G STAR RAM

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

"EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trial“

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

Basically the very high concentration required has other side effects on the lungs. 

Has or could have?

 

26 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I suggested a while ago that people might delete the T&T app. Hey presto, no contact tracing, hey presto no new cases. Deleting the app in itself is not a huge problem (it was reported that some firms insist upon that) if the same people are regularly self-testing and taking the appropriate action. 

Appears your suggestions arent always correct, despite what you may believe!

Also no contact tracing? Are you sure?

3 hours ago, David said:

 

Any footage?

2 hours ago, David said:

Mr Poppadom has exploded several times already, wouldn’t be surprised if the bomb squad has been to his MUMS house

FTFY

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

If Tesco Ashby is the barometer of public opinion, people think the pandemic is over.

We dropped in to do a mini-shop on our way back from holiday a couple of hours ago, and counted 20 or so adults not wearing facemasks, and none of the three people entering the store in front of us took advantage of the sanitising station.

Sounds like quite a fun Friday night, counting people not wearing masks.

I much prefer it when you are just abusing people if I'm honest.

2 hours ago, Gaspode said:

unless of course:

People with the app
Last Week: 30M
This Week: 2M

 

Tests down 4.9% over the last 7 days

20 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Deleted

What was that? The NHS app?

1 hour ago, WystonRam said:

There is comment in the last disciplinary hearing that specifically deals with our amortisation policy. Specifically that there should be no value at the end of the contract. It isn't that there is not a market but a player out of contract has no value.

 

 

The residual values were assigned at the beginning of the last year of the contracts and then amortised down to £0 over that last year, at last that is my understanding of it.

Players theoretically could still have a resale value up until 1 day before the end of their contract but the reality now is that they lose all of their value once they have entered the last year.

45 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

See the extract in my post above. Players aren't homogenous, they aren't traded often enough for there to be comparative prices available,  and the prices are not available to the public anyway.

It's not like houses, where you can value a 3 bedroom semi in Chellaston by comparing it to the dozens of other 3 bedroom semis in Chellaston that have been sold in the last year or so.  To value say Jozwiak, you'd need a bunch of other new mid-level European team international wingers, with X years left on their contracts, playing in the championship, that have been sold in the last couple of seasons...  

Thats where making accouting estimates comes into play.

To suggest there is no active market would suggest no transfer market.

 

6 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

This is from FRS102 (https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/69f7d814-c806-4ccc-b451-aba50d6e8de2/FRS-102-FRS-applicable-in-the-UK-and-Republic-of-Ireland-(March-2018).pdf) :

I don't see how that can possibly apply to our case, given there's no active market.

If I remember correctly, the issue with the unclear wording in the accounts was basically that we said we were using RVs when we were actually using Estimated Recovery Values.

In what way is there not an active market for the asset?

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's not the way I understood it (again, not an expert etc). For us to use Residual Values, there had to be an active market and there definitely wasn't (everyone, the EFL, club, DC and LAP all agreed on this point IIRC).  What we were supposedly doing is factoring the players potential sale value into their "future economic benefits" and amortising that away over their contract (i.e. benefits from both use and disposal of an asset).  So for someone like Jozwiak, their "future economic benefits" might be 20% actually playing for us and 80% in being sold for a profit, so we'd amortise that 20% away while he was playing for us, and tweak the 20/80 balance every 6 months as the likelihood of him being sold changed (probably a gross over-simplification etc).  I suspect the actual net results are the same as using Residual Values, but we're explicitly not allowed to use RVs but can use what we did (IMO anyway).

The residual value is the resale value.

21 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

(I'm not an expert etc).  I read through FRS102 and I don't think residual Values are allowed for in our case (specifically the Bosman/leaving on a free issue). But it's irrelevant because we aren't using Residual Values (despite what the dubious wording in the accounts said).  

The contracts were given a residual value at the end of each year.

So, managed to get a response from Mr P over on OTIB.

His words in italics, my responses in bold.

Well G Star Ram, I probably shouldn't bother but going to address a few points very quickly and likely not in enough depth.

Audit and Accounting Experience

Vast experience clearly, doesn't mean you are necessarily objective however- let's be honest you appear to think Derby are innocent so...wouldn't expect you to be.

Thing is, I agreed with the IDC findings which doesnt necessarily mean I think DCFC are innocent. 

I agree the wording was unclear and I have stated that I think residual values may have been manipulated, how is that not objective? 

I'd be very interested to hear how someone who started a thread called 'Derby Deserve Relegation' can seriously expect anyone to believe that they are objective?

LAP vs IDC

As we recall, in the initial case which ended last August exonerated Derby in respect of the First Charge- Pride Park Sale and Leaseback, valuation etc, while mostly finding Derby innocent on the 2nd Charge except in terms of Disclosure. However from that, the EFL worked their way up to get a Guilty Verdict from the LAP. Incidentally I do trust their objectivity more than I would yours, as you are a Derby fan albeit as per your post, one with 23 years of Accounting and Auditing Experience and they are objective and Independent. Doubt you can say the same on this matter. When sent back to the IDC, it was £100k fine for Wrong Accounting, a Reprimand in respect of Future Financial Conduct and then the Restatement by 18th August.

Just one thing to say here, how can you trust the objectivity of the LAP but not the IDC. Which body had more experience in the Accounting field?

Importance of Independent Witnesses

Unsure if it was ignorance or arrogance on the part of Mel Morris- but Independent Witnesses are quite important in cases such as this. Why did Derby not choose one or hire one for the matter in front of the League Arbitration Panel? It wouldn't surprise me if Professor Pope helped to tip the balance in favour of the EFL in that particular case. Justifiably so because the Auditors and Accountants on behalf of both Derby and the EFL are hardly going to be purely objective are they, in legal terms Independent Expert Witnesses are quite important- CPS explanation as to why: 

  Quote

The Duty of an Expert Witness. The duty of an expert witness is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise

Expand  

Their words can carry weight- EFL hired one, Derby didn't for whatever reason. Wouldn't surprise me if it tipped the balance- and on balance I do think I believe the LAP, as there were some quite eminent names on it! Lord Dyson the most known, but also David Phillips QC and Charles Hollander QC are not exactly just starting out!

Could Derby not find one, or was there a belief on their part that one was not needed? My suspicion is that it helped to tip the balance, that extra objective Expert opinion.

Is this correct? Were DCFC given the opportunity to have an expert witness at the LAP hearing?

Difference between Restatement for

P&S and in general

Personally speaking, though it would be interesting, is it that important to Restate in terms of the past and overdue but especially the past Accounts due at CH? Restatement to the EFL/Disciplinary Process for P&S purposes however is required and that is what needs to happen by 18th August. I don't understand why e.g. the outstanding Accounts are not out now but with Internal Restatement for P&S purposes possible. There is some debate as to whether they specifically needed to wait for the Verdict as to the format for CH. Maybe they couldn't be bothered with the extra work that it might entail which I fully get, but a Restatement if it's just about a) Amortisation Schedules and b) Profit on Disposal of Players can be simple enough.

That said, given that there was no Sale guaranteed or lined up for players by the end of their Contract, how a Residual Value can be applied is questionable, IIRC Spanish made a good post on it back in May on the EFL Verdict thread. FFP/P&S=Straight Line or Straight Line with Extensions seems reasonable, for these purposes anyway IMO.

Impermissible under FRS 102. Haven't read it for a while but only permissible IIRC if an Active Market exists to do it that way- clearly not the case in this instance.

Bottom line is that a) EFL had an Independent Witness and Derby chose not to utilise one- probably helped to swing things- b) The LAP with some quite eminent individuals on it ruled it less than compliant.

The use of residual values is very permissible. Whether the correct residual values are being used is for the auditors to conclude. Should huge losses start to arise at the end of players contracts then the auditors should conclude that DCFC are not using correct accounting estimates and either get them to amend or make reference to this in their audit report.

If the auditors did conclude this it would only require changes going forward, no retrospective amendments are required in respect of changes in accounting estimates

Auditors In General

Number of Auditing Scandals in general in recent years, lax practice in the Industry etc- just because Smith Cooper and the Delves signed it off as aok doesn't necessarily mean it was entirely accurate?

This sums up the objectivity that is being applied. We must trust the LAP because they are experts and Independent but we can't trust the auditors even though they are experts and independent.

 

18 minutes ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

Don’t be facetious, obviously not Covid parties but pushing the vaccine as the be all and end all and forcing not at risk people to take it or face being cut off from society via vaccine passports is unnecessary. Especially when their own immune system can do the same job if not better.

Their own immune system will not reduce the chances of them spreading it if they do get the virus though. 

FWIW I still dont think that justifies the need for vaccine passports that we were told were never going to happen.

24 minutes ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

Only 1% of people who have been infected with Covid naturally require hospitalisation if they catch it again, where as 40% of double jabbed people are ending up in hospital. Surely the young who are far at far less risk of getting seriously are better off developing natural immunity than taking a vaccine where the long term side effects are still not known?

Does this actually prove anything?

Not clever enough to do the maths but if 40million have been double jabbed and only 4million have had the virus then surely it stands to reason, especially when the double jabbed will include lots of the older and vulnerable category also?

25 minutes ago, Eddie said:

All venues we have been to in Cornwall this week still maintaining social distancing, checking in, table service, one-way systems, mask-wearing and the like - except Asda. They are not specifying mandatory mask-wearing, but even there, I think that we saw very few people not doing so, no confrontation and no lunacy.

Maybe that's because, despite the best efforts of people like yourselves and the media trying to paint a picture of us being a nation of selfish Covidiots, the huge huge majority of people are quite capable of sensibly using the personal responsibility they have now been afforded. Who knew.

6 hours ago, Rev said:

I like the irony of people moaning about someone from another forum sticking their nose into our business, while going to another teams forum to report back on here what he's saying!

I wouldn't have a clue what he was saying otherwise.

 

Should see what he is saying about you....

1 hour ago, bimmerman said:

What's OTIB?

Based on reading it, I think it stands for One Tit In Bristol.

20 minutes ago, Rev said:

Finance director. 

@G STAR RAM  sounds more convincing than Wet Steve.

Academy director.

@Ghost of Clough, knows more about the kids than anyone bar Wassall. 

Erik Alonso sounded convincing for a few hours too, don't be fooled!

And surely you could have thought of someone more topical for knowing about kids than Wassall!

33 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:

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. 

Accounting profit would be sale proceeds less carrying value (which would be original cost or valuation plus improvements, less any amortisation or impairment).

Taxable profit would be sale proceeds less original cost.

Accounting profit was circa £40m.

Taxable profit was circa £55m.

Both from memory.

58 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Here we go then.  Seen 1st altercation in the co-op.  big line of people, women holding everything up buying a month of lottery tickets,  2 lads about 20yr old  messing about in the fridges going back and forth round the queue- no masks.  Guy behind them eventually loses his rag and tells them to stay in line and away from him especially without a mask on.  One of the 2 stops the call he's on as he's wandering about, to tell this bloke to do one and he doesn't need a mask . Before he's finished big geezer in the queue who appeared to be a decently sized tree surgeon, finished the chat with a punch that appeared to involve a straight knockout and shattered nose.  

First of many. 

Unfortunately, it will be idiots like that who ruin it it for the rest of the people who do not want to wear masks but are mindful and respectful of people that still do...and guess what, the media will be all over it like a rash...

49 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Apologies. Didn’t mean to come across as a git. I genuinely wanted to understand how far off from normal life the kids are now. We’ve all suffered but, generally speaking, no more so than the very young and the very old/vulnerable.

You didn't at all, sorry if my response came across as making you think, that I think that you're a git ?

3 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

This gets quoted a lot, but is it really that big a deal. Most children hate sports day, Proms are recent things and the humiliation of being a wallflower will be soon forgotten. Induction will still happen, just on the first day. I'm a long time away from school now and can honestly say I have absolutely no recollection of any of that stuff.

Well, yes, if my daughter comes home upset about these things it is a big deal to me.

7 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

No need to apologise. No one has done anything to deserve this least of all the children. Aren’t some of the issues impacting your kids gone away/will be going away very shortly?

Hopefully we’ve seen the last of home learning in most instances, can’t they play with friends now and aren’t footy stuff resuming? Genuine questions as I don’t have young kids now but I know my grandson has now had friends round to play. I’m just trying to gauge how far off their lives are from returning to near normal.

Intermittently their lives show a small return to normality, only days later to be set back by yet more isolation incidents.

The school sports day, leavers prom, the excitement of induction day at new school, all things that my daughter will never get to experience. 

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

Trading losses of the current accounting period can be offset against other gains of the same accounting period.

It's all moot anyway as I don't believe there is any corporation tax to pay when it is an intra-group transfer.

 

Or carried forward to be offset against future profits...

We know that the amount cannot relate to the sale of the ground anyway as it would have been shown in the 2018 accounts.