G STAR RAM

Just now, Tamworthram said:

I guess I'm looking at it from a selfish and personal perspective. Other than no foreign holiday for the second year running, my life is back. As someone that's been double jabbed I obviously can't answer for those that would prefer not to be. I can't make my mind up over vaccine passports. A tricky one. I can see both points of view. 

My life is pretty normal to be fair now.

I'm double jabbed.

I'll wear a mask if I'm in an indoor environment with people who are clearly still worried about the virus and it is not possible for them to socially distance from me.

My kids lives are far from normal.

Weeks and weeks off school, many because someone that they have been nowhere near may be ill, based on what could be faulty tests. 

Home learning, which in all honesty is near on impossible for working families.

Not being able to play with their friends out of school hours.

Football training, matches and tournaments cancelled.

No induction day at new school.

I'm sorry but the children have done absolutely nothing to deserve this. Having already bore the brunt of the first lockdown, concrete plans should have been laid to ensure they did not have to suffer it all over again.

Its a national embarrassment.

4 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I get your point but what if a new variant emerges that puts more people (or the NHS) at risk and it might be sensible to extend whatever restrictions are in place a little longer? 

I just feels it's a little bit dangerous to commit to a specific date come what may. During the daily conferences I used to find it extremely irritating when a reporter would ask a question like "can you guarantee...."

I guess I'm a little naive in thinking the government don't really want to restrict our lives any longer than they have to (if for no other reason, it's hardly a vote winner).

Either the vaccine works or it doesn't. 

If a new variant comes along that the vaccine doesn't work against then we are completely back to step one.

We have had 16 months now to formulate a plan on how to live with the virus, it appears we put all of our eggs in one basket.

Well that basket now has all the eggs in that the Government said it needed to give us our lives back.

Time to let people make their own decisions and manage their own risk.

Still scared of the virus? Make sure you are vaccinated, continue to social distance and wear a mask. If you're not safe following that simple set of rules then you never will be.

Just now, Tamworthram said:

I think you have a valid point but I would take issue with the expectation for "clear dates when powers will be removed".

I think there should be clear dates when they should be reviewed but fail to see how a commitment can be given as to when they should be lifted unless someone has a crystal ball and can accurately predict how things will be a specific date in the future. 

Disagree.

When the carrot was dangled with 'get the vaccine and then you can get back to normal' then a target number/percentage should have been set.

As I remember it was 'once the 10 most vulnerable groups had been vaccinated, this of course gave them the leeway to start amending the people that are allegedly vulnerable as more and more people got vaccinated.

3 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Guess until they get vaccination numbers up. There gonna have to continue for a long time yet to match our level of disruption. And still to keep a fraction of our levels of deaths.

Obviously nobody wants to see any deaths from Covid but if I'm given the choice of some people dying but getting my freedom back now, or hardly anyone dying but the Government being able to impose a lockdown whenever they wanted with no clear dates if when them powers would be removed, I'll be honest and admit I'm taking the first option.

Who knows, if somebody I know had been affected by the virus I may feel differently but I still feel very detached from it. Nobody I know has died and every member of my family that has had it have been ill for a few days at the most.

Right now though I'm seeing my kids lives being ruined and them missing out on many of the things that I took for granted when I was young.

2 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

You said;  They (the BBC) have offered literally zero balance throughout their whole reporting on the pandemic.

You never said they haven't shown enough balance.

Or, that they have even shown zero balance on the TV news that you watch.

As such I only have to hear one programme that is balanced to know that your statement is utter agenda driven nonsense.

Do you know the Black Swan story?

What is my agenda then?

Think I heard that story mentioned on the BBC but it was called the Swan Of Colour?

50 minutes ago, TheSlate said:

If you book an 81m profit for the sale of ground/land, surely there's the question of a) stamp duty (buying party) and b) corporation tax (profit for selling party). I'm more than likely missing something here as it's not a case of 19% of 81m because that profit would be in the bucket with everything else and offset against the wider losses. Nobody has a scooby do they? 

No stamp duty payable as it is an intra-group transaction, there would only be stamp duty payable if the ground was subsequently sold outside of the group.

Very unlikely to be corporation tax given the level of historical losses which have been accumulated and can be offset against future gains.

My guess is the majority of it is PAYE.

It was rumoured that MM was having to find £1.2m per month for wages, my gut feeling is that this was only covering net payments and that the PAYE element has been left to accrue.

Cant imagine that our VAT bill is much, as we only sold 8000 season tickets.

This is just my opinion though and is not backed up with amy evidence.

9 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Well clearly I made it up. We should do a survey.

Would you prefer to have had near continual restrictions since Mar 2020, with 40k ish deaths (adjusted for population), huge negative impacts to the economy, mental health, schooling etc?

Or a few short, sharp lockdowns where life has often continued as normal and the death toll has been tiny?

I wonder who would win? Would anyone have swapped our disaster for how they dealt with it?

How long are you projecting that these 'short' sharp lockdowns are going to continue for in Australia?

1 minute ago, Bob The Badger said:

So you say 'They have offered literally zero balance throughout their whole reporting on the pandemic'

And I have heard regular balanced debates, especially on the Nicky Campbell show.

Hm, who should I believe, myself, and what I have heard or a guy who clearly isn't listening but has an agenda longer than Handforth Parish Council?

Tough call. 

Well obviously I dont get to see every single programme on the BBC but the news programmes that I watch have absolutely no balance whatsoever.

What should I believe though, my own eyes and ears, or someone who heard something on the Nicky Campbell show and thinks that is representative of the BBC as a whole, and who of course also has their own agenda?

Tough call.

3 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Where is the balance in that headline? Shouldn't it read something like "Covid: Anger as half of Australians in lockdown again, as the government fails in vaccine rollout, but majority of Aussies still prefer these short sharp lockdown and very few deaths versus the neverending lockdowns and horrific death totals in Western Europe"?

Yeah perhaps it should say that.

Where did you get your fact that a majority of Aussies would be preferred to be in and out of lockdown for the rest of their lives over 1500 cases?

For someone who constantly criticises the Government over lying and disinformation, Ive noticed recently that a lot of your posts appear to have descended to the same level!

Who was it told me that Australia was pretty much back to normal?

Appears levels of discontent, at being locked up, are rising and with only 13% of the population vaccinated it is hard to see how they get back to normal other reaching Covid zero through longer lockdowns.

Appears these short sharp lockdowns arent all they are cracked up to be and, as pointed out by many, just kick the can down the road.

3 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

If Mr P of OTIB was half as clever as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as clever as he is.

Can picture him now sat there in his mums house wearing just his Y fronts, frantically bashing away on his calculator.

Just for your information Mr P, half is 0.5 and twice equals x 2.

5 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

The BBC get attacked by the right and left for being biased.

That's a good sign in my eyes.

Thats probably more to do with the poor quality of their content rather than due to their bias.

They have offered literally zero balance throughout their whole reporting on the pandemic.

19 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

In short, do one you knobber.

No, I don't have a problem with anyone challenging my views.

Just make sure you come armed with some proper facts if you're going to refer to me as a joker!

Think my views are reasonably balanced on the amortisation point and, believe it or not, do have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the point.

Appears I am the latest to rattle Mr P's cage over on OTIB.

It really is a shame that he doesn't sign up here so his views can be challenged.

Anyway, we I know you will be looking in again today Mr P, so for your benefit, yes I do feel after 23 years of working as an accountant and audior that I am suitably placed to challenge what the LAP decided. 

I'm also more than happy to explain to you why the accounts, other than the wording of the notes, were compliant with FRS, so feel free to drop your e-mail address on your board if you wish to discuss.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I think I know better than the IDC, as I actually agreed with their findings, on the basis that you disagree with them, and think we should have a points deduction, surely it is you that thinks you know better than the IDC and LAP, and I look forward to hearing on what basis you believe you know better.

In respect of you thinking my views are not balanced, you will note that I said I believe the residual values of our players may have been manipulated to help us with FFP and I would have no problem if the IDC or LAP had requested for them to be revised in light of information that has come to light since ie; resale values or contracts expiring. Having read your posts I am struggling to see what balance you feel you add to the matter but look forward to hearing.

Anyway, don't spend too much time worrying about the opinions of fans on another teams forum...life is much too short.

7 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Yeah and those were them scientists involved in the Great Barrington Declaration that was suppressed by the Koch Brothers in the USA. Sorry, I meant promoted by them.

We had herd immunity last summer according to them. They were so suppressed that Johnson spoke to some of them last September. That worked out well. 

When will the world start listening to non-peer reviewed opinions by scientists seeking fame?

I've seen you claim this a few times now.

Who claimed this? Any link please?

3 hours ago, Andrew3000 said:

Im sorry but BBC have given up on journalism a long time ago. They are biased towards lockdown measures and are running emotive stories with unnecessarily provocative language designed to whip up social pressure against people who are cautious about the vaccine. All for the greater good of course. Where is the critical analysis in mainstream media and politics? This is a major problem. There are credible doubts about both policies but this is actively shut down by big tech and socially you risked being dismissed and shamed. Just for exercising caution, looking at the bigger picture and having the temerity to question authority.  It's a concern, no matter what you think about lockdown or vaccines, this is a wider trend .

I cant stand the BBC but actually thought that was a good, informative, article 

9 hours ago, roboto said:

Absolutely disgusting crime. I would speculate that the fact that such a high profile player has been arrested would seem sure that they are pretty sure they can prove he is guilty.

What has he done?

You aint seen nothing yet, wait until they unveil Nick Leeson as new treasurer next week.

37 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Yes but they only did it because they ballsed up on ffp. Entirely their fault. In your analogy they'd already crashed the car and smashed it to pieces, but they've luckily found a way of keeping the car running on fumes for a little while longer. Lucky they had a way of getting themselves out the poo by selling the stadium.

With the amortisation i'm more inclined to agree with you, but we're still doing it differently to every other club in the league and asking for trouble.

Is your first sentence referring to the sale of the ground? If so, sale and leaseback is a common business practice to raise funds.

Re the amortisation, how did they balls up? The accounts we submitted show us to be compliant. Had we not been compliant we could have sold players to make us compliant.

34 minutes ago, ck- said:

I agree with the vast majority of what you’ve written, but there is perhaps an element of us not quite being blameless. 
While non-linear amortisation is clearly sensible given that many players hold or even increase their value, where we let ourselves down is by not being able to show even the minutes of a meeting where we set the valuations. Even a simple record of “We compared x to the recent transfer of y and deemed that because of the following similarities [a list ….] x has a current market value of £n” would have put us in a much better position to argue the validity of our approach.

It seems that the arguments were not so much “Is this FRS compliant” per se and more about did we show sufficient rigour in our process that it isn’t simply a book-cooking exercise with the numbers adjusted to meet the desired year end figures.

Any scheme where you’re going against the norm is one where you should make sure you’ve got your defence well lined up.

Notwithstanding all that, the EFL is IMHO overstepping its role of setting and maintaining the rules and has strayed uncomfortably into the territory of aggrieved party who can’t see beyond perceived slights to their character. 

Agree with you 100% here.

I'm very suspicious that the residual values we may have used were manipulated to help our financial situation.

However, the mechanism is there for the auditors to comment on whether we are choosing the correct accounting policies. 

However, I dont believe that this is what the EFL have argued.

If they had questioned our residual values and asked us to re-state them given evidence which has come to light since I would not have a problem with that 

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

this is like arguing with you about covid, haha. 

DC2 at 60.2 are quoted as confirming that our description was not compliant.  I can't cut and paste this.  We are arguing over little matters when the situation we find ourselves in is dire.  Doesn't matter that you believe that we didn't lose I believe differently.  We have to restate our accounts and summaries in a more standard manner. Whether we do that in the manner expected or, as i have suggested, the Directors get the specific support of an audit letter confirming compliance I don't know.  I just want this to end without a direct (points penalty) or indirect (forever in embargo) penalty

Changing the wording should not facilitate changing the numbers.

The LAP have just rode roughshod over the findings of the IDC who looked at the matter in great detail.

The fact that there is no challenging the findings of the LAP shows that it is a complete charade.

We both want this to end with us not to have any points penalty, however, I want the EFL challenged because what they have done is a complete abuse of power and just goes to further highlight they are not fit for purpose.

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

either way it wasn't the EFL.  The LAP relied on evidence form a Professor of Accounting

You really think the LAP are independent of the EFL?

The IDC had experts at the hearing where the matter could be discussed.

The LAP just made a decision without discussing the matter with people involved in the decisions. 

I can tell you categorically that the assertion that our policy did not comply with FRS is 100% incorrect and the assumptions they used were fatally flawed.

11 minutes ago, Spanish said:

nope the LAP and DC decided this not the EFL

Nope, the IDC concluded (where accountancy experts were present) concluded that our wording was unclear. 

The LAP (no accountancy experts present) decided our accounts were not compliant, something that is blatantly incorrect. 

4 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Ignorance of the law is no defence. Especially when it is their own laws.

The auditors, professionals in the field of accounting, concluded that we complied with the law.

The EFL with no accountancy expertise concluded we didn't. 

17 minutes ago, Spanish said:

we won, excellent no penalties, why hasn't the embargo been lifted

A fine to try and appease Steve Gibson no doubt.

The embargo hasnt been lifted because we haven't filed accounts, paid HMRC and had outstanding transfer fees.