Woodley Ram

2 hours ago, Rampant said:

Will Steve Gibson be present at PP when Boro visit? 

Genuine question - would it be advisable for him to stay away?

I think the police should advise him that because he is a total Bamford he should stay in the toilet that is Middlesbrough 

Tubthumping, 

we get knocked down but we get up again

your never going to keep us down 

46 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Surely that statement means that we didn't break the existing rules?

No it means that there is no evidence that we obtained a sporting advantage. The issue that the EFL had was that FFP is over a 3 year period so that fact we altered the amortisation over the different years , the effect ( as we always went to 0 in the end) was no different thereby we didn’t obtain a sporting advantage. 
 

the FFP examination of our books with the straight line method is different 

Ok so we are staying in the Championship, we have to resubmit our accounts, so does that mean that the transfer embargo will now be lifted? 
 

to keep in place before the accounts are submitted and scrutinised by the EFL would be unfair and making a presumption that we are in breach.

There must be other clubs looking at this that are a little bit worried, Stoke and Reading posted large losses, some will no doubt be written off to Covid but not all. You do wonder about some of the others as well that have either bought big or paid large loans fees and wages. I would of course love one of the to Gibsonville and the riverside posse 

17 minutes ago, Spanish said:

year 3 is an assumption and consequently y4.  I disagree with the approach you suggest but I am not one for conspiracy theories.  I would rather confront this head on if we are compliant using their preferred method.  The scenario 

• efl appeal
• we produce figs which show we are compliant
• LAP enforce a penalty that means relegation

this will end up in court

I don't think we will get a retrospective penalty, and if we are FFP compliant then we will not get a points penalty at all. However our inability to keep and buy players will be are undoing

22 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

This is why we obviously went with the amortisation we did. It allowed us to kick the can down the road and become more strategic with our approach, but with the sale of pride park - I do think we will be under the limit anyway.

We started our amortisation approach long before the pride park sale, which I imagine was to keep us under the FFP (P&S) regs, however it ran away from us a fair bit when we lost out on players who we thought we could get some resale value on. We effectively bought a ton of players and lost them for nothing. I think at that point we decided to sell the ground. It kept us within the limit quite comfortably in the end, hence why I think we will be ok. 

Player X could have been depreciated
Year 1 - 10%
Year 2 - 10%
Year 3 - 50%
Year 4 - 30% (or 20% as I think we held some of the value) 

But when we come to do our new accounts it will show:

Year 1 - 25%
Year 2 - 25%
Year 3 - 25%
Year 4 - 25% 

If you look at year 3 on both examples, there isn't actually that much difference. I think that is perhaps why the initial fine isn't significant. It will all come out in the wash, of course, but the only thing we have done is kick the can down the road. I find that to be stupid in itself, very short-sighted, but ultimately the deprecation in both examples is going to 100% from entering and leaving. 

you are right, I think from what I have read, but the end of the contract was always 0. I think offloading the value in year 3 and 4 feels right.  It does of course depend on when year 3 is in the financial cycle. If you are over loaded with debt for 2 years then 10% and not 25% would really help. We had that when we spent really big for a couple of years so it was better for us to have 10% instead of 25% and when we had cut our cloth in year 3 to have the bigger amount then. That's where the EFL think we bent the rules to escape FFP.   

I think with the sale of PP we will be ok or just over and at most get a few points deduction and the EFL are not happy about that either as the earliest they can impose that is the coming season or possible after appeals the season after that. It would be very harsh to keep us under an embargo for 3 years plus

7 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Bunch of bankers!

 

The amortisation better be in a straight line

48 minutes ago, EraniosSocks said:

49 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

Taken from a post on the Wycombe messageboard today

"For what it's worth, a friend of mine who has friends within Derby's first team squad tells me they are all very concerned. The club aren't telling them anything, most of them think they're destined for League One this summer as a result and, given most of them have contracts which include significant pay cuts for relegation, they're almost in open mutiny. Wayne Rooney is being kept away from media over the Euros as they don't want him getting questions on Derby's plight..."

I have 2 and they dangle between my legs 

well it didn't work, I hoped it would. I wish him all the best, I hope he gets better and gets on the grass as he still has the chance to have a good career.  

gone, Mutual termination of contract

20 minutes ago, Spanish said:

maybe but sometimes the obvious answer can be correct?  The lack of contract renewals is also worrying.  You will recall I did a thread on embargoes based on the DC1 report and I think we have been hamstrung by this for a long time (not itk so just guesswork)

I think your guesswork is right, no idea if by design or accident but EFL need to look at what they are doing. Innocence until proven guilty should be the rule here, not 2 years of embargoes that could have a worse effect than a points deduction

I'm not going to cancel, I need to support the club by watching them and buying my season tickets

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Glad you finished the word wan, I was a bit worried there for a ? 

I misspoke when I said industry but I think you grasp the direction.  Apart from crypto I can't see a similar high value asset that has such a risk of ending up with no value and I think we all hope the country does not move to a view that all property ownership is theft.  So the reliability of an indicative market is different for footballers but you know this.  Sporting regulators, always felt they were not fit for purpose because of the nature of the appointees but that may be unfair.  In terms of the EFL at least they have established a framework with DC and LAP.  I don't know what more they could do to establish a decision body that is on the face of it, independent or at least balanced.  P&S has a unilateral limit on losses, a requirement that any injected funds by owners are capitalized rather than loans and a need to provide a summary before accounts are completed.  Outside of the that normal accountancy standards prevail.  Clearly, they are relying on the honesty of the clubs they regulate and in a multi million pound business perhaps that is naive. 

Perhaps the best course would be to request a specific P&S confirmation as part of the audit process.  Maybe the summary should be enhanced by a post audit version then any subsequent discoveries will be the fault of the auditor?  Nothing's perfect but lessons should be learnt as to the predicament DCFC and EFL now potential find themselves in.

Feel free to tear this to pieces

Sounds reasonable to me, 

Having read the relevant accounting rules I cannot understand how they come up with the opinion that we were in breach of them. I understand that it is not the done practice of a football club to immortalise that way but that's a different question.

We shot ourselves in the foot by not producing our own expert witness (was there a bit of Hubris there?)

The EFL are in a pickle but as you say they relied on honesty. If the EFL ask for accounts so that they can audit them, they should do so, in not finding this sooner they have not performed their duties properly, but we equally should have been more transparent about what we were doing.

I just want tis over and done with so we can move on, I also wish the other clubs supporters and indeed the clubs themselves would understand the facts and not jump to conclusions. 

If I was Derby at the moment I would be offering a clause in the contract that states that contracts (earnings) will be reviewed upon the conclusion of the EFL saga. Then tip them the wink that we would increase it to x amount

16 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yes, I was wondering that very point.

Who, if there is another appeal, does it go to?

Steve Gibson, the guiding light and moral guardian of the EFL

17 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's not the core of it though, is it?  The LAP found that we couldn't use ERVs at all.  They were disparaging about our methods for doing the calculations, but choose not uphold any of the appeals on that issue because the original DC made no mistakes (didn't "err in law" or whatever it was). The only thing they upheld (beyond the issue from the DC about not being clear in the accounts) was that the DC ignored the professors testimony, which was specifically on the use of ERVs at all. The EFL's argument was basically that you cannot use ERVs unless you have a guaranteed purchase (which players will never have) and that's what the LAP ruled was correct.  So it wouldn't matter if we had a perfect, 100% reliable method for calculating them, because we cannot *guarantee* that we can sell a player for that ERV, we cannot expect to gain any economic benefit from it.

it didn't help that the EFL put in Pope as an expert and we didn't. the fact that we had to declare additional figures in 2020 as the amortisation figures were not working didnt help  

5 minutes ago, Spanish said:

As we all suspect they must have a pretty good idea what the figs will look like.  Did you read the inadmissible evidence paper from LAP, that's got some good data in it and shows what their thoughts are.  I am not so confident that we will pass but that is merely a hunch and hopefully very wrong

you are right, they thought the DC would find us guilty on charge 1 and I think both sides fought so hard on that one, neither side did enough on charge 2.

do you have a link to that paper?

I think the EFL need to recruit some staff as I guess there are a number of clubs such as Stoke that will be trying to be creative with Covid debt.  Just think next season could start off with half of the Championship on -12 points

it wouldn't work anyway. Any judge would say the affected period where we 'allegedly'  over spent was prior to Wycombe being in the Championship so wouldn't affect them. DCFC could not be penalised for the EFL disciplinary process. we certainly didn't overspend last season

Quote

I have read a lot on this subject on the board, so went back to the original paper.

forget about what we produced or didn't, its better to concentrate on what we are guilty of:

1, failing to have an amortisation process that undertakes the process in a straight line ( Important thing here, the player contracts were accounted as 0 at the end of the contract by DCFC)

2, failing to adequately disclose the policy and process in the financial statements. (so we did disclose the policy but not in a way that was not totally transparent).

FRS 102 doesn't state how amortalisation should be carried out as the rule would need to be flexible enough to account for different businesses such as the rise in the value of an office block for instance. However it is accepted practice in football that this is done on a straight line. 

I don't think you can give a points deduction on these points as you cannot show that we benefited from them. That is why in my opinion we have been asked to resubmit our accounts, and if over the limit will get a punishment for it.

If there is an appeal we could get number 1 overturned and the EFL know that. If I was them I would not appeal and wait for the revised set of accounts and give them to a set of auditors to pull apart. The EFL have proven susceptible to outside pressure so who knows. 

This all depends on the sale of PP, if we are over FFP limits I cannot see how this could be we could be punished retrospectively. Also with the original charge of not using a straight line, I'm not sure how they could deduct points without knowing if we have benefited from them.  

  

11 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think we are on slightly different points. I was on about disclosure and I was talking about this statement below. What the LAP is saying here (in their prissy code) is: it is inconceivable that the club has no documents relating to the accounting treatment. But they claimed they did not and that was a porky pie.

28. The DC made disclosure orders in relation to documents in the Club’s control relevant to the accounting treatment. However, the Club did not produce a single document evidencing or relating to the accounting treatment adopted and confirmed that none existed.

can some one point me in the direction of the outcome (not the statements) as I cannot find it and would like to read it

20 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Angie Ram Angie Ram

there are 2 versions of this, one comes from the DC, one from the LAP. One version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on with our accounts and that’s the fault of the EFl. That version was (sort of) supported by the DC. The other version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on and that was because they were misled by the club. That was where the LAP ended up. 

what is not in doubt is that the EFL did not understand what we were doing. They hadn’t even ‘got it’ days before the DC hearing. So the suggestion they approved what we were doing is cloud cuckoo land. 
 

unfortunately the evidence indicates we misled them. Our auditor basically admitted the notes explaining the changes were non-compliant. An accident? Perhaps. This led to the DC finding us ‘guilty’ on a minor count. More troubling is that when the club was asked to disclose documents relating to the accounting issue, they claimed to have none - this was clearly incorrect and the word mincing LAP did not mince their words on this. They called us liars. 
 

We are very far from squeaky clean. 
 

I am guessing that I love our club just as much as you do. But the blind loyalty shown on this forum is foolish, not least because the club’s decision makers keep an eye on what we all think about these things. And the fans’ support of the club’s foolish squabble with the EFL perpetuates it. We will do better next season if we stop this fighting with them and focus on the squad and the pitch. 
 

it all comes back to Mel. He has spent a lot of his money to find that the deck is stacked against him, that the system is unfair. So he has pushed the envelope. We should thank him for that. But it has not worked so we need to take our medicine and focus on next season (in the championship). 
 

 

how come you know so much about what was asked for and what was given or not given? Also that Derby were called liars?

Pass

2 hours ago, Coconut said:

Not even one rule, because there were no set rules.

point taken