Sports business reporter
Share this content

Derby charged under financial fair play rules

The bad news for Derby County FC came in an 80-word statement from the English Football League (EFL) last week in which they were charged with breaching financial fair play (FFP) rules. Mark Bisson investigates a complex case that hinges on its player amortisation policy.

23rd Jan 2020
Sports business reporter
Share this content
Pride Park Home of Derby County Football Club
Richard-Croft_creative_commons

The East Midlands club, now home to England and Manchester United's all-time leading goalscorer Wayne Rooney, faces a legal battle with the EFL and the possibility of points deduction.

Following a probe into its finances, the league said the club had recorded losses in excess of the £39m permitted for the three-year period ending 30 June 2018.

An independent disciplinary commission is handling the case, whose outcome could deal a hammer blow to Derby’s promotion push after missing out to Aston Villa last season. As a test case for football accounting policies, it could also  have serious repercussions for other Championship clubs. The credibility of the league’s profit and sustainability regulations is on the line.

The EFL charges relate to creative accounting practices that have angered rival clubs, but could have repercussions on their player contract accounting treatments. 

Derby County’s controversial sale and leaseback of Pride Park Stadium is the main plank of the case.

The stadium was on the club’s books for £41m. Following an independent valuation Derby sold it for £80m to a subsidiary company owned by club chairman Mel Morris. It was then leased back for around £40m. The move allowed Derby to post pre-tax profits of £14.6m in its 2017/18 accounts and, crucially, senior executives thought, dodge the league’s profit and sustainability rules. The prior two years the club recorded losses of £7.9m and £14.7m.

EFL’s financial fair play

Derby joins Sheffield Wednesday, Aston Villa, Birmingham and Reading in selling and leasing back stadiums to their owners, exploiting a loophole in the EFL’s financial fair play rules.

In November, the EFL charged Wednesday with misconduct over the sale of Hillsborough Stadium for about £60m to owner Dejphon Chansiri following an investigation into its 2017-18 financial results. The league is querying the sale process and recognition of the profits in the annual accounts. Chansiri, finance director John Redgate and former CEO Katrien Meire were served with misconduct charges.

Offloading the stadium helped the Yorkshire club turn a profit of £2.5m. But Wednesday countered that the charges were “unlawful” and would be “vigorously defended”, particularly since it had consulted the EFL on the stadium transaction. Wednesday could yet be hit with sanctions that could hurt its promotion push.

Last week, Derby County vowed to strongly contest the EFL charges relating to the stadium sale and breach of financial fair play rules, saying the EFL had previously agreed to the sale. Their statement echoed the tone of outrage and indignation in Wednesday’s response.

There are question marks over how Pride Park stadium came to be valued so highly, compared to the other four clubs who have sold their stadiums for considerably less. One press report said it was overvalued by £30m.

Player amortisation policy

Derby’s case is more complex, differing in one vital aspect. In last week’s statement, the club revealed it had also been charged over its player amortisation policy.

Under normal accounting standards for intangible assets, transfer fees are amortised on a straight-line basis over the period of the players’ contracts.

This accounting policy was previously identical to other clubs, but in 2015 Derby decided to assign residual values (the expected value) for players at the end of their contracts. It’s a manoeuvre that allowed Derby to cut annual player amortisation costs, in so doing reducing its losses.

Derby denied any wrongdoing, saying the player amortisation policy “was again reported transparently to the EFL executive as part of the club’s submissions and these were again approved and signed off in writing”.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire, who keeps close tabs on English football on his Price of Football website and podcast, says the charges in respect of the Pride Park sale and the amortisation policy represent a “test case” for the league.

On the stadium sale, hhe case revolved around the fair market valuation: “The complication here is Mel Morris is selling to Mel Morris, so that dynamic of a fair market doesn’t exist”.

Maguire suggests the EFL will question the £80m valuation when Villa’s ground was sold for £56.7m.

In my view it has given Derby County a short term benefit, allowing them to invest in more players and boosted their promotion prospects - Kieran Maguire

More concerning is Derby’s amortisation policy and allocation of residual values. At the end of a contract, a player is allowed to leave on a free transfer under the Bosman ruling. “How can you give a residual value to a player? That seems to me to be an inconsistency,” Maguire says.

“Under accounting rules, all intangible assets, including player transfers, are assumed to have zero residual value,” he explains. “One of the consequences of taking such a policy into accounts over a three or four year period is it reduces your costs and allows you to satisfy financial fair play rules.

“In my view it has given Derby County a short term benefit, allowing them to invest in more players and boosted their promotion prospects,” he adds.

“Have they done anything illegal? Certainly not. Have they applied the accounting rules? I am not convinced that they have but the auditors seem to think so.”

Maguire says he even wrote to the league in June 2018, giving what he says was “a full and thorough explanation” as to why Derby had contravened amortisation rules.

Pride Park Stadium South

Complex investigation

The EFL’s decision to wait until this month to charge Derby highlights the complexity of its investigation into possible financial fair play breaches. If the evidence of rule-breaking was clear, some may wonder why the EFL has not yet brought sanctions against Derby. But EFL lawyers may have needed the time to build a stronger case.

For the sake of other Championship clubs, who are currently making major decisions about spending and recruitment with an eye on FFP rules, Maguire urges the independent disciplinary commission toexpedite its work on Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.

“It’s not just these two clubs impacted, but all of the clubs because there will be potential relegation and promotion consequences impacted depending on whether the clubs are sanctioned,” he adds. Potential sanctions include a points deduction or financial penalties. 

Profit and sustainability overhaul overdue

Maguire believes the EFL’s overhaul of its profit and sustainability rules is long overdue. With clubs employing smart accountants to spot the loopholes, he questions why the league has not tightened its rules since they were first introduced in 2016.

“You end up with the situation that it’s not just about the talent and quality on the pitch. It’s the talent you have in your accounts office as well – and that’s just totally wrong,” he says.

The cases of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday illustrate that unless the EFL moves swiftly to strengthen its financial fair play rules, another wave of clubs could take advantage of the flaws and further damage the EFL’s credibility.

With Rick Parry as its new chairman, Maguire suggests the “light touch towards regulation” under the EFL’s former CEO Shaun Harvey will be replaced with the league taking “a much harsher line”.

There is much at stake for Parry. He is bidding to restore some integrity to the EFL, whose image suffered under the previous leadership following the demise of Bury and financial turmoil surrounding Bolton and Macclesfield. Maguire says if the charges against Sheffield Wednesday and Derby are thrown out, “his reign will be in tatters effectively before it starts”.

If these two test cases go in favour of the clubs, he says, it would signal “the death of financial fair play and profit and sustainability rules”.

“If the EFL charges are both rejected it’s effectively open season for other clubs to apply similar treatments themselves.”

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Rammstein1
23rd Jan 2020 09:25

Derby valued their stadium at £x and notified the EFL. The EFL came back and said it should be slightly lower, £Y. Derby then used the £Y figure and the EFL confirmed all this in writing. For the EFL to now say that £Y is wrong and it should be £Z is absurd. How can anyone have finality in their dealings with the EFL?

And £80M for a 33,500 seater football stadium with all of the facilities isn't massive these days.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By UKTC2
23rd Jan 2020 09:56

With a user name like Rammstein shouldn't you be declaring an interest?
What is your opinion on the amortisation stunt?

Thanks (0)
Replying to UKTC2:
avatar
By Rammstein1
23rd Jan 2020 10:15

Rammstein is a German metal band.

I did hear that Derby had changed their player amortisation policy from someone who went to a seminar where Mel Morris was a speaker. Mel was quite open about it and said that it had been cleared by the EFL.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By GraculusGraculus
23rd Jan 2020 11:58

As per previous comment I agree that if those are indeed the facts than the case against Derby with regard to the sale of the stadium are 'groundless'. However, regarding the method of amortisation of transfer fee does not appear to be 'prudent' but I guess if the club are able to show a successful history of actual sales of these players before the contract expires then the treatment is reasonable as the charge to the PNL will have truly reflected the annual cost to the business whereas the straight line method will have result in regular profit or loss entries to the PNL each time a player is sold before the contract expires. In conclusion, the EFL need to have as clear rules as possible and review them regularly NOT punish clubs for accounting entries that were deemed compliant at the time and deemed non-compliant a year later, that is a poor form of regulation by the EFL

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rememberscarborough
23rd Jan 2020 12:09

What happens if a club can show a clear policy in transferring players who get to the final year of their contract so never leave on a Bosman? Clearly a straight line policy with a nil residual value wouldn't be applicable.

On a more pragmatic route it's clear these clubs are trying to find a "legal" loophole in the FFP regulations and are capable of hiring for more expensive lawyers than the EFL. Fair Play like beauty is clearly in the eye of the beholder....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Pat Elliott
24th Jan 2020 18:58

This practise of selling grounds to owners needs to nipped in the bud. Was there an independent valuation of Pride Park? If the Club folded (unlikely I know) what would someone pay for a few acres in the middle of Derby? Not £80 million.....time for the EFL to come down hard on Derby County....

Thanks (0)
Replying to Pat Elliott:
avatar
By Rammstein1
27th Jan 2020 16:59

There was an independent valuation but we all know that valuations are subjective.

It's not a few acres in the middle of Derby, it's a football stadium with all of the infrastructure that that involves.

Thanks (0)