Boro taking Derby to court

[Kit Kat Chunky]

I assume Derby's is more obvious with the ground valuation sticking out like a sore thumb

That's my view

[Pragmatist]

I assume Derby's is more obvious with the ground valuation sticking out like a sore thumb

That's my view

I’m sure it’s because Derby have already carried out the act of selling their ground to the owner and leasing it back, whereas Villa will only do so if they lose the playoff final, so no point in suing them quite yet.

Seems to me that this is going to be more about the valuation figure for the sale, and the amount of rent being charged to Derby. It all needs to be on arms length commercial terms.

What seems bizarre is that money from the sale of non-player assets (ie the stadium) is permitted to be counted as “income” for FFP purposes, yet the cost of buying and building a new stadium is not permitted to count as expenditure. Surely it should either be included both ways or excluded both ways?

[Three Degrees]

ohn Percy Retweeted

Telegraph Football‏Verified account @TeleFootball 1m1 minute ago
More

Exclusive: Middlesbrough to sue Derby over alleged breaches of financial rules

That might put the cat amongst the pigeons if true

Wish we had a owner with bollocks and money like him .

[SausEggBaton]

Can we take the Villa to court now please?

We can't afford it.

[EastMidsBaggie]

Can we take the Villa to court now please?

We can't afford it.

The Albion mantra!

[GunsOfNavarone]

I assume Derby's is more obvious with the ground valuation sticking out like a sore thumb

That's my view

I’m sure it’s because Derby have already carried out the act of selling their ground to the owner and leasing it back, whereas Villa will only do so if they lose the playoff final, so no point in suing them quite yet.

Seems to me that this is going to be more about the valuation figure for the sale, and the amount of rent being charged to Derby. It all needs to be on arms length commercial terms.

What seems bizarre is that money from the sale of non-player assets (ie the stadium) is permitted to be counted as “income” for FFP purposes, yet the cost of buying and building a new stadium is not permitted to count as expenditure. Surely it should either be included both ways or excluded both ways?

So presumably the plan is for them to live rent free in their existing stadium until such time as they either comply with FFP, or are sold on with the owner either recouping the monies owed or writing off the debt. So in all but lettering their owners are effectively sponsoring them at over inflated figures which are no longer allowed under FFP? I think.

[EastMidsBaggie]

I assume Derby's is more obvious with the ground valuation sticking out like a sore thumb

That's my view

I’m sure it’s because Derby have already carried out the act of selling their ground to the owner and leasing it back, whereas Villa will only do so if they lose the playoff final, so no point in suing them quite yet.

Seems to me that this is going to be more about the valuation figure for the sale, and the amount of rent being charged to Derby. It all needs to be on arms length commercial terms.

What seems bizarre is that money from the sale of non-player assets (ie the stadium) is permitted to be counted as “income” for FFP purposes, yet the cost of buying and building a new stadium is not permitted to count as expenditure. Surely it should either be included both ways or excluded both ways?

So presumably the plan is for them to live rent free in their existing stadium until such time as they either comply with FFP, or are sold on with the owner either recouping the monies owed or writing off the debt. So in all but lettering their owners are effectively sponsoring them at over inflated figures which are no longer allowed under FFP? I think.

But if they are supposed to be leasing then they must pay a 'market rate' you'd think. If they lease money is just going to the same owner and not real then the lease charge should be paid out side of the Club and owner to a charity perhaps ?  Then they would take a true 'hit' and lose the money form the club/owner and it's fair to the other clubs.

[Kit Kat Chunky]

I'm not a chartered surveyor, but I do a lot of commercial property finance.

The valuation is interesting. I'm not sure what the P&S rules state about the over inflation of the ground, but the point is that the market value will be determined by a yield of the income generated. so if they pay market rent, the property has a value. If it is over-rented, the market value increases. If it is under-rented (i.e. a nominal rent) then the market value will be diminished - especially if the lease is for a long period.

The economics of this, and how Boro will present the facts will be interesting.

[baggiebloke]

With Derby's identikit ground being relatively similar to a number of others you could look at those other Club's valuations where socio economics and property values are comparable.

I'd guess it's over valued by a few (low) tens of millions.

The Hawthorns? £35-40m

[Tom Joad]

I hope Derby go up - and Boro still take them to court. This might just give FFP it's teeth.

I live in hope.

Fair fucks to Gibson for making a stand. I wonder why he's chosen Derby over Villa? I'd have assumed Villa were up to far more mischief personally.

Either way the fact that they have both made the final is gutting but if highlights FFP more now maybe it's a good thing.

I'd like to think other clubs might throw their support behind Boro on this.

You'd like to think so but didn't Gibson call a meeting of all Champo clubs and not get much support? Any way, I reckon Christian Purslow appears to have Villa off scot free and assisted to the play off final. FFS, they even escaped the "failure to control their players" charge after the 22 man riot at Leeds. They have more get out of jail free cards than a monopoly set.