LE_Ram

22 minutes ago, Justa said:

That game was Warne all over - poor disjointed first half and go ahead in the second with one moment of quality.

Sit back and try to hold on then acted shocked that we don’t.

Why don’t we ever push on and try to score more rather than sitting back ?! Why not take advantage of the twelfth man ? Look how much the crowd get behind you when we do attack ? Why can’t Warne see this ?

People will scoff but his tactics are woeful.

 

Really agree with this. Was noticeable today that the crowd was really giving it a good go at getting behind the team, especially in the build up to Bird’s goal.
 

This carried on for a few minutes after the goal and then we reverted to type, poor and misplaced long passes, no fluidity in possession and head tennis, and it sucks all the life out of the ground.

The result today was frustrating and yet we’re somehow in with a chance of promotion, but this season for me has been really flat to watch. I won’t care if we’re promoted come May, but I’ve lost a bit of enthusiasm this season and I don’t think I’ll be the only one.

Going to be a crucial few days for PW and the squad. It's been a largely dreadful start to the season with little positives to take either results-wise or performance-wise and this is the point that they need to consider where we go from here.

I am not quite at the stage of wanting to see him gone as I do want stability, and although I have no inside information on the finances I would presume Clowes would prefer things to work out with PW than go through more flux and expense of signing another manager.

It's painfully obvious that the system at the moment just doesn't suit the players - we can't execute it well enough and as a result we look fragile and nervy at the back, ineffective in transition, and toothless up front. The fans can see it, the pundits can see it, and from the sound of PW's interview yesterday he might (finally) be starting to see it too. 

Something needs to change in the next few matches - imo Paul needs to cut his losses with the current system, switch to 4 at the back, and see how it goes. Couple it with some younger more mobile players mixed in with the experience and playing our best attackers in natural positions (NML has been a passenger so far for me) and we'll be reet. That'll go a long way to winning back over the fanbase which is (rightfully) annoyed with the lack of mobility and tactical nouse we've seen so far.

I have to say, I wouldn't want any club to actually go under, but it would do some of these other clubs' fans some good - Birmingham, Boro, Bristol are the three that stick in my head for coming to PP and singing about partying when Derby die - to go through some of what we've been through over the last 9 months and see how it feels to be on the receiving end.

7 minutes ago, DCFC27 said:

I know how this sounds but at this point it’s probably worth going nuclear. Admin release a statement saying no progress is being made, unless Wycombe and Bora drop their lawsuits or the EFL intervention the club goes into liquidation next week. 
Either they back off, we fall into liquidation or someone actually takes on the lawsuits. Either way we get an answer. 
IMO the admin have done their job, they have everyone around the table, the EFL and other clubs are stopping this so rather than death my a thousand cuts, lets just chop off the head or maybe escape last second. 
In business you have to make things happen, at the moment we’re just pussyfooting around and nothing is being done. You have to say it and follow through. 

I agree - time to poo or get off the pot I reckon

Got the feeling of 2 minutes to midnight this. I've been fairly okay with he fact that someone would come and save Derby but now I genuinely fear for our future.

Nothing will be resolved until these spurious claims by Wycombe and Boro are dealt with. I don't see what option Derby has to resolve it as the EFL seem unwilling to do anything.

36 minutes ago, Shaftesbury st said:

My understanding is PP is not owned by a DCFC subsidiary and is owned by MM himself so therefore is not in administration but obviously represents another issue in selling us. 
I believe this has been an issue for perspective parties in the past, Moor Farm I have no idea who owns it, or if it’s part of a DCFC subsidiary 

From a bit of snooping on Companies House - PPS is owned by Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd, which is 100% owned by Gellaw Newco 204 Ltd, which in turn has its shares held by Mel personally.

What this means exactly in terms of the admin I’m not sure - it appears that the stadium is ultimately owned by Mel personally and not DCFC.

Just now, Steve How Hard? said:

Depends where you sit. I got mine for a bargain £29. Are all the released ones priced at £37? 

Not sure - that was just the standard price for an adult in the East Stand.

1 minute ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

£37?! That’s a ducking disgrace. Highly doubt many more will be taken up at those prices.

 

Quite astonishing though that we’ve managed to lose around 9000 season ticket holders though.

Agreed - I'm in a fortunate position in that my income hasn't been affected by COVID, but the club really needs to stop treating their fans so badly and realise that for a lot of people, £37 a ticket isn't justifiable.

Yep, just bought my two (had to wait to get one for partner who isn't a STH) - there were plenty available, will be interesting to see how many end up going in the next few days.

As an aside, £37 to watch a game of football is ludicrous. I wonder how many we could get if tickets were reasonably priced?

I've really enjoyed both the Huddersfield and Boro home games so far. It's not fair to say that all those who stayed away are "fair weather" fans, or that they're all "moaners" - people will have genuine reasons for not coming back to PP yet and that's respectable.

However, just because not all fans who haven't come back are moaners, some of them are. Certainly from my corner of the East Stand there's a fair few who haven't come back who spent most of the previous seasons groaning and shouting at the players when a forward pass doesn't come off or we lose possession.

I've noticed a real togetherness over the last few home games - everyone seems to want to drive the team on and offer their support. We know we're under the cosh and it could be a long tough season but we can at least try our best to be supportive.

14 hours ago, jimbo jones said:

It’s changed now, seats aplenty available 

15 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

About 15,000 home tickets sold as of now. We seem to have lost 10,000 fans.

Yep - typical, as soon as I post they release the unsold ST reservations...

Looking on the seating map for Saturday's game there can't be more than a few thousand tickets left - I thought that the season ticket reservations were released at 3pm today? Surely we can't be near capacity when PP was barely half full against Huddersfield?

It would certainly appear that between all the off-field drama in the last 18 months and the impact that's had on the on-field, expensive tickets, crap ticketing system, EFL battles, transfer embargoes, drink driving, Rooney's personal life, and losing every week; that DCFC seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.

And yet, I can't shake myself from going and supporting the lads. I can't influence anything off the field, and the only possible impact is could have is to go and show the lads some support in the hope that that drives them over the line and we start cobbling some results together. 

And hopefully when Morris's disastrous tenure finally wet farts itself out of its godforsaken existence, I hope that the fans who are rightly and understandably put off from expending their time, cash, and effort on a club which doesn't seem to want to respect them, will feel they want to come back.

9 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't blame people for not deciding not to put another penny into the club until this is all sorted. I've been half tempted to email the club cancelling my ticket and cite the reasons why. 

I'd love to put another £32 into the club, but the ticket office are being obtuse for no real reason. To be honest, the communication with the ticket office has been shocking, the only method of contacting them is email which takes them 3 days to respond to.

Still seems to be a lot of empty seats remaining for this one. There could be one less but the club won't let me move my ticket one row down where there are spare seats so I can buy an extra ticket for someone who's now decided they want to come...

1 minute ago, ollycutts1982 said:

Email is the only option - 

ticket.office@dcfc.co.uk or slo@dcfc.co.uk

Remember to include - 

Fan ID

Full Name

Address

Date of Birth

 

Good luck.

Thanks... will give this a go. 

Does anyone even know how to get in touch with the ticket office? All the phone lines still don't work. Seems a pretty poor service IMO, charging 13p a minute in full knowledge that you can't get through

2 minutes ago, angieram said:

The standard isn't specific enough to cover every eventuality, so it is tested through interpretation. This is what all law is about, isn't it? 

In the end it often comes down to something interpreted or procedural rather than fact.

I find it a bit pathetic, but it's what drives the money machine.

 

Yeah, exactly. Any accounting standards - be it FRS102 or anything else - can't possibly legislate for every possible transaction, or it would be impossibly long and unwieldy. Hence, the generic guidance, and the overarching principle that "Transactions and other events and conditions should be accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and not merely their legal form."

To me, it seems that Derby have accounted for the substance of the transaction by including the fact that they expect to sell any given player, and the EFL have simply argued for the legal form by saying that such a sale isn't guaranteed.

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

 

So it's back to what I said before. It's a matter of interpreting standards, and the EFL provided an expert to interpret them for the panel, and we didn't.  The lateness of the charge shouldn't have mattered, if it's that obvious we should have been able to find an accountant somewhere who understood it.

Yep, and even if you discard the merits of each party's argument/interpretation, it's a bit pathetic that it's come to this really.

Derby could potentially be punished based on the fact that we interpreted a standard one way, and the witness the EFL found interpreted it another.

How does any of this help English Football? Why does the EFL find it necessary to appeal against the initial decision? Quite simply the EFL isn't fit for purpose. 

Having read that document, it seems that the EFL's appeal against the decision has succeeded based on one charge, which is that the future benefits from owning a player's registration extend only to their ability to play matches and their possible resale shouldn't be considered.

To me it's just silly - in the original decision, you have the DC going down point-by-point, referring to FRS102 and why DCFC's accounting treatment was compliant with this. In the appeal, you have "Professor Pope", explaining why he disagrees with that.

The whole point of accounting standards is to act as a guide, and overarching the whole shebang is the principle of "substance over form" - it's clear that the EFL's witness is an academic because his argument reads like such a conceptual interpretation rather than (as should be) an application of the standards, bearing in mind that the most crucial point is that the substance of a transaction is more important than the form of it.

You've got two different sets of people, both reading the same standards, and coming to different conclusions.

40 minutes ago, angieram said:

The second report is available, I downloaded a copy yesterday.

It's too big a file to add on here.

Do you have a link to where it’s available?

37 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

What about the auditors regulator?

That quote is from the original decision.

I find it astonishing that the club, its auditors, their regulators and the original IDC (which included an actual accountant - imagine that!) can be under the impression it's all fine and dandy, totally in line with FRS 102. But a new panel, none of which are accountants, can apparently say it's not, and their decision is final...

Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

Yes, I for one will be extremely interested to see whether the EFL publish the justification of their assertion that the accounting treatment is non-compliant

44 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The extension method is similar to the normal one (value amortisation over the original contract), except adjusted if a contract extension is signed.

Wait until someone mentions impairment ?

Ah yes, based on some of the performances this season I’d say most of the squad have a pretty low value in use…

24 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why would HMRC be after us? We are a loss making entity so no taxes to pursue.

If ground was overvalued that would only work in their favour. 

Amortisation does not affect taxes (I think) and even if it did they are not going to be missing out on anything if we are understating it.

Don’t quote me on this, not super hot on tax, but I believe that IFA Amortisation (unlike depreciation) is an allowable deduction for Corporation Tax.

However as you say we’re loss making, plus the net P&L impact under either amortisation method is the same so will have the same tax impact too.

11 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

But the two examples that I found on YouTube last night ... so it just be wrong ... said that transfer fee is divided by the length of contract ... giving an equal fall in value each year.

Then, when a player is sold, the actual transfer value is compared to this amortisation figure.

I didn't understand how that translated to the accounts, but the amortisation was a simple linear decrease.

And, as it was shown, if a contract is extended, the amortisation Baku at that point, is divided by the new length of the contract.

All players in these examples went down to nil at the end of their contract.

So ... now people now how little I know (maybe they can explain to me what, if anything, Derby did differently)! It is probably linked to ERV, which hasn't been explained in the past 15 pages).

Yep so assuming Derby chose to amortise the players contract over the length of their contract, they would have nil residual value at the end of their contract.

For example, take a scenario where Derby sign a player for £4m on a 4 year contract.

The EFL argue that the only economic benefit a club gets from the player is them playing matches, and at the end of their contract they can leave for £nil - so you would amortise in line with that economic benefit - the player is expected to play over their contract so you would amortise their registration fee over the 4 years on a straight line - £1m per year gets expensed and increases your loss/decreases the profit. If they leave on a free at the end of their contract, you’ve already amortised down to £nil so there’s no impact to your profit - the carrying amount is £nil and your proceeds on the sale are £nil so there’s no profit or loss.

In that situation, if a player leaves at the end of year 3 for £3m, they’d have had 3 years of amortisation so be carried in the accounts at £1m, and you’d recognise a profit on the sale of the player of £2m.

Derby however say that they get more than just the benefit of the player playing matches, in that they also expect them to be sold before contract expiry. So your economic benefits are the player playing matches and the cash you get in from selling them. This is where ERV comes in - expected recoverable value - this is the amount Derby expects to be able to sell a given player for. Some players won’t be given an ERV if Derby don’t expect to sell them - for example, if our player above was 34 and expected to retire after playing at Derby, the treatment would be the same - £1m charged every year and no value at the end.

However, if it was someone like, say Joz, well DCFC would argue that if he plays well they’ll sell him on - so they decide when and for how much do we think we’ll sell. For example, if they think they’ll sell the player for £3m in three years, they will only charge £333k per year amortisation because you’d expect that by the time they’re sold for £3m, they’re carried in your accounts for £3m.

In both situations, the net P&L impact is the same over the whole contract - it’s just using Derby’s method the profits you make on a transfer are smaller, because your player is valued higher in your accounts, because you’ve charged less total amortisation.

It’ll be interesting to read why the EFL have won this appeal, because as far as I’m aware, both are compliant with the accounting standard.