duncanjwitham

19 minutes ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

There is one other but can’t, from your list work out who it is? 

Jordan Brown definitely had a first team appearance or two last season.

You’ll never be able to scrap transfer fees, unless the rest of the world agrees to do the same.  Which they won’t.

IMO the cap on wages to turnover ratio that’s used in league 1/2 is the best system I’ve seen so far. The thing that kills football clubs is running up huge wage bills they can’t afford to pay, and that cap basically stops that overnight.  Owners can put as much cash in to buy players, improve stadiums etc as they want, but the actual day-to-day running of the club needs to be done sustainably.

3 minutes ago, David said:

That was my uneducated thinking, we saw them issue winding up orders to Forest on a regular basis under Fawaz. 

We can’t simply be ignoring them.

Honestly wouldn’t surprise me if we’ve just agreed with HMRC to defer a bunch of NICs or something, and the EFL have decided they don’t like it. Probably a bunch of other clubs have done similar, but they weren’t splashed across the Daily Mail for doing it so are “getting away with it”.

It doesn't have any bearing on the current issue IMO, but it absolutely would have had bearing on the Chorley/professional-standing issue.  If I was Rooney and they hadn't gone back on that, I'd have been slightly tempted to start as close as possible to the Chorley XI in the first game and just dare them to charge us for fielding a weakened team.

8 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

That was already agreed and signed off. I’m not sure how that can be disputed at all. I would imagine it’s one of the two methods of amortisation we can apply - and our interpretation of it. 

Odds are it's related to option 2 here (from the DC2 written reasons):

1 hour ago, DCFC1388 said:

Could it be that due to the outcome of the hearing not stating that the accounts had to be submitted with a straight-line amortisation policy + the potential added stadium money, that maybe we have submitted draft copies to the EFL and we're either waiting for them to approve them so we can submit them with companies house etc, or they're not happy with them so we're in discussions about what needs changing and revising them.

i agree that the accounts should've been ready to be submitted once the hearing was done but maybe they were and the above applies?

That's basically it, as per the Chris Coles Twitter thread above. Except we're trying to agree the amortization method with the EFL before we submit anything, rather than just submit and have them reject it and set off a whole new round of charges etc.  The written reasons from the DC2 hearing were pretty clear that we intended to submit something that wasn't just a straight-line anyway. 

1 hour ago, Boycie said:

You do know he’s had serious health issues don’t you? Somethings are bigger than the club.

We’re a multi-million pound turnover business. If the successful operation of that business is completely and utterly dependant on one single bloke, then our organisational structure is ****** beyond belief.

36 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

The only thing I can imagine is that the EFL won't sanction any additional wages as it will take us over the P&S threshold. Although we can lose £13m per season if Mel puts in £8m in equity, if he puts zero on we can only lose £5m. With no season tickets, we might be struggling. 

If you want tinfoil-hat made-up guesses, the EFL have decided that Rooney, Rosenior, Bucko etc also count as players of professional standing, because they could in theory come out of retirement and play again…

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

In what way is there not an active market for the asset?

See the extract in my post above. Players aren't homogenous, they aren't traded often enough for there to be comparative prices available,  and the prices are not available to the public anyway.

It's not like houses, where you can value a 3 bedroom semi in Chellaston by comparing it to the dozens of other 3 bedroom semis in Chellaston that have been sold in the last year or so.  To value say Jozwiak, you'd need a bunch of other new mid-level European team international wingers, with X years left on their contracts, playing in the championship, that have been sold in the last couple of seasons...  

3 minutes ago, Carnero said:

You're right, if only they could set up some sort of transfer system in football.

From the LAP written reasons: 

None of those really apply to the football transfer system. 

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The residual value is the resale value.

This is from FRS102 (https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/69f7d814-c806-4ccc-b451-aba50d6e8de2/FRS-102-FRS-applicable-in-the-UK-and-Republic-of-Ireland-(March-2018).pdf) :

I don't see how that can possibly apply to our case, given there's no active market.

If I remember correctly, the issue with the unclear wording in the accounts was basically that we said we were using RVs when we were actually using Estimated Recovery Values.

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The contracts were given a residual value at the end of each year.

That's not the way I understood it (again, not an expert etc). For us to use Residual Values, there had to be an active market and there definitely wasn't (everyone, the EFL, club, DC and LAP all agreed on this point IIRC).  What we were supposedly doing is factoring the players potential sale value into their "future economic benefits" and amortising that away over their contract (i.e. benefits from both use and disposal of an asset).  So for someone like Jozwiak, their "future economic benefits" might be 20% actually playing for us and 80% in being sold for a profit, so we'd amortise that 20% away while he was playing for us, and tweak the 20/80 balance every 6 months as the likelihood of him being sold changed (probably a gross over-simplification etc).  I suspect the actual net results are the same as using Residual Values, but we're explicitly not allowed to use RVs but can use what we did (IMO anyway).

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The use of residual values is very permissible. Whether the correct residual values are being used is for the auditors to conclude. Should huge losses start to arise at the end of players contracts then the auditors should conclude that DCFC are not using correct accounting estimates and either get them to amend or make reference to this in their audit report.

(I'm not an expert etc).  I read through FRS102 and I don't think residual Values are allowed for in our case (specifically the Bosman/leaving on a free issue). But it's irrelevant because we aren't using Residual Values (despite what the dubious wording in the accounts said).  

1 hour ago, Dimmu said:

So if we could get couple millions, I'm certain he could be replaced for less money. Heck, we might get replacement for free á la Neil Taylor.

The thing with the academy is, for it to be worth the money, we either have to be getting useful first team players from it, or we need to be selling players to make a genuine profit.  Buchanan hasn't been amazing yet, but he's looked decent, and this season is the point where he should be kicking on and cementing his place in the first team.  If we sell him now for a couple of million, considering the academy costs while he's been here (£4m a year, or something like that), we're basically selling him for a loss.

In legacy terms, the academy is basically the only bright spark in Mel's ownership. If we have to flog the best young prospects to cover the financial mess he's made everywhere else, then what has he achieved at all here? Literally nothing.

4 minutes ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

It is how it SHOULD work but all I’m saying is if the EFL are gonna be lenient and bend the rules a bit they won’t like us being able to bend them back again to suit ourselves!

The rules allow for exemptions for extreme circumstances though, and that clearly and obviously applies in this case, so we've not bent the rules at all.  They aren't going to ban us from using our own youth players.

47 minutes ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

So you think we can plead to EFL that these players are in no way of ‘professional standing’ and should count as such, allow us to make 4 new signing a only for us to then use these players anyway?

I don’t think so somehow 

That's exactly how it should work.  You are allowed to bring your own youth players into the first team while under an embargo, even if that takes you beyond 23 players.  The point is, those players weren't of first team standard at the point we used them, and they weren't promoted out of choice, but were rushed in to cover an emergency.  So they shouldn't count as first team players (by whatever metric you use).  If it gets to say November, and we deem it necessary to use one of them, and that they are ready (having had the best part of a year of additional development time) then there should be no reason why we shouldn't use them.

22 minutes ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

Even if the EFL relent on the players that played against Chorely it’s far from a complete solution to the problems.

Of the 8 players we’d be looking to lose from the ‘professional standing’ list there are several that would or could possibly have been close to an involvement this season anyway.

However I doubt very much that the EFL will allow us to claim these players shouldn’t be included within our squad nos and then sit back and allow us to give those players an involvement this season! So players like Bardell, Solomon, Thompson, Aghastise, Williams and Duncan will more than likely be ‘de-registered’ as opposed to have contracts terminated and how does that leave them and how does that leave the first team squad when the inevitable injuries and suspensions hit?

It will still then only free up 4 spots from which we have 7 players looking to sign and so three of them won’t be getting a deal.

I *think* we can still use those players if we need to.  They aren't banned for the season or anything, they just won't count towards the 23-man limit now.  Obviously they might if they end up getting used in actual league games, so it might be a problem in January, if we're still under an embargo.

8 minutes ago, BucksRam said:

 I think this time though, even a number of other clubs have gone "Come on guys, enough's enough". 

The whole point of being able to "staff up" is to keep the league competitive.  Our first 3 games are Huddersfield, Peterborough and Hull, and there's a possibility all 3 of those are in a relegation battle this season.  If you're another club that's potentially struggling this season, are you going to want those 3 clubs effectively getting a free-pass against our academy lads, when we might have signed half a dozen players by the time we play you?

10 minutes ago, Warwick Ram said:

Morris and Pearce should be working night and day to get this sorted ASAP. They may well be but we don’t know either way because the clubs communications with it's supporters is an embarrassing crapshow.

Fixed that for you.

3 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

For a man who has racked a fortune of 100s of millions in the Cyber world, it would be interesting to see if he had any investments into Crypto!

Yeah, then we'd know what to avoid like the plague...

1 hour ago, cosmic said:

After the EFL ruling, I saw a few posts (even from that Price of Football bloke who seems to wish us failure) explaining that actually our missing accounts will work out fine (something about an extra 30 million we'd find by ditching our amortisation technique?). I appreciate these things take time to file, but given how dire our situation is, wouldn't you think we'd have a team working all hours to get this done so we can end the embargo and start building a squad (even if it's only the freebies)? The longer this is being dragged out the more I fear we know we're fooked, and are just looking for ways to dodge another bullet.

We're under an embargo for multiple reasons. Filing the accounts on it's own won't be enough to lift it, we still have the pay the HMRC bill etc.  If we're waiting for a takeover before we clear that, then there's no rush at all to get the accounts in..

23 hours ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

Waste of money tbh, quality player and not his fault but wjen you don't have much money and spend a significant amount on one player this is what happens with a bit of bad luck. Should have spread the money out more. 

I know what you're getting at, but the problem with that approach is you just end up with a load of average players. We could have spent the £10m Bielik money on 3 players and basically end up with the equivalent of Nick Blackman, Scott Malone and Ikechi Anya for £3-4m each.  None of those players are even better than the players we already had, and we could probably have picked up at least as good players for free.

Obviously Bielik has suffered badly with injuries, but when you look at him play, he clearly fits the way we want to play, he addresses a big need we had, he's young enough with potential that he *should* have had big potential resale value and so on.  He's basically everything that the majority of our other signings clearly aren't.  I'd much rather have a proper plan in mind and spend what money we do have on someone that fits and then plug the rest with frees/loans/youngsters, than sign a load of random bang-average players that just leave you with a bang-average, over-paid team.

I'd take scraping survival, provided there's an "all outstanding EFL issues fully resolved" rider on the end.

24 minutes ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

Would you get a credit if you missed a game during a regular season? No, so why should you get one now?

I assume by "can't attend" he means because the stadium is shut again, or at reduced capacity.  There's a world of difference between missing a game because you're doing something else, and wanting to go to a game but not being legally allowed to attend when you've bought a ticket.

19 minutes ago, Stockyram92 said:

Don't see a problem here, both steady championship players 

And the big thing is, we're not doing what we did so many times and paying stupid money for them. Waghorn, Blackman, Butterfield, Malone etc would all have probably been decent enough signings if we'd paid what their previous clubs paid for them, not what we paid for them.