable, this would appear to fall under that


here;s the whole sectionif you can be bothered

APPENDIX A - Transactions with Related Party(ies)

1 Introduction

1.1 Having set a limit on the amount of Contributions from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies) it is important that the principle is not undermined by other arrangements with Related Party(ies) which are other than for fair value.

2 Disclosure

2.1 If there have been transactions between Related Parties during a Reporting Period, the Championship Club must disclose the nature of the relationship with the Related Party(ies), as well as information about those transactions and outstanding balances, including commitments, necessary for an understanding of the potential effect of the relationship on the Accounts.

2.2 If under FRS 8, the Championship Club is not required to disclose such transactions with Related Party(ies) within the notes to the Accounts, the transactions should be detailed in a separate schedule attached to the Fair Play Calculation as described in Appendix G Part 1.

2.3 Items of a similar nature may be disclosed in aggregate except when separate disclosure is necessary for an understanding of the effects of Related Party Transactions on the Accounts.

3 Principle of Adjustment

3.1 Where any element of profit / loss before tax relates to any transaction(s) with Related Party(ies) above or below fair value then, for the purpose of the Fair Play Result, the Championship Club must determine the fair value of any Related Party Transaction(s). If the estimated fair value is different to the recorded value then an appropriate adjustment must be made in calculating the Fair Play Result, bearing in mind, however, that:

3.1.1 no upward adjustments can be made to income; and

3.1.2 no downward adjustments can be made to costs / expenses.

4 Examples of Related Party Transactions

4.1 Examples of Related Party Transactions that require a Championship Club to demonstrate the estimated fair value of the transaction include, but are not limited to:

4.1.1 sale of sponsorship rights by a Championship Club to a Related Party;

4.1.2 sale of corporate hospitality tickets and / or sale of the right to use of an executive box, by a Championship Club to a Related Party; and

4.1.3 any transaction with a Related Party whereby goods or services are provided to a Championship Club.

4.2 Examples of Related Party Transactions that must always be excluded from income are:

4.2.1 monies received by a Championship Club from a Related Party as a donation; and

4.2.2 settlement of liabilities on behalf of the Championship Club by a Related Party.

4.3 In effect, contributions from / savings in relation to a Related Party will be treated as Contributions from Equity Participants / Related Party(ies) as further described in Appendix F.

5 Related Party, Related Party Transactions and Fair Value of Related Party Transactions

5.1 A Related Party is a person or entity (or any Associate of that person or entity) that is Interested in the Championship Club (or any member of the Group that is included within the Accounts lodged in accordance with these Rules).

5.2 Interested and Associate shall have the meanings as ascribed to them in Regulations 105.2 to 105.4 inclusive and 106.1 of the Regulations. Regulation 105.5 (holdings of 10% or less held for investment purposes only to be disregarded) shall not apply for the purposes of these Rules.

5.3 In considering each possible relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form.

5.4 A Related Party Transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between Related Party(ies), regardless of whether a price has been charged.

5.5 A Related Party Transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no Related Party relationship.
Click to expand...
That was a great read, cheers
 
In April, Boro chairman Steve Gibson proposed for measures to be taken to increase financial transparency among clubs in The Championship. This included allowing accountants from clubs to be allowed to review their rivals' finances. Gibson was unhappy with Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa claiming they have breached the EFL’s profitability and sustainability regulations (formerly known as Financial Fair Play - FFP - rules).

On the basis that Boro had stuck by the rules of the EFL his view was that if his club were meeting the EFL's own laws he understandably expected everyone else to do the same. If they didn't, he expected them to be punished ... and they weren't.

Gibson's proposal was heavily defeated by the 24 clubs which is possibly an indication that more than just 3 clubs were not abiding within the EFL rules.

Steve Gibson then threatened to take Derby to court (this revolved mainly around their owner paying £80M for the club that had previously been valued at £40M with the payment to be repaid as a long term loan ... and that £80M being used for player purchases / payments).

The latest is that the EFL are now investigating what has gone on at various clubs.

Steve Gibson has a long term track record of been ahead of the game ... and I think he has done it again here and opened up a can of worms for the EFL who have seemingly turned a blind eye to the manipulation (at best) and complete disregard (at worst) of their own rules.
 
ERIMUS1876 said:
In April, Boro chairman Steve Gibson proposed for measures to be taken to increase financial transparency among clubs in The Championship. This included allowing accountants from clubs to be allowed to review their rivals' finances. Gibson was unhappy with Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa claiming they have breached the EFL’s profitability and sustainability regulations (formerly known as Financial Fair Play - FFP - rules).

On the basis that Boro had stuck by the rules of the EFL his view was that if his club were meeting the EFL's own laws he understandably expected everyone else to do the same. If they didn't, he expected them to be punished ... and they weren't.

Gibson's proposal was heavily defeated by the 24 clubs which is possibly an indication that more than just 3 clubs were not abiding within the EFL rules.

Steve Gibson then threatened to take Derby to court (this revolved mainly around their owner paying £80M for the club that had previously been valued at £40M with the payment to be repaid as a long term loan ... and that £80M being used for player purchases / payments).

The latest is that the EFL are now investigating what has gone on at various clubs.

Steve Gibson has a long term track record of been ahead of the game ... and I think he has done it again here and opened up a can of worms for the EFL who have seemingly turned a blind eye to the manipulation (at best) and complete disregard (at worst) of their own rules.
Click to expand...
Fair play to the lad. It’s high time someone shone a light on the EFL. They come a close second to the FA in not being fit for purpose.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Just had a quick look. It's murky to say the least. It looks as though, from the disposals figure, Pride Park was valued at £56m (forget the depreciation number, it's the cost that matter here). This looks, on face value, like a sale to a related party at a higher than arms length price, presumably to create enough profit in DCFC to enable them the meet the FFP loss limit. This is far from normal practice, which is that transactions between companies in the same group or under common ownership take place at an arms length valuation. It's highly likely that HMRC will also take an interest in the transaction to determine whether there has been a breach of transfer pricing regulations.


It's more the reasons for doing it. This looks awfully like an artificial transaction designed solely to circumvent the provisions of FFP.
Click to expand...

They will no doubt get the same penalty as city or psg despite them not having the same turnover. They dont want anyone breaking into the top teams.
 
Didn't Real Madrid sell their training ground to a bank or something for a ridiculous amount of money and then leased it back on the cheap for like 99 years?
 

Back
Top