TooFarInToTurnRed

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm still amazed that passed the EFL, seemingly without them batting an eyelid.  Unless half of their squad got long-COVID or something, the only thing that can have been impaired is their ability to sell players on.  And given the ruling in our case, you are very specifically not allowed to factor that into players book-values, it has to be entirely based on their ability to play matches for the club.

You have to feel sorry for Stoke, they assessed that their squad had ALL lost 80% of their value due to Covid. Then just a few weeks later sold Nathan Collins to Burnley for just £12m. Absolutely a £60m player (well he was before Covid). 

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

It means the admins and EFl are agreeing everything that needs to be agreed to clear the decks, ie

- 15 points (12 plus 3) final sanction for administration and FFP 

- agreed amort basis going forward 

- agreement of FFP headroom ongoing (crucial for January)

- release of embargo 

what have I forgotten? I’d guess the admins might even throw in a few fit and proper owner tests and guidelines about business plans? 
 

Maybe not all of that would find its way into a press release 
 

One interesting question is whether we will be required to agree that waiver of the MM ‘soft’ loans will not count as profit for FFP purposes  ...

It’s a powerful calling card the admins have: “we’re appointed by the court,  get in our way and we’ll go back to court and sort you out for the benefit of creditors .”  It’s better than, “hi I’m Mel you hate my guts can you do me a favour ?

 

Forest claimed a £5m “profit” in their latest accounts from the writing off of a loan. Precedent now set on that I think. 

4 hours ago, alram said:

exactly! This is my point here, we are very unlikely to survive even with a few points off a deduction (the best we can hope for?)

You are just adding costs to the club, and they will probably have to be recouped in January anyway. The job of the administrator is to make the club as cheap as possible, even if it was the case it's the difference between Champ / League One, you are going to have to wait until next year to find out - and by that time if no takeover is done player sales will have had to happen anyway!

The job of the Administrator is to get the best return for the creditors.
If the 12 poInts are returned there would be a greater expectation that the club can avoid relegation and better outlook for income projections. This would inevitably mean the suitors paying more which can be used towards paying debts. Therefore the Administrators have an obligation to appeal if they feel it is justified.

4 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

How can you be so sure,that is a bold statement to make.

I think £20m would comfortably be enough to service a debt estimated between £60-£80m. The “Other Creditor” amount due within 12months in the latest set of accounts for Gellaw was £7m if my memory serves me correct which I assume is to service the MSD loans.

4 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

Yes it is an unprecedented event,but that didn't just apply to us it was across the board, other clubs haven't been forced into administration by it.

They have not yet but doesn’t mean they will not be, lots of clubs recording record losses and will be in discussions with their lenders/backers. The EFL I understand have agreed to exclude losses directly attributable to the pandemic from P&S loss limits.

9 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

The EFL could also reasonably ask 'Would you be in administration had the club not been run so shambolically?'. I suspect the answer to that is no as well.

COVID hasn't sent anyone else under, at least not yet. 

But the question should be “Would you have been able to service your current liabilities with £20m extra revenue?”, the answer to that is undoubtedly yes. 

2 hours ago, StarterForTen said:

All EFL clubs that go through an insolvency event are required to work to a League-approved business plan for two years as a condition of the transfer/retention of their membership share (the so called 'Golden Share'). This inevitably will mean a restriction in the transfer market compared to others, but perhaps not an embargo as such.

And in any case I doubt that the club's rolling P+S limit will be reset, so new owners will be working to restricted head room for permitted losses in the short term.

And... if the Club is in League One next season, the financial controls are different in that division. The £2.5m salary cap proposal was thrown out last year, but I think current rules state that in L1, the salary cost management protocol limits player related expenditure to 60% to turnover. For Derby, that would likely be circa £10-12m per year.

When debts the club owe are written off can they not be counted toward profit for P&S purposes? If not then Forest need to be investigated as they did just that in their latest account! They have written off a £5m “historical” loan they had claiming it as profit. 

1 minute ago, swanny said:

all they need to do now is reopen the ticket office!

It’s open isn’t it, was announced yesterday. 

39 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

From what I've read, what Stoke have done is a massive amortisation dump - throwing a huge (£80m?) player value write down into one year and claiming it as a COVID-related (and therefore outside of P&S limits) revaluation. That will then allow them to record reduced amortisation losses in later years - and higher profits if players are sold - leaving them with more head room for the sir seasonal P&S returns.

Is that really OK?

 

Reading their accounts £30m was the normal yearly write down of player costs, £12m they say was write down before Covid and another £30m write down directly attributed to Covid. So only £30m of the £87m loss could be excluded. 

The EFL will have to tread really carefully how they treat us in these difficult times as I suspect that when clubs start publishing accounts for 20/21 over the coming months many may have breached the P&S loss limit due to COVID. If they then “relax” the rules to stop half the teams having embargoes and point deducted due to “unprecedented circumstances” but not for us then they are opening themselves up to a huge claim.

5 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Wo will he sue?

The EFL?

DCFC in administration?

Mel Morris personally?

Gibson is just mouthing off nothing to see here

 

More likely that Mel Morris might sue Boro and the EFL once unshackled from the club. The spurious claims that the ground had been overvalued cost his a deal to sell the club didn’t it?

29 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

To be honest I had assumed you the same (laziness on my part).

If you look further down, in the notes to the accounts, the creditor is 'amounts owed to group undertakings'.

I read that as Gellaw Newco bought the ground but haven’t paid the money yet and owes the football club £73m this year?

22 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I had always believed that the MSD loans were taken out in the company that owned the ground.

Having just looked on Companies House I can see that this is not the case.

Also looks like the ground has not been paid for, surely this will be the first port of call for the administrators.

I’m finding all this information (or lack of!) absolutely baffling. How do you know which company took out the loan? Reading the Gellaw Newco 202 accounts I assumed that the £7m falling due to “other” creditors in then next year was the repayments on the loan. 

I’m far from an expert in these matters but could it be that the debts of the “club” are not as bad as we think.

Reading this article https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2021/feb/25/Derby-takeover-silence-and-mounting-debts-how-did-it-come-to-this it is suggested that the loan from MSD was to Gellaw Newco 202 which owns the stadium and as far as I am aware is not looking to go in to administration.

If that is the case then it seems that Mel Morris may be planning to continue paying off the stadium. Ive read the “Charge” document, Gellaw and the club are listed as Chargors as Freeholder and Leaseholder respectively. I have no knowledge in such matters but would guess even if they have no debt owing to the MSD they would register a charge against the club as the long term leaseholder just to give you legal standing should need to evict them in case of default by the landlord???

13 minutes ago, Spanish said:

keep in mind the following

#DCFC sold their stadium to one of owner Mel Morris’s companies for £81m (independent valuation), which gave a £40m gain over the £41m value in the books.

 

Wasn’t sure if the value, just some believe the whole £80m was profit. 

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

it is astounding when you consider that we had to sell PP and still breach though.  Maybe when he said 17/18 he was referencing the end of the 3 year period

Keep in mind the “profit” the club took by selling the ground is only the difference between it’s book value and it’s current value. About £23m I seem to recall?

5 hours ago, Carnero said:

Actually, the profit is the sale price less the original cost + any enhancement expenditure. Value in the accounts doesn't come into it.

You’re absolutely wrong! The asset value on the balance sheet is absolutely what you use to determine the profit on the transaction. How you determine the asset value would include the costs you state less any depreciation or impairment. 

The “profit” on selling the ground was not £80m as you can only claim the amount above the value the asset is listed in the accounts. The profit for disposal of Tangible Assets listed in the accounts for 2018 was £39,940,387.

On 06/07/2021 at 17:13, B4ev6is said:

Not nesscesslay as if my memory services me right during that time frame we sold Jeff Hendrick and after that will sold will huges and tom ince in which I think in total sold all togather about 30m mate so that had to be taken into account and then you can say we got fair bit in compation for frank Lampard that so cruel stolen away from us by chelsea.

46 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

My dad it for me as travel passport thing to be proved that we had both our jabs.

No one exempted 3 people I saw wore masks even they took there off in the end.

FYI, the app that prove vaccination status for travel is a different one to the one that “pings” for test and trace. You might want to check you have the right one if travelling. 

Not forgetting Matej Vydra, Cyrus Christie and Andreas Wiemann for another £15m

1 minute ago, Wignall12 said:

And won't it be fun to see THEM squirm  .... what goes round comes round , can't wait 

Hopefully by that time the EFL will have amended the rules to make it a mandatory points deduction by then rather than the £100k fine. 

16 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Yes but when the loan fee from that Greek side for one player is £13 million it all works out and is jolly fine 

Doesn’t work like that as that would be income in a different part of the accounts. The amortisation of intangible assets is just that and cannot be offset against current values or income received.

Seriously though it needs looking into as Forest are obviously “cooking the books” it seems and that’s just after 1hrs research. 

Suspect Forest will be one of the clubs as I checked their accounts for season ending 2020 and they include a value of £5,961,000 for amortisation of intangible assets but it doesn’t stack up:

Carvalho £13.5m 5yr = £2.61m

Grabban £6m 4yr = £1.5m

Figuereido £2m 4yr = £0.5m

Jenkinson £2m 3yr = £0.66m

Samba £2m 4yr = £0.5m

Da Costa £1.8m 3.5yr = £0.51m

Sow £0.6m 2yr = £0.3m

Bong £0.45m 2.5yr = £0.18m

Total = £6.76m without including any signing on fees for players signed on a free (Ameobi & Adomah to name a couple). Anyone got an email address for Steve Gibson?

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think that's right.

So based on that principle, surely the EFL arguments are flawed somewhat as the player likely to give us the biggest adjustment is Matej Vydra who should have cost in the accounts of £4m (based on 2yrs of 4yr contract for fee of £8m) but we sold him for £10m just 2 months in to the 2019 financial year. 

Having done some rough calculations based on players purchased in seasons ending 2016, 2017 & 2018 using Transfermarkt figures and the amortisation figures from the accounts I get a £19.5m additional loss.
However one thing I am not so sure about, would I be correct in thinking that when we sold players the benefit in the accounts would be the sale value minus the residual cost of that player? If that’s the case then we should get a greater benefit in the accounts for when we sold Tom Ince for example.