duncanjwitham

We didn’t just take it, we massively improved on it, by locating it in not-Middlesbrough.

We didn’t just take it, we massively improved on it, by locating it in not-Middlesbrough.

We didn’t just take it, we massively improved on it, by locating it in not-Middlesbrough.

We didn’t just take it, we massively improved on it, by locating it in not-Middlesbrough.

So 4 of the 6 are some form of ghost/spirit/non-corporeal entity? Still, a better bet than Erik Alonso, I suppose…

So 4 of the 6 are some form of ghost/spirit/non-corporeal entity? Still, a better bet than Erik Alonso, I suppose…

Would be absolutely hilarious if we get another day in court to present the rationale behind our accounting methods. Get a proper expert witness to back our case this time, and get a legal ruling that our accounts are absolutely compliant and we haven’t actually breached FFP spending rules. It would put the EFL in a very interesting position, all thanks to Steve Gibson.

It might not be against the regs, but it’s absolutely against the EFLs interpretation of them. They were crystal clear with us that the only ‘value’ a player can have is their ability to play for the football team. So unless they’ve all developed long-COVID or something, there’s no way that COVID should affect their value. If they’re claiming that players have value because of their ability to be sold, and COVID has caused that to drop because it’s broken the transfer market, then they’re absolutely doing what the EFL have dragged us through the mud for 2 years for doing.

Mel’s explanation of what we’re doing was pretty terrible. He either didn’t understand it properly himself, or he was massively oversimplifying beyond the point of being useful.  The key thing is (as far as I understand it), we’re not really saying the players value drops most in the last season, we’re saying our ability to sell them does.  A subtle distinction maybe, but it makes all the difference - under FRS102, we’re losing the ability to profit from the disposal of that asset so it gets amortised away.
And it doesn’t matter what KM thinks about the accuracy of transfermarkt, the Disciplinary Commission found that our method of valuing the players was reliable and systematic enough for the purposes of FRS102, and the League Appeal Panel found in our favour for all of the EFLs appeals in that regard. Not to mention our accountants, auditors etc signing off on it.  

We weren’t just relying on one website either, we were apparently getting valuations from multiple agents and multiple websites, to try and come up with an independent valuation, I.e not one that we were tweaking to fit our needs. And honestly, is it *that* different to valuing property by getting estate agents to value it and cross-checking similar properties on Zoopla etc?
(usual caveats about whether we were actually doing what we claimed to be doing etc)

Mel’s explanation of what we’re doing was pretty terrible. He either didn’t understand it properly himself, or he was massively oversimplifying beyond the point of being useful.  The key thing is (as far as I understand it), we’re not really saying the players value drops most in the last season, we’re saying our ability to sell them does.  A subtle distinction maybe, but it makes all the difference - under FRS102, we’re losing the ability to profit from the disposal of that asset so it gets amortised away.
And it doesn’t matter what KM thinks about the accuracy of transfermarkt, the Disciplinary Commission found that our method of valuing the players was reliable and systematic enough for the purposes of FRS102, and the League Appeal Panel found in our favour for all of the EFLs appeals in that regard. Not to mention our accountants, auditors etc signing off on it.  

We weren’t just relying on one website either, we were apparently getting valuations from multiple agents and multiple websites, to try and come up with an independent valuation, I.e not one that we were tweaking to fit our needs. And honestly, is it *that* different to valuing property by getting estate agents to value it and cross-checking similar properties on Zoopla etc?
(usual caveats about whether we were actually doing what we claimed to be doing etc)

Exactly, also the bit I’ve quoted above, definitely not true in the case of amortisation, there was no mention of how only that it must be done, the only regulation relevant is that the accounts have to be in accordance with FRS102.
Also, as an aside, I keep seeing people mention that Mel cannot sell the stadium back for a lesser amount, and that the EFL would be all over it. From everything said in both ours and Sheffield Wednesday’s DC documentation this is untrue, the only reason he had to sell it for fair market value is because he was a related party to the sale, if he is no longer a related party, which he won’t be, it is irrelevant.
The ruling for the stadium is done, the EFL had 14 days after the ruling to appeal it, they didn’t. What happens going forwards has no bearing on what happened in the past, circumstances have changed so plans for the stadium have subsequently changed, it doesn’t change the reasons for the previous sale.

Servicing the debts we’ve run up in the last 18 months, presumably.

The issue isn’t whether it’s right to take taxpayers money or not. If basically every other club got the money, but we didn’t because of the EFL issues (where it’s still far from clear what we’ve actually done wrong), then there’s a major issue of fair play.

The issue isn’t whether it’s right to take taxpayers money or not. If basically every other club got the money, but we didn’t because of the EFL issues (where it’s still far from clear what we’ve actually done wrong), then there’s a major issue of fair play.

I understand that tonight many questions will be asked, both of the club and myself. 
Tonight as the news was broke, I was sat in the pub, still am, it's hit me hard as I'm sure it has you all, I was not expecting it, there was no pre warning, no hint of what was to come.
I also understand that over the years my opinion has been questioned, it's something I have had to deal with, sometimes poorly, but with the best and honest of intentions.
Tonight I am hurting, just as much as you all, this is the club I love, the club I adore, the club I have tattooed on my hand for all to see with pride. 
I love this club, please just think when posting over the next few days, weeks in anger, myself, the moderators, we do not deserve to be on the end of your anger or frustration.
Today is a dark day for the club, but as fans, we need to to stick together. We are Derby County, every one of us and we will move forward as one.
Once a ram, always a ram ?

Vote? Why would there be a vote? Everyone knows the Rams Trust are the one true voice of Derby County fans, and they alone are anointed to speak in the name of what all Rams fans truly want.

Vote? Why would there be a vote? Everyone knows the Rams Trust are the one true voice of Derby County fans, and they alone are anointed to speak in the name of what all Rams fans truly want.

Don’t be silly. They’re just writing another strongly worded letter demanding fan representation on the board as we speak.

Fixed that for you.

The issue isn’t whether it’s right to take taxpayers money or not. If basically every other club got the money, but we didn’t because of the EFL issues (where it’s still far from clear what we’ve actually done wrong), then there’s a major issue of fair play.

The issue isn’t whether it’s right to take taxpayers money or not. If basically every other club got the money, but we didn’t because of the EFL issues (where it’s still far from clear what we’ve actually done wrong), then there’s a major issue of fair play.

That’s probably classed as a “football debt” so we’ll end up paying it in full, while local businesses get pennies on the pound of what they’re owed.

and if either party cannot accept an agreement, it can go to the DC for the resolution.

Rule 85 is covers everything a Disciplinary Commission covers, from determination of guilt to punishment.  It's just a way of short-cutting the DC process to save both parties time and money. Just because we're discussing it with the EFL doesn't mean we've admitted guilt or even accepted the charges.

Any question that starts "do we know for certain" is going to result in a "no" answer at the moment.
We don't know what the discussion is about, and honestly, whether we've broken the rules and what punishment we might be due aren't entirely separate things.  If we're still arguing over exactly what amortization models are allowed, then the answer to that question will determine the extent of any overspend, and hence the extent of any punishment.