Half Fan Half Biscuit

6 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

This to me gets to the root of it.  The LAP document is entirely about Cost Model vs Revaluation Model, and saying we're using the Cost Model but sneaking in features of the Revaluation Model.  I don't believe (not an expert etc) that that's what we were doing at all.  We weren't 'revaluing' the assets in the sense that we had pride Park revalued before we sold it.  We were purely trying to estimate (as reliably and systematically as possible) what percentage of a players "economic benefits" we might derive from selling them on.  So none of the arguments about active markets and public prices apply, because we weren't 'revaluing' in that sense.  I think the DC, with their accountant on board understood this and waved it through.  The LAP with no experience in the field *at all* did not grasp this and that's why we are where we are. 

Again, not an expert etc.

Yes - I stand corrected - Club weren't actually revaluing players above cost so revaluation method wasn't being used. Therefore nothing FRS102 says about that method applies.

So it comes down to 

18.22 . . . The entity shall choose an amortisation method that reflects the pattern in which it expects to consume the asset’s future economic benefits. If the entity cannot determine that pattern reliably, it shall use the straight-line method.” 

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

And what expertise did the LAP call upon when making this decision?

Because the IDC, that used accounting/auditing experts views concluded differently. 

I can categorically state that the method used IS in accordance with FRS.

Whether it is being applied correctly is a different matter.

Amortisation is an accounting estimate but if them estimates are not giving a true and fair view there will be indicators that show the auditors that the estimates are not reasonable. In this instance we would be making big losses every time a player was sold.

Of course many of our players ran their contacts down so it is hard ro say whether amortisation is correctly spread across their contracts.

The stumbling block to me with the Club's approach is the requirement that prices are available to the public. You don't see players advertised for sale on a public facing website.

18.18B Under the revaluation model, an intangible asset shall be carried at a revalued amount, being its fair value at the date of revaluation less any subsequent accumulated amortisation and subsequent accumulated impairment losses, provided that the fair value can be determined by reference to an active market.

“Active market” is defined in the Glossary as follows; “A market in which all the following conditions exist: (a) the items traded in the market are homogeneous; (b) willing buyers and sellers can normally be found at any time; and (c) prices are available to the public.”

And wouldn't (b) be a problem too - how many willing buyers were there for Anya, Blackman and Butterfield?

30 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well I think it means a third party was trying to get the companies struck off and they have given up trying. So must be good I reckon 

This was a formal action by Companies House due to non-filing of documents.

Lack of annual confirmation statements and accounts are the two things that twist their knickers.

The outstanding confirmation statements were filed yesterday which seems to have been enough for them to discontinue the strike off proposals.

Can't really understand why these were outstanding - it only takes a few minutes to do online and costs £13 per company. If they couldn't afford £13 till now things must have been bad! 

But the fact that it's been discontinued is good news.

PS Expect Mr P on OTIB to now burn more midnight oil to come up with another conspiracy theory. Had some weird idea that Mel was getting these companies struck off to avoid FFP issues.

9 minutes ago, Alty_Ram said:

Forgive my total ignorance on the subject , but in layman's terms what do these announcements re Academy and Sevco actually mean ?

It means the companies can continue to operate without the risk of being struck off (i.e. ceasing to exist) in about six weeks time.

18 minutes ago, angieram said:

I think this might mean some outstanding accounts have been filed with Companies House?

Outstanding confirmation statements were filed yesterday. 
 

It could be that directors have an agreement with Co House that they can’t file accounts till dispute with EFL is sorted. 

33 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

The good old 2-3-5 formation. 

24 minutes ago, angieram said:

Doesn't scan! Aargh!!!

It does if you sing Derby as Da-arby instead of Buttercup.

But surely the problem with it as a club song is it's about being let down. 

It's a bit like Michael Buble's "It's a beautiful day" - it's beautiful 'cos he's just broken up with his partner!

22 hours ago, angieram said:

I don't want to change the words, it was Sage suggested it but NO-ONE has answered how you can convert But-ter-cup to Der-by. It's bugging me! 

Pretty straightforward really, just not sure about the sentiment . . .
 

Why do you build me up 
(Build me up) 
Derby County 
Just to let me down 
(Let me down) 
And mess me around 
And then worst of all 
(Worst of all) 
You never win, Derby 
When you’re One - Nil up 
(One - Nil up) 
But I love you still 
I need you 
(I need you) 
More than anyone, Derby
You know that I have from the start 
So build me up 
(Build me up) 
Derby, don't break my heart 

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how you can file 2020 accounts without the 2019 accounts being signed off as well.

The end position for 2019 is the starting position fo 2020.

6 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

So what does it actually mean. Does it look like we're ok or not

On one hand I’d say we’re OK, but on the other hand . . . ? ? ?

5 minutes ago, CollyerDCFC said:

I think it would suggest that a takeover has started. The post links to a company which Morris owns and is being shut down.

I wouldn’t read anything into it apart from Companies House doing what its supposed to do when accounts and confirmation statements are outstanding. 
 

The notices will be published next week and the directors will have a three months to sort it all out.  

Stadia DCFC, and Derby County FC Academy also subject to proposals to strike off. 
 

2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

Not read the thread, but Rooney shouldn’t have taken Ravel off. He was marshalling the game brilliant, which was keeping Lawrence disciplined. He wasn’t tiring. 

Absolutely - and I don't think Ravel thought he should have been taken off - but Wayne has said "I know how to manage Ravel Morrison".

4 minutes ago, superzak said:

Its like groundhog day...

You can say that again

2 minutes ago, Yani P said:

2-0 Brentford

But how the hell was that not fouling the Arsenal goalkeeper?

9 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

It sounds like we look like conceding at every set piece.

No change there then.

Jags and Curtis 1st priorities for me. 

1 hour ago, DCFC Kicks said:

But of all the trialists isn't Baldick the only striker? 

How do you know he shaves all over?

3 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

Actually, if a footballer was given the choice between working on a building site, or playing football - for the same wages - I on think that they'd nearly all choose football.

But, £0.5m is not peanuts!

I am not suggesting that they work on the national minimum age - or even a typical salary. 

I am just saying that if the reason that we cannot sign players id because they will not play for as "little" as £0.5m per year, then we should not sign them.

Based on the shooting efforts of the forwards on the pitch yesterday you’d think they were apprentices, so I think National Minimum Wage would be about right. 

As long as he runs the equivalent of 100 laps of the pitch each match I’m all for it. 

Could be off to Newcastle for £12m according to the Sun

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/15521623/newcastle-hughes-transfer-watford-stoke-etebo/

Was this new training kit ordered by Philip Cocu before he left?

1 hour ago, angieram said:

But covid isn't like other colds and bugs so we have to create a culture that makes us collectively responsible for all aspects of our health. 

I know you're going to disagree, but I would like to think you are in a minority.

If more people stopped off work for a couple of days when ill, the rest of the workplace would be much more productive, in my experience. 

Once had a boss who was very proud of not taking a day off work even when was sneezing all over the office.

Seemed surprised when we all went down with flu.

15 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

If I was Mel I would have the accounts submissions double and treble checked by a senior partner of one of the big accountancy firms, we do not want a professor from the university of wallaballoo being wheeled out by the EFL to trash our accounts, sorry Mr Pearce but we need to ensure every figure and word treble checked.

You can bet your bottom dollar the EFL will be having a panel of “experts” poring over them.

I’ll check it for him if he likes. 
 

2 + 2 = 5 doesn’t it?

21 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well EFl still not wanting to do Mel any favours so I think unfortunately they will appeal, unless potential new owners have got involved. Their appeal will involve their lawyers crawling through the DC decision, then explaining to the LAP why the DC was too lenient. So I think it could be up to 6 weeks from delivery of the DC decision before the LAP hands down the final decision on sanction. But as others point out the accounts can be filed very soon after the dC decision is published which if I understand it is what we need quickly for embargo reasons 

I thought their lawyers had already crawled through it and advised there were no grounds to appeal so the EFL announced they weren’t going to appeal. 
 

Are you saying they mis-spoke?

Next Wycombe will be complaining we disadvantaged them by taking 3 points off them when we beat them 1-2 in February.