Sky Sports: “ Derby County in big trouble “

Sky Sports: Derby looking at 9pt deduction this current season.

Thursday 9th September 2021



Derby are still operating under a transfer embargo, while the club also remains unsold following two failed takeover attempts which has only heightened anxiety at Pride Park.

Derby County are not allowed to sell season tickets.

And last week a fifth charge was added to the Rams’ alleged misdemeanours by the Football League as reasons for the embargo which claimed they had breached regulation 51.2.3 - missing payment of transfer fee instalments.

Fresh details emerge over Derby County punishment with possible huge points deduction.

The EFL is now pushing for a nine-point deduction with another three suspended.


If imposed, it would be a hammer blow to Derby's chances of staying in the Championship. They are already operating under a transfer embargo which has left boss Wayne Rooney with a wafer-thin squad with restrictions meaning they have had to flesh out the roster with youngsters.


Reporter John Percy has now provided an update on the off-field matters, posting: “Talks ongoing with the EFL over an “agreed sanction” for financial breaches. EFL pushing for points deduction (-9 & -3 suspended possible).

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I said a month ago Derby are deep trouble and will probably be relegated this season

The problem they have is that the EFL have been after them ever since Derby had a ruling in their favour and against an EFL disciplinary decision.

This means the EFL will pick up on every single thing they do wrong and punish them for it, whereas normally they may have been more lenient.


There are plenty of things that Derby are doing wrong financially and a points deduction, at the bare minimum, will be imposed at some point this season.

Because the EFL are hell bent on that happening. There will be no leniency from them when it comes to Derby.



I have zero sympathy for that club. Not even their fans, because they backed their club's decisions for a long time. Now they are seeing the truth about those decisions, that the rest of us have been saying for years.

9 points not enough, although somebody seems to be pre-empting the outcome in true Sky Sports style...

First Snowgate, secondly Moneygate and (hopefully) next Exitgate...

9 points not enough, although somebody seems to be pre-empting the outcome in true Sky Sports style...

First Snowgate, secondly Moneygate and (hopefully) next Exitgate...

Or maybe Ramsgate....

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

9 points not enough, although somebody seems to be pre-empting the outcome in true Sky Sports style...

First Snowgate, secondly Moneygate and (hopefully) next Exitgate...

Or maybe Ramsgate....

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

Good point. I have looked up the rules and clubs must comply with 'Fair Market Value' when it comes to commodities such as the stadium and other fixed/unfixed assets.

So you are completely right Derby were not allowed to sell their ground to the owner/chairman for twice its FM Valuation.

That said shame these rules didn't apply to Gary Madine, Lee Tomlin and Isaack Vassell's transfer fees.

by Sven » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:13 pm

9 points not enough, although somebody seems to be pre-empting the outcome in true Sky Sports style...

First Snowgate, secondly Moneygate and (hopefully) next Exitgate...

Love it.

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

Good point. I have looked up the rules and clubs must comply with 'Fair Market Value' when it comes to commodities such as the stadium and other fixed/unfixed assets.

So you are completely right Derby were not allowed to sell their ground to the owner/chairman for twice its FM Valuation.

That said shame these rules didn't apply to Gary Madine, Lee Tomlin and Isaack Vassell's transfer fees.

I know should have done the accountant for fraud

Here's how bent it all is. I used to know the chairman of derby 15 years ago. At that time they'd been in the premiership and got relegated. They owed the co op bank 33 million . My colleague and a few of his rich derby supporting friends stumped up a million each 5 of them and bought the club for £1. The co op then reduced the overdraft to £10 mill just like that. Imagine trying that as individual.
We moan about tan, and quite rightly the rebrand, of ambition but he's still shelling out every month. I mean what do you expect to do when you're sort enough to want to own a football club

Here's how bent it all is. I used to know the chairman of derby 15 years ago. At that time they'd been in the premiership and got relegated. They owed the co op bank 33 million . My colleague and a few of his rich derby supporting friends stumped up a million each 5 of them and bought the club for £1. The co op then reduced the overdraft to £10 mill just like that. Imagine trying that as individual.
We moan about tan, and quite rightly the rebrand, of ambition but he's still shelling out every month. I mean what do you expect to do when you're sort enough to want to own a football club

They were in the ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE, not the second rate Scottish version; although they may have fared better

And not everyone moans about Tan's financial support, fella...

Let it snow.

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

Good point. I have looked up the rules and clubs must comply with 'Fair Market Value' when it comes to commodities such as the stadium and other fixed/unfixed assets.

So you are completely right Derby were not allowed to sell their ground to the owner/chairman for twice its FM Valuation.

That said shame these rules didn't apply to Gary Madine, Lee Tomlin and Isaack Vassell's transfer fees.

I know should have done the accountant for fraud

Who can say the stadium is worth £40,000,000? Or £80,000,00. Or £10? Who else is going to buy it? Nottingham Forest or Burton Albion?

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

Good point. I have looked up the rules and clubs must comply with 'Fair Market Value' when it comes to commodities such as the stadium and other fixed/unfixed assets.

So you are completely right Derby were not allowed to sell their ground to the owner/chairman for twice its FM Valuation.

That said shame these rules didn't apply to Gary Madine, Lee Tomlin and Isaack Vassell's transfer fees.

I know should have done the accountant for fraud

Who can say the stadium is worth £40,000,000? Or £80,000,00. Or £10? Who else is going to buy it? Nottingham Forest or Burton Albion?

Council evaluation people as club got to pay rates on its value... plus can have independent evaluers club cannot arbitrary set their own value of ground otherwise they would have set it at £200m
Plus it needs to be valued for HMRC's tax purposes..

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

Good point. I have looked up the rules and clubs must comply with 'Fair Market Value' when it comes to commodities such as the stadium and other fixed/unfixed assets.

So you are completely right Derby were not allowed to sell their ground to the owner/chairman for twice its FM Valuation.

That said shame these rules didn't apply to Gary Madine, Lee Tomlin and Isaack Vassell's transfer fees.

I know should have done the accountant for fraud

Who can say the stadium is worth £40,000,000? Or £80,000,00. Or £10? Who else is going to buy it? Nottingham Forest or Burton Albion?

nobody is the answer.... if Derby were to fold it becomes next to worthless...but..like a lot of other things { Tomlin } they have a value for accounting purposes...

9 points not enough, although somebody seems to be pre-empting the outcome in true Sky Sports style...

First Snowgate, secondly Moneygate and (hopefully) next Exitgate...

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

Good point. I have looked up the rules and clubs must comply with 'Fair Market Value' when it comes to commodities such as the stadium and other fixed/unfixed assets.

So you are completely right Derby were not allowed to sell their ground to the owner/chairman for twice its FM Valuation.

That said shame these rules didn't apply to Gary Madine, Lee Tomlin and Isaack Vassell's transfer fees.

I know should have done the accountant for fraud

Who can say the stadium is worth £40,000,000? Or £80,000,00. Or £10? Who else is going to buy it? Nottingham Forest or Burton Albion?

Council evaluation people as club got to pay rates on its value... plus can have independent evaluers club cannot arbitrary set their own value of ground otherwise they would have set it at £200m
Plus it needs to be valued for HMRC's tax purposes..

Allan they did have an independent valuation, done by a company owned by their chairman/owner

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

Good point. I have looked up the rules and clubs must comply with 'Fair Market Value' when it comes to commodities such as the stadium and other fixed/unfixed assets.

So you are completely right Derby were not allowed to sell their ground to the owner/chairman for twice its FM Valuation.

That said shame these rules didn't apply to Gary Madine, Lee Tomlin and Isaack Vassell's transfer fees.

I know should have done the accountant for fraud

Who can say the stadium is worth £40,000,000? Or £80,000,00. Or £10? Who else is going to buy it? Nottingham Forest or Burton Albion?

Council evaluation people as club got to pay rates on its value... plus can have independent evaluers club cannot arbitrary set their own value of ground otherwise they would have set it at £200m
Plus it needs to be valued for HMRC's tax purposes..

Allan they did have an independent valuation, done by a company owned by their chairman/owner

All legal and above board what's the problem?

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

does it matter what reason .... if i offered you double the market value for your home its really not my business or anyone elses if you want to spend that money being the first Allen in outerspace or if you desperately needed that money to not become insolvent

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

does it matter what reason .... if i offered you double the market value for your home its really not my business or anyone elses if you want to spend that money being the first Allen in outerspace or if you desperately needed that money to not become insolvent

The rule is there to stop teams doing exactly what derby tried to do. Or are you happy for teams to cheat their way around ffp rules whilst the majority of teams stick to them?

add another 3 points for what they did to us with snowgate that was clear breaking of all rules we were on a great run and they had players injured and didnt want to play, our supporters and team traveled from south wales all the way to Derby to be told last minute that it was to dangerous when we all knew it was bull shit.

The FA supported Derby then so they seem to get away with a lot too if we had done that we would have been punished so Derby must have done something really bad to get punished like this as they normally get away with it.

I normally feel sorry for teams and supporters but not this time

Originaly according to Derby's books, re selling the stadium everything was ok!!!, but and this is big but, the EFL now having gone through those accounts again and are saying they are not Ok. I think that the reason they have gone through said accounts again, is that Derby have just been charged with two rule infringments.

One regarding player registrations has been settled with a £100k fine and no points deduction, the second offence is that they have not paid installements of their transfers, this is ongoing and the reason that they have been stopped making transfers, and a very pertinant one, is that they have been stopped selling season tickets, maybe because if they get a points deduction and are relegated, or go bankrupt then season ticket holders would lose out, either way.

Therefore the EFL have told Derby to re-submit accounts for 2016/2017/2018, the period covering the selling of the stadium.
For this type of infringement if the Derby accountants cannot justify to the EFL that the accounts are correct and justifiable, and not fraudulant, then there could be a lot more than a 9 points deduction

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

does it matter what reason .... if i offered you double the market value for your home its really not my business or anyone elses if you want to spend that money being the first Allen in outerspace or if you desperately needed that money to not become insolvent

The rule is there to stop teams doing exactly what derby tried to do. Or are you happy for teams to cheat their way around ffp rules whilst the majority of teams stick to them?

im sorry but i do not agree...what tony said is spot on and if you were selling something i doubt you would be happy to accept less than is offered..... come to that i doubt youd moan if someone { sarajevo } came in with a 20 mill offer for tomlin in january.. .or complained about the circumstances we signed Zohore under ....happy ? ....no....hypocrite...no that that also.....

Sorry but I have to disagree with that statement. Derby have deliberately tried to circumvent the FFP rules by inflating the value of the stadium, it is almost fraud and would be seriously challenged in a court of law.

I wish a few more people on this forum would recognise that City are trying to keep within the FFP rules in the correct manner, the Derby Way is certainly not the way to go! Just look where is has go them

im sorry but i do not agree...what tony said is spot on and if you were selling something i doubt you would be happy to accept less than is offered..... come to that i doubt youd moan if someone { sarajevo } came in with a 20 mill offer for tomlin in january.. .or complained about the circumstances we signed Zohore under ....happy ? ....no....hypocrite...no that that also.....

I still think Derby should be free to sell a fixed asset for whatever price someone is willing to pay for it, providing real cash is deposited in their bank account rather than some accountancy trick.

I have looked at the rules and actually understand why they are there. Basically they are designed to stop Manchester City (for example) from receiving ridiculously inflated shirt sponsorship.

But again you could argue that if someone is willing to pay that much for shirt sponsorship then why can't the club be free to do so?

I can understand the conflict when it's the club's owner paying over the odds, but I would look to having a handicap placed on any success they achieve. If for example Derby were promoted to the PL then they would be handicapped by having £40m (the difference between FMV (£40m) & what was paid (£80m) deducted from their PL TV monies. Manchester City would have the same deduction from any prize money which they receive from the PL and European Competition.

Sorry but I have to disagree with that statement. Derby have deliberately tried to circumvent the FFP rules by inflating the value of the stadium, it is almost fraud and would be seriously challenged in a court of law.

I wish a few more people on this forum would recognise that City are trying to keep within the FFP rules in the correct manner, the Derby Way is certainly not the way to go! Just look where is has go them

it might be outside of football ffp rules...but fraud and law breaking ?
and yes plenty are happy we are keeping within the rules.... but given the genuine choice of going up like Leeds did { all while losing 64 mill in one season } or doing what we are doing i think the Leeds model would win hands down in a vote ....
Derby like Leeds chucked money at it just couldnt get over the line ...had they gone up people would shrug their shoulders as they have done with all the clubs that broke ffp to get promoted...

Against the flow I have always had a bit of sympathy for Derby. I remember years ago being told that the real price of a commodity is what someone is willing to pay for it.

If the Derby owner was willing to pay £80m for ownership of Pride Park then the seller (DCFC) would be stupid to turn it down as the stadium was only valued at £40m (Personally I have sold (& bought ) cars for prices which were nowhere near their book value)

Providing the Derby owner placed £80m into DCFC's bank account and ownership deeds were exchanged, I really don't see why that is of anyone else's business.

Of course I don't know the full details of what Derby were up to but if the points deduction has anything to do with the sale of Pride Park I would have sympathies with Derby and their fans.

You obviously missed part that selling ground was to avoid falling foul of ffp? You simply cannot pay over odds for something to help avoid ffp especially when it's the owner of club buying ground.... there are rules saying you cannot pay above market rates for anything to get around ffp rules which is exactly what they did

does it matter what reason .... if i offered you double the market value for your home its really not my business or anyone elses if you want to spend that money being the first Allen in outerspace or if you desperately needed that money to not become insolvent

The rule is there to stop teams doing exactly what derby tried to do. Or are you happy for teams to cheat their way around ffp rules whilst the majority of teams stick to them?

im sorry but i do not agree...what tony said is spot on and if you were selling something i doubt you would be happy to accept less than is offered..... come to that i doubt youd moan if someone { sarajevo } came in with a 20 mill offer for tomlin in january.. .or complained about the circumstances we signed Zohore under ....happy ? ....no....hypocrite...no that that also.....

I dont have to abide by any rules when I sell something. Selling a player to another club is completely different compared to selling the stadium to the owner of the club for a made up fee to get around ffp rules. I dont agree with how we signed zohore so wind your neck in. If that was a regular occurrence I'm sure rules would be brought in to prevent it - if there arnt already.

There's no point in having ffp rules if clubs can just make up figures for assets to get around them. Derby knew exactly what they were doing an are paying the price for it. Throwing money at the league doesn't guarantee promotion. Leeds and Bournemouth got lucky and Derby and Sheffield Wednesday havnt. Wednesday are now in league 1 and Derby will likely follow them.

im sorry but i do not agree...what tony said is spot on and if you were selling something i doubt you would be happy to accept less than is offered..... come to that i doubt youd moan if someone { sarajevo } came in with a 20 mill offer for tomlin in january.. .or complained about the circumstances we signed Zohore under ....happy ? ....no....hypocrite...no that that also.....

I still think Derby should be free to sell a fixed asset for whatever price someone is willing to pay for it, providing real cash is deposited in their bank account rather than some accountancy trick.

I have looked at the rules and actually understand why they are there. Basically they are designed to stop Manchester City (for example) from receiving ridiculously inflated shirt sponsorship.

But again you could argue that if someone is willing to pay that much for shirt sponsorship then why can't the club be free to do so?

I can understand the conflict when it's the club's owner paying over the odds, but I would look to having a handicap placed on any success they achieve. If for example Derby were promoted to the PL then they would be handicapped by having £40m (the difference between FMV (£40m) & what was paid (£80m) deducted from their PL TV monies. Manchester City would have the same deduction from any prize money which they receive from the PL and European Competition.

i understand why the rules are there too.... just dont agree....eg..your point about shirt sponsorship, who decides what a ridiculous amount is when the very top teams are already receiving what would be ridiculous amounts 10 years ago....i fully think clubs should be massively limited to what 3rd party debt they take on but i dont see whats wrong with say VT buying a one off gold cardiff city mug with his name on it for a 100 million cash if one existed in the club shop...