Spanish

Just now, TheSlate said:

Er... we did start the Football League

yes then all those late comers arrived and kicked our ar5e

6 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

So the EFL telling somebody how to spend his money - if it was me get stuffed would be the answer 

start your own league then, will be the response

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

We were £17.5m within the limit under the non-compliant amortisation method.
With an extra £30 that would have given us £47.5m headroom
We made purchases worth £57m in the 2015-2018 years.
£10m to be made up in an extreme case scenario
However, not all of the amortisation for Thorne, Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, Lawrence, etc falls inside the relevant period. Just for those 5 players, I estimate £8m to fall in the 18/19 accounts or onwards for a standard straight-line method taking into account contract extensions. Other players would also be taken into account, easing the position considerably.
With adjustments to amortisation, comes adjustments to transfer profit. I believe Ince and Weimann make up the majority of the variance. Roughly £4m extra.

If there is a breach, it won't be with the £30m sofa money.

you were very confident there wouldn't be a breach, still the case?

here is a great story

Lincoln Red Imps of Gibraltar reached the group stage of a European competition for the first time, beating Riga 3-1 after extra time in their Conference League clash.

4 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

Yeah, can you imagine what it would be like if one of the big money spinners like Arsenal got relegated? 

They'd probably start the season +12! 

well given the parachute payments I think that is probably true already

23 minutes ago, Malty said:

My suspicion is that by restating all of our amortisation then we will have breached FFP quite a few years ago. The EFL will have to agree with DCFC on punishment for accounts that they have already approved …. Which I suspect will be cause for some debate on what is the correct treatment. It’s a right mess tbh, so they must be trying to work out what they should do that holds water legally, bearing in mind that whatever they do could set a precedent. 
 

Plus of course if we get a points deduction cue potential legal action from Wycombe??

they don't approve the accounts. DC2 commented on this.  They rely on the honesty of the club and the professionalism of the auditors

Just now, Sparkle said:

Meanwhile Reading FC who have clearly breached F&P are in a transfer embargo but no talk of charges or points deduction - I thought this was supposed to be laid out? 

timing wise I am not sure but the process is the club puts in their P&S summary which includes an assessment for the next accounts due June.  The EFL impose a soft embargo if a breach is anticipated and then engage with the club as to how the can minimise the breach.  I guess that is where Reading are at the moment

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

We also need to submit accounts for 19,20 and pay HMRC. But any charge from the redone accounts redone accounts will be a brand new process, new DC, new LAP if the EFL (or us) don't like the outcome.

It's the ducking duracell or accountancy non-compliance issue

upsetting your regulator in whatever line of business you are in ends up with a World of pain

13 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

If we're being pedantic, DC2 didn't overturn their original decision, the LAP overturned it, and only handed it back to the DC to decide on the punishment.  It seems pretty clear to me (reading between the lines of the DC2 written reasons) they they disagree with the LAP and think the original decision should have stood, but they had no power to reverse the appeal.

It's not that the EFL gave the LAP the power to hand it back for this specific case, it's a power that's written into the EFL charter or rules or whatever and applies to all cases that go to appeal.  The reasons for the LAP handing it back are documented in their written reasons, and seemed fairly well reasoned from what I remember.

And once it's been established that our accounts were wrong (in legal terms anyway, I and probably many others still have doubts over that ruling), restating them is the obvious and logical response.  

LAP asked for permission from EFL to refer it back the DC but perhaps that was a courtesy thing?

reading between the lines?

the decision of DC2 - we declare that the annual accounts....did not comply with the requirements of the P&S rules.....

Seems pretty clear to me at least.  I agree that they probably had little choice but there is no uncertainty over the decision at all

15 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

This isn't correct in terms of the original Disciplinary Commission, who vindicated us and simply said the change of amortization was fine but we might have made it clearer that we'd done it. Only then did the EFL decide (very wrongly in my view) that they would come after us with an appeal and only after that have we had to go through the palaver of redoing the accounts. Which the EFL hope will lead to a points deduction when they expressed their bitter disappointment at not getting that with the appeal.

DC1

The fifth Particular of the Second Charge is proven on the basis that, following the change to the Club’s approach to amortisation of the capitalised costs of player registrations at the end of the financial year ended 30 June 2015, the Club’s annual financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 failed to adequately disclose those changes to its accounting policies and/or estimates as required by section 10 of FRS 102.

the LAP found us guilty of the 2nd particular on appeal and referred it back to DC mostly because they thought Prof Pope's evidence should not have been dismissed so lightly. Also they were not the ones to insist on a restatement.

We do not have jurisdiction to order consequential disclosure for the purpose of the restatement of the accounts, which is again a matter for the DC.

DC2

they overturned their original decision and found that the 16/17/18 accounts did not comply with P&S rules and that we must restate them, so guilty of the second particular which they issued a small fine for, knowing that the restated accounts will either be ok or not.  Quite a sensible kick into the long grass really.  For some reason I can't copy the exact wording sorry.

The EFL's behavior at the end of the process to express disappointment in not being able to take further action against the club was crass stupidity and clearly shows them as the clowns they are.  I am still not sure why they allowed the LAP to hand this back the DC, it is almost like they are bipolar.  It has a feel of they say things for public consumption that they do not believe in really but who knows.  Most quango's and to that matter regulators are rarely adequate to meet expectations.  We are lucky that it went back to DC really

23 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Not sure I said we had.....I'll re-read it, hang on a mo.............Nope, never said that.

you indicated that we were not guilty

2 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

 

This is spot on and the impression fostered by the EFL, is that if an independent panel finds not guilty on a charge, it isn't that we are actually not guilty, but that we have "got away with it" a phrase you see from the fans of so many other clubs.
 

I don't think we were found not guilty of all charges

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

It’s like back in the days of ‘that’ season. The worse our situation, the better our fans become. 

plenty of practice ?

9 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Have you heard the rumor about going into administration floating around again !

 

yeh, could be BS or on the money, time will tell

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Don't you think that getting an agreement about how we present the information would be important, particularly for the club going forward. That might take some time.

yes Roy, but there is a perception that these delays are all down to the beastly EFL, maybe on this occasion it is not the whole truth?

2 minutes ago, Curtains said:

The EFL are drawing this out to the point of tedium.

Its just plain and simple bullying of Derby County. 

don't you think the club could have acted more quickly to present the info that was required, this seems to be going on a long time since the DC asked the club to restate, I would have thought the club would have anticipated this and have has a very good idea of how it looked weeks ago

14 hours ago, maxjam said:

Not according to Nixon...

 

What is required I believe is

P&S summary to EFL and accounts files with coho with a copy to the league.  They would normally get the summary first.

6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The EFL will surely need to change things, not least in light of the loophole outlined by Mel in the Al-jazeera documentary.  

The EFl can’t write  their own accounting code. Nor is the problem solved by them telling clubs what policies and practices to use. They need instead to specify where P&S returns must be adjusted, if a club’s accounts do not reflect the EFL’s desired approach  

 

  

 

 

I think it is very simple, a specific audit statement that each club is complying with amortization rules as part of the accounts filing process.  No club can be faulted in those circumstances.  I know the auditors sign off the whole set of accounts but in my industry they do that and also provide a reliance confirmation to our regulators

7 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Jags is there. 

It wasn't a poor game of football at all. That's the sort of comment that you get when Sky show a game and it's not the 'big boys'! It was a hard fought game that the ref never really got hold of. There was tension and excitement and anger and happiness. Plus skill and determination.

Why do you have to pick at other peoples views?  

Jags is there? Yes he was is it down to WR? I think it probably was.

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Always used to (perhaps long time back) be the case. ? Maybe the situation the club is in, the way the players and staff are committed on and off field, the fact that after a tough year and more, many might have reappraised how they value things, have all lead to a stronger atmosphere among the fans? Plus hope. #COYR

Expectations are lowered, it was a poor game of football, I still clapped them off the field and there is a bit of backs against the wall mentality.  I know you are a supporter of WR.  I wonder whether we would have got Jags if he wasn’t here

15 minutes ago, angieram said:

Don't know where you sit, Ewe Ram, but I sit in West Stand Upper. I had only been there a season and a bit before lockdown after moving from North Stand to get a better view of the game.

We were surrounded by regulars, mostly much older than us (I am in my sixties!) In general, they didn't bother clapping the players out, didn't clap good moves, but started the groans at every misplaced pass straight from the whistle. Lots of chuntering, very little positive support. We were already getting fed up of where we were sitting, despite the view! 

We have returned to our same seats though, and at the two league matches so far, none of my previpus immediate neighbours have attended - and their seats appear not to have been sold. (Presumably as previous season ticket holders their seats are reserved until late in the day.) We sat in splendid isolation yesterday with three clear rows immediately in front of us and one behind. There were people further in, and further out to the corners. At a glance, these people are a much younger demographic than previously.

The difference in noise, encouragement, clapping and some singing is stark. It's brilliant and long may it continue.

I understand that there are good reasons why these regular fans aren't attending, I also understand their support may be of a quieter variety but the negativity is optional and I don't miss it one bit! 

I can only speak for what I see in the bit of the ground I occupy, but if that is reflected elsewhere in the ground then I do think some of the people staying away (for whatever reason) were creating a negative atmosphere, or at very least not contributing in a positive way, whether they were aware of it or not.

Yep I don’t go often so the change is more marked for me maybe but SS led the noise and the whole ground joined in on several occasions 

2 hours ago, OUTSIDER said:

Speaking from outside the UK... flights so far are awful in times and day to fly in and out. Cheaper options are via Manchester and at present its 1 to 2 days lay over with extra costs on hotels. 

So i assume many from Ireland are finding it difficult to justify a trip that was 50euro in out same day flight to EMA to for example 250 euro for forest game

Prior to the Rona I could do 5-6 games to what 1 is costing. I'm hopeful that this gets better as travel opens up more. 

For me the Covid testing is another consideration, here for 4 days and I will have 3 tests costing £90.  That with the third rest being free!

11 minutes ago, niram said:

First game back, Fantastic atmosphere yesterday! I don’t think their fans expected that from a humble attendance but our fans really made ourselves proud, let’s keep this going all season, you can see the effect it has on the players ? 

I was running in the British athletics master yesterday which was wonderfully in Derby.  After I finished I was able to meet up with my mates and got the rare chance to go to the game.  Surprised a bit by the small attendance and the number of boro fans, feared the worse that we would be out sung but none of that.  A much more positive PP and a general feeling of togetherness within the team and the supporters.  Never thought we would be coping with all the offfield rubbish so we’ll.  watching Jags made the price worth paying alone.

3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

I think the fans might want to know too, does that mean his generosity does know bounds?

I think he is expecting some return of his investment.  At one time he did own our ground and still owed money the DCFC but the accounts are so historic hardly worth guessing

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

apart from walking around a stadium and being taken in by a fake investor, nothing breached the law or regulations 

there was an indication that he was funding us by way of repayable loans rather than capital.  It appears that he is funding the company which owns DCFC in that manner.  They may want to understand this, who knows?