A question on the Fordham income, sorry if you've answered.
I seem to recall that the Fordham image right income was standard practice for many clubs at the time, but as rules changed, many brought it in house and the extra income gained pretty much matched the income from the Fordham sales. Does that sound correct? I'm a little confused on the Fordham stuff generally.
I am a little confused about Fordham as well, tbh, because it hasn't really been discussed in detail anywhere (unlike the sponsorships at CAS, for example).
All I know for certain is that the image rights for certain players were transferred to a third party (with whom the club had connections) in return for around 25 million, I think. The only logical rationale for that sort of investment is that the investor pays up front and gets an annual return but I have no idea of the financial mechanics behind that.
I do know the transaction wasn't hidden as some "people" have suggested. It was fully disclosed in the accounts. I also know some mechanism for Mansour to "underwrite" Fordham losses through ADUG was discussed in one of the emails, but again I have no idea if that was implemented or of the mechanics of the arrangement.
Let's be honest, Fordham was only done to generate income that would let the club (it thought) comply with the FFP limits.
But let's also be honest, selling a revenue generating asset to generate the income up front is as old as the hills and I am sure the club got legal and tax clearance on the whole transaction before entering into it. Which is one of the reasons I am pretty relaxed about it.
The other reason is that the whole thing isn't material enough to change the true and fair view given by the accounts, and as it was properly disclosed in the accounts, it can't have been knowingly concealed and so is time limited, as it was all wound down by 2017.
That's all I know about Fordham.
Edit: I just wanted to add that I don't think any other club has completely externalised some of its image rights, so this is probably unique? Yes, I am sure we have followed others in splitting wages and image rights for tax purposes, but that is a different issue, I think.