duncanjwitham

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

Can we sue them both? Their points should be deducted this season, not next, and that might materially affect us getting relegated...

(I'm not an accountant proviso here, take with a pinch of salt etc etc...)
If the deal isn't an arms-length transaction (e.g. a Morris company selling to a Morris company), then the deal has to be done at 'market value' (i.e. valued by a 3rd party valuer in the case of property).  The only reason we were able to gain any profit from our deal was that the stadium was undervalued on our books at the time (having not been revalued for a while).  It was revalued from ~£40m to ~£80m, sold on, and we pocketed the difference.  Any other club where the stadiums real-world value is higher than it's current book value was free to do the same, as Villa and Wednesday (and maybe others?) did.
But if we were to buy it back (prior to going into admin), we would have had to sell it back for market value, which would basically have been for £80m again. So we gain nothing in that transaction in P/L terms (other than the stadium being back in our ownership, of course).  The same going forward, we could move it back to the other company, but it would be for very close to what we paid for it.
The only things that's changed now, is that it is an arms-length transaction. DCFC is 'owned' by the administrators, and the stadium by Morris, so he's free to sell it to us for whatever he likes, and his company will register the change in P/L (i.e. if he sells it back to us for £20m, he'll have to eat a ~£60m loss on it).  But from our point of view, there's no change, £20m cash goes out, a £20m asset comes in.  Of course we could in theory do the same trick, by moving our £20m asset to ourselves for it's true value of £80m, but that loophole has been closed by the EFL.

This passage from the DC2 report is interesting:

It was basically used against us at the time, in arguing that they didn't need to prove a specific sporting advantage to punish us.  But if Gibson is genuinely arguing that Waghorn specifically gave us an advantage that he would have given them, I wonder if it could be used in our favour, i.e. it's impossible to quantify things like that.

This passage from the DC2 report is interesting:

It was basically used against us at the time, in arguing that they didn't need to prove a specific sporting advantage to punish us.  But if Gibson is genuinely arguing that Waghorn specifically gave us an advantage that he would have given them, I wonder if it could be used in our favour, i.e. it's impossible to quantify things like that.

I don't think that affects FFP. We pay (e.g.) £20m, and a £20m asset appears on the books. There's no net change in profit/loss terms.

If it’s Dorries, I suggest you open with “Woke EFL trying to cancel Derby County”.  You should probably mention we have a statue that might get pulled down if we get liquidated too ?

This passage from the DC2 report is interesting:

It was basically used against us at the time, in arguing that they didn't need to prove a specific sporting advantage to punish us.  But if Gibson is genuinely arguing that Waghorn specifically gave us an advantage that he would have given them, I wonder if it could be used in our favour, i.e. it's impossible to quantify things like that.

This passage from the DC2 report is interesting:

It was basically used against us at the time, in arguing that they didn't need to prove a specific sporting advantage to punish us.  But if Gibson is genuinely arguing that Waghorn specifically gave us an advantage that he would have given them, I wonder if it could be used in our favour, i.e. it's impossible to quantify things like that.

(I'm not an accountant proviso here, take with a pinch of salt etc etc...)
If the deal isn't an arms-length transaction (e.g. a Morris company selling to a Morris company), then the deal has to be done at 'market value' (i.e. valued by a 3rd party valuer in the case of property).  The only reason we were able to gain any profit from our deal was that the stadium was undervalued on our books at the time (having not been revalued for a while).  It was revalued from ~£40m to ~£80m, sold on, and we pocketed the difference.  Any other club where the stadiums real-world value is higher than it's current book value was free to do the same, as Villa and Wednesday (and maybe others?) did.
But if we were to buy it back (prior to going into admin), we would have had to sell it back for market value, which would basically have been for £80m again. So we gain nothing in that transaction in P/L terms (other than the stadium being back in our ownership, of course).  The same going forward, we could move it back to the other company, but it would be for very close to what we paid for it.
The only things that's changed now, is that it is an arms-length transaction. DCFC is 'owned' by the administrators, and the stadium by Morris, so he's free to sell it to us for whatever he likes, and his company will register the change in P/L (i.e. if he sells it back to us for £20m, he'll have to eat a ~£60m loss on it).  But from our point of view, there's no change, £20m cash goes out, a £20m asset comes in.  Of course we could in theory do the same trick, by moving our £20m asset to ourselves for it's true value of £80m, but that loophole has been closed by the EFL.

(I'm not an accountant proviso here, take with a pinch of salt etc etc...)
If the deal isn't an arms-length transaction (e.g. a Morris company selling to a Morris company), then the deal has to be done at 'market value' (i.e. valued by a 3rd party valuer in the case of property).  The only reason we were able to gain any profit from our deal was that the stadium was undervalued on our books at the time (having not been revalued for a while).  It was revalued from ~£40m to ~£80m, sold on, and we pocketed the difference.  Any other club where the stadiums real-world value is higher than it's current book value was free to do the same, as Villa and Wednesday (and maybe others?) did.
But if we were to buy it back (prior to going into admin), we would have had to sell it back for market value, which would basically have been for £80m again. So we gain nothing in that transaction in P/L terms (other than the stadium being back in our ownership, of course).  The same going forward, we could move it back to the other company, but it would be for very close to what we paid for it.
The only things that's changed now, is that it is an arms-length transaction. DCFC is 'owned' by the administrators, and the stadium by Morris, so he's free to sell it to us for whatever he likes, and his company will register the change in P/L (i.e. if he sells it back to us for £20m, he'll have to eat a ~£60m loss on it).  But from our point of view, there's no change, £20m cash goes out, a £20m asset comes in.  Of course we could in theory do the same trick, by moving our £20m asset to ourselves for it's true value of £80m, but that loophole has been closed by the EFL.

I don't think that affects FFP. We pay (e.g.) £20m, and a £20m asset appears on the books. There's no net change in profit/loss terms.

I don't think that affects FFP. We pay (e.g.) £20m, and a £20m asset appears on the books. There's no net change in profit/loss terms.

I don't think that affects FFP. We pay (e.g.) £20m, and a £20m asset appears on the books. There's no net change in profit/loss terms.

I don't think that affects FFP. We pay (e.g.) £20m, and a £20m asset appears on the books. There's no net change in profit/loss terms.

If it’s Dorries, I suggest you open with “Woke EFL trying to cancel Derby County”.  You should probably mention we have a statue that might get pulled down if we get liquidated too ?

I like your thinking…

I like your thinking…

It's just reached the point of pure embarrassment, from Boro, Wycombe and the EFL.
All those rival fans that are finding joy in all this when they could easily be next, wake up.
The game is littered with utter BS, we tried to find a different way with amortisation to compete with those awarded millions for failure, which the EFL retrospectively on Gibson's request found us guilty. 
Naughty Derby, grow up.
Rules have been retrospectively added to cover the EFL arses. Google enhanced embargo, see what comes up, Derby County, there was never a enhanced embargo before all this, it's something you came up with as Mel Morris publicly challenged you.
Meanwhile we have state owned clubs when sponsorships for official hotels, soaps and rubber ducks for 10x what they could buy this club for in the Premier League.
Do you not even realise how anti competitive the league that's responsible for your revenue is, do you not realise that the very existence of the Championship relies on multi millionaires prepared to be losing upwards of half a million a month, it's not sustainable even by your own rules.
Derby County reject a bid for their player which could be derisory, yet the EFL are on our case, are we in the position now where we have to sell Jason Knight for a fiver to keep Rick Parry happy, if that's the case then just end the game now.
We lost Kaide Gordon to Liverpool for a bag of monster munch and Freddo over that deal you agreed with the PL, how is that looking after your member clubs when they have to gift wrap the young stars that have been educated both on an off the field to satisfy the greed of the top 6 in this country.
Explain the benefit of that deal to your member clubs, please explain as from the fans that love the game, all we see is our clubs being screwed over.
Out of 2 play off finals which we were beaten, we were beaten by clubs that would have failed EFL FFP, we took it on the chin yet here we are, one club using bookies odds to build a case and another that didn't even earn promotion on merit jeopardising the existence of this club.
Meanwhile the MSM are far more interested in the likes of Man United and Newcastle to even realise what is going on outside the gold pit. The game is dying whilst the "journalists" are far more interested in finding the next tweet to create a clickbait article than actually do their jobs.
Nobody wants to touch it, why? We have a Serbian tennis player refused entry to a country and tournament, everyone, every journalist in sport is weighing in as we're sat here in limbo over let's not forget, retrospective punishment.
The EFL signed off our accounts that we have now been punished for, let that sink in.
I'm sick of it, sick of the rival fans looking to take the piss without understanding the situation, sick of the incompetent governing bodies, sick of Gibson and that Wycombe numpty.
We've rolled over, accepted the retrospective punishment, saved the EFL embarrassment of explaining themselves in court, yet the EFL are too gutless to tell the curly haired one to shut up as they are in fear of landing themselves in court over the utter shambolic way they have ran this league.
Grow some balls Rick, accept some responsibility over how the investigations were handled and do the right thing, tell Gibson to F off, tell Wycombe to F off and learn from your mistakes.