The Scarlet Pimpernel

17 minutes ago, angieram said:

I am not in principle against this suspended sanction, and it just serves as a reminder to ensure we don't let it happen again.

However, I fail to see how it is fair for us to be deducted three points for a second breach, when Sheffield Wednesday have not been deducted any points for four consecutive breaches. Where is the consistency in that? 

I don't want to see SW being deducted points either, but this does seem to me like Derby being treated more harshly than another club.

And I fear this is going to be the case going forward. We. To the EFL are the bad guys. 

37 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

No idea how to break this cycle. We are somewhat charmless, graceless and ungenerous in victory, so neutrals don't want us to be successful and rejoice in our many misfortunes. 

Which in turn generates a siege mentality and a completely disproportionate need for us to be "better than them" to put them back in their assumed rightful place, and so it goes round and round. 

Was I the only one struck by the difference in our home and away crowds? The shots in Rome were showing largely families, people smiling and waving flags. The home crowds shots have been far more heavily male, with many more shaking fists, faces contorted with shouting and just generally looking a lot less pleasant. 

I think it's a cultural thing probably linked to loss of national stature. Portugal went through a similar cycle much earlier than us and have a special word - saudade - to mean a kind of bittersweet nostalgia for the loss of their historical importance. Perhaps it's a journey we're still going through.... 

We're just an ugly nation as a whole..............except me of course!

32 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think we have already argued estoppel in relation to our version of amortisation and had it rejected. It depends if any new penalty considers this part of the same argument, or if we were making a new argument of estoppel based on new figures. Could be argued either way, I think. 

Emmm... We haven't been to court to argue the legality yet I don't think......Have we?

7 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Tony Benson previously of Woking and Roy Hedges of Concorde FC have been seen amongst the new faces training with the Derby first team squad, Benson (54) and Hedges (47) are hoping to show Rooney they are up to the challenge ahead. Benson was said to be very surprised to receive the call, as he was tending to his allotment at the time, but he will be hoping he can win over the gaffer and secure his first club since retiring 16 years ago. 

According to sources the club are pressing ahead with signings for the new season after Wayne submitted his shopping list to the clubs recruitment team, written on the back of a cigarette packet.

 

Smokin....... 

Is there a "let's wait and see" option? 

2 minutes ago, Coneheadjohn said:

Our defence.

Skeleton Staff.

55 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Making sweeping generalised statements like that only serves to undermine and devalue even further the tenuous points you are attempting to put across but if it pleases you to believe that and fits into your own personal narrative and the jaundiced view you have about me then fill your boots. 

You have been a bit anti everything lately Tyler. Cheer up m'duck. 

The senior pros we have are:

                  Marshalll

Byrne     Davies                   Forsyth

                       Bielik       Shinnie

Lawrence       CKR         Jozwiak

I've got one for you Jimbo..... The Long and Winding Road by the Beatles. Waiting for the same old anti Rooney stuff to stop. 

6 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

There’s also a section in there stating that we have 2 possible amortisation models under consideration, a straight line one, and a non-straight one that we believe is FRS102 compliant. So expect everything to kick off again if we go with option 2 for the restated accounts…

As long as we clarify the method, get approval and it's HMRC compliant... Why not? 

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I’m not an accountant and very happy to be corrected and educated but, surely the accounts show that they DID have £111m in the bank as at 4/8/20. It’s offset by the large amount of creditors falling due within, and more than, 12 months but the vast majority of this is accruals and deferred income which seems to be a rolling amount and pretty much the same each year. Doesn’t that mean it’s just an accounting entry and those liabilities will never materialise provided the EFL continues to exist and deliver the league fixtures? 
 

I may well have got that completely wrong.

That's why I said "as such". I'm looking at what they are worth rather than what at that point they had in the bank. As I say, that's not the issue though. Its the shocking double standards regarding taking advantage of submission date allowances.

34 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

Can the accountants on here break this down? Are the EFL as an organisation sat on a pot of money while a lot of their members are struggling?  And then they ask the members to fund the ongoing court case with us.......

Also, what intangible assets would they have, as an organisation? Understand tangible as that would be property wouldn't it? 

 

No, they don't have £111m in the bank as such look at their net assets figure below. Not worth anything. The scandle here is that they have taken advantage of allowable late submission of their own accounts whilst having several clubs under embargo for doing exactly the same. This organisation is unbelievable!!!

Is he going to be manager of DCFC one day?

So, here we are. Thanks to some very knowledgeable posters, we have, I think, unwrapped the lash-up the EFL have caused us, themselves an Wycombe.  It would be laughable it it wasn't so tragic but I just have a sneaking feeling DCFC Fans are more advanced than the EFL and the LAP on the matter. How did it come to this?

9 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I've started so I'll finish... ?

The EFL probably (I say this with no evidence at all so it's just conjecture) wanted to avoid rule writing as far as possible, that's for sure. 

However, they appear to have done no real analysis to see whether a straight adoption of existing frameworks will give them what they now claim they want in terms of outcomes (everyone using the same approach to the detailed topic of amortising player contract values). 

Accounting standards by definition are really NOT industry specific. They are now based unequivocally on the principle of "economic substance over form" to reinforce this point. 

I think as far as "indicative market values" go then you would be looking for broadly comparable transactions. That's basically how property valuation is carried out. But it is a negotiable point and as it is indeed industry specific should be within the EFL purview. 

To be sure, if you held aggressive valuations in your accounts on the basis that you would be actively trading out these player assets, but you then didn't and they went for 0, then you would expect the following... 

- large final year write downs

- an increasing auditor challenge to the directors as to why they felt the approach met the overall principles of true and fair, plus the accounting concept of prudence. 

- ultimately an insistence on a revision to the approach in order for the auditors to continue to sign off. 

My overall issue with the EFL is that they appear to have "short circuited" these stages altogether and are now writing rules retrospectively at the same time as sanctioning a member for not complying with a non-existent rule. 

From a regulatory lens that is appalling behavior. 

 

This needs to be shouted from the roof tops but HOW????

The whole thing stinks. It's a disgrace from the EFL. 

It's good to touch base on this now and again. Currently we are only guilty after appeal of not flagging up a different amortisation policy to everyone else. Not an illegal one just a different one. 

Now, in time, due to the acceptance of the charge, we may be guilty of failing P&S BUT only if in time our resubmissions fail. So, to repeat, at this time we are only guilty of not flagging up a DIFFERENT BUT NOT illegal amortisation policy. BIG DEAL! 

I have to keep reminding myself incase I'm going mad. 

3 minutes ago, GenBr said:

No he isn't. He simply raised a query with the efl regarding how we operate. Contrary to popular belief everybody isn't out to get poor little Derby.

What's it got to do with him? 

Is there a time limit on any appeal? 

The question is why is the £100k fine inadequate. What advantage have we gained? 

We need a respected sports journalist to put some time looking into all this and then write a damning article about the EFL. This has descended beyond chronic incompetence it is now nothing short of victimisation.

I repeat what I said on another thread. At this moment in time it is not established if we gained an unfair advantage regarding FFP as our revised accounts have not been submitted, so put that in the pending file! Regarding our lack of clarity in declaring out unique but legal amortisation policy we have been found guilty on appeal and fined £100k. End of!!

What the heck are Wycombe on about? IF and its a big IF we eventually fail FFP when our accounts are submitted then blame the EFL for taking too long to sort it out but what has that got to do with DCFC?  

Just to reiterate a basic truth. The £100k fine is nothing to do with P&S figures, that's separate pending resubmission of our old accounts. 

That being said I have a question... What playing advantage have we had due to not advising our amortisation policy clearly enough that would warrant a points deduction? 

1 minute ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

The club statement point 2 reads as below..

2 It ordered the Club submit revised accounts for those years by 18 August 2021 using a policy for the amortisation of player registrations which complies both with the requirements of FRS 102 and with the P&S Rules.

As the season begins for us at home to HTFC on Saturday 7th August, simply adhere to the request in point 2 and submit the reworked accounts on 17th August 2021. The season would then be 2 games in and the EFL cannot relegate us no matter what.

?????????

 

 

They could appeal the £100k fine and ask for that to become a points deduction. This is why they have formed two fixture scenarios.

4 minutes ago, Jayram said:

Yes because I’m a grown up who doesn’t seek to blame the mess we are in on those nasty EFL people as opposed to the owner of our football club. Why hasn’t the club filed accounts for the last 3 years? Why have we tried to game the system while other clubs haven’t? Mel isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and the football authorities have caught up with him, simple as that. 

Are you sure you are a grown up?

4 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

But they were of the belief, as were their auditors, that they did do the accounts ‘properly’.

It does not mention how you’re supposed to account for amortisation, they believed they were fine within FRS102 to do it as they did, the original IDC decision vindicated this, yes I know the appeal has since gone against them, however what that should show you is that it is not at all clear cut, it seems to boil down to a difference in opinion.

Exactly this. We are not the sneaky villains we are portrayed as outside the club. We have genuinely tried within the rules as written to compete to the absolute best of our ability.