Jump to content

duncanjwitham

Member
  • Content Count

    1,569
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About duncanjwitham

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 23/09/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Given that the LAP basically told the accountants on the DC that they knew nothing about accounting, I reckon they're going to be lenient. £1 fine and permission to live rent-free in Steve Gibson's head for another season.
  2. It's kind of both. From a purely accounting point of view, our ERV method probably does better reflect the way we intend on using players (buying them, developing them, selling them on for profit). But it does have the effect - particularly for players on long (4+ year) contracts - of deferring the amortisation of players beyond a 3-year FFP window. It was up to the tribunal to decide if we were genuine in our reasons or were deliberately trying to evade the rules, and they seemed to settle more on the first.
  3. I think that's still just referring to players though. No other club has used this method of valuing players for amortisation or anything similar. That said, I'm not sure what intangible assets a football club would have that had resale value - their club branding etc probably won't, for example.
  4. I'd love to know if any other clubs are using future economic benefits from disposal for anything at all (I mean literally anything, not just players), because if they're expressly banned by the EFL's head-canon version of FRS102, then they're all due a big punishment too.
  5. Their argument is that you can't guarantee that you can sell a player, because another club might not want to buy, or the player might not want to leave, so you can't assume he has any value at all. But that literally rules out future economic benefits from disposal for anything at all ever, so I don't understand how it makes any sense.
  6. That's something that struck me as odd. The rules are very clear that the original tribunal had to contain an accountant for matters like this. But the appeals panel have basically ignored that expertise and decided the only expert present was the EFL's witness so they have to take his opinion as fact. So why even have an accountant on the panel in the first place?
  7. The document basically says if the appeals panel determined a sanction it would be final, no appeals either way, but if they passed it back to the original tribunal it could be appealed. Passing it back to the tribunal would require consent of both parties. The document then progresses as through they will be making the sanction themselves (hence no appeals), but the statements yesterday mentioned referring back. I'd assume that both parties have agreed to go back to the original tribunal (hence we can appeal), but it's not totally clear.
  8. So it's back to what I said before. It's a matter of interpreting standards, and the EFL provided an expert to interpret them for the panel, and we didn't. The lateness of the charge shouldn't have mattered, if it's that obvious we should have been able to find an accountant somewhere who understood it.
  9. I just find it bizarre that they've picked as their an example something that clearly does have an expectation of being able to gain economic value by selling after you've finished using it. And especially something that has a pretty well established process for determining it's value.
  10. I'm about 2/3rds of the way through, but the root of it seems to be the club screwed up buy not bringing in their own expert witness. The expertise of our accountant didn't count (he was a factual witness, not an expert one), neither did that of the accountant on the panel (again not an expert witness). So the EFL put up their guy that just read the dictionary to the tribunal, and the tribunal are basically required to accept it as fact. If we'd put up our own expert, we'd probably have been fine.
  11. From page 42 of the document. I could be misunderstanding, but are they really saying that if you buy a house you have no expectation of being able to sell it at all? And after 40 years a house is effectively worthless? And then saying players are basically the same? Because that's an insane position to take.
  12. This is where you’ve gone wrong. You’ve bought accounting standards to a mudslinging contest.
  13. Basically, all we did is instead of doing an equal share each year (e.g. 25% per year on a 4 year contract), we split it differently depending on how likely we were to be able to sell the player. So someone like Vydra, we might have done something like 5%, 5%, 5%, 85%. On the grounds that a player doesn’t plummet in value like that in real terms. Which was backed up when we sold him for a profit 2 years into that contract. Other players we would have split differently - Huddlestone was probably done in equal shares per year since we had no chance of getting money for him. Obviously some did
  14. I understood it to be the opposite. We assess the ERV of every player every 6 months, up until the point we decide they have no resale value, they then amortize down to zero in a straight-line over the rest of their contract. So for some players, that would be from day 1 because we never intend selling them (Curtis Davies and Huddlestone, for example), others it would be when they hit a certain age (Waghorn maybe) or when they got injured (George Thorne's second injury maybe). When a player hits the final year of their contract, they will be added to the no-resale-value list if they aren't
  15. No idea if this is your area of expertise but worth asking... If I understand it, the club is saying we can give players residual values to intangible assets (i.e. players in this case) because we have an expectation (not a guarantee though) of selling them. The EFL is saying no, you can't *guarantee* you can sell them, so you have to assume they have no residual value at all. So surely this argument holds for any asset a company might have - you can't (outside of a pre-agreed sale or something) have any guarantee that there's someone on the other end to buy it from you. So is it n
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.