Jump to content

RandomAccessMemory

Member
  • Content Count

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Clap
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from EssendonRam in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    This is the biggest thing in my opinion, as well as reneging their agreement for the stadium sale and the amortisation policy, they've let us manage our finances for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and plan the finances for the near future based on BOTH of those things having been accepted.
    I imagine this is part of the reason why the club say they cannot re-trace their steps ie. had both not been accepted at the time then we would not have signed some of the players we signed on the wages we have, which as well as meaning the amortisation (via the method other clubs use) would not have been as high but also that the wage bill would not have been as high. We cannot undo this, and the wage bill and amortisation are things that will affect us until all of the players we signed until this was notified have been accounted for.
    So this 'lost £30m more than the £39m allowed' is absolutely ridiculous. Of course if they go back on things that change the finances drastically after the fact and then they crudely change the figures to meet this then we would have gone over! What it doesn't mean, however, is that the same decisions would have been made with the knowledge that the EFL would suddenly change their minds.
  2. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from therealhantsram in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    This is the biggest thing in my opinion, as well as reneging their agreement for the stadium sale and the amortisation policy, they've let us manage our finances for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and plan the finances for the near future based on BOTH of those things having been accepted.
    I imagine this is part of the reason why the club say they cannot re-trace their steps ie. had both not been accepted at the time then we would not have signed some of the players we signed on the wages we have, which as well as meaning the amortisation (via the method other clubs use) would not have been as high but also that the wage bill would not have been as high. We cannot undo this, and the wage bill and amortisation are things that will affect us until all of the players we signed until this was notified have been accounted for.
    So this 'lost £30m more than the £39m allowed' is absolutely ridiculous. Of course if they go back on things that change the finances drastically after the fact and then they crudely change the figures to meet this then we would have gone over! What it doesn't mean, however, is that the same decisions would have been made with the knowledge that the EFL would suddenly change their minds.
  3. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Sparkle in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    This is the biggest thing in my opinion, as well as reneging their agreement for the stadium sale and the amortisation policy, they've let us manage our finances for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and plan the finances for the near future based on BOTH of those things having been accepted.
    I imagine this is part of the reason why the club say they cannot re-trace their steps ie. had both not been accepted at the time then we would not have signed some of the players we signed on the wages we have, which as well as meaning the amortisation (via the method other clubs use) would not have been as high but also that the wage bill would not have been as high. We cannot undo this, and the wage bill and amortisation are things that will affect us until all of the players we signed until this was notified have been accounted for.
    So this 'lost £30m more than the £39m allowed' is absolutely ridiculous. Of course if they go back on things that change the finances drastically after the fact and then they crudely change the figures to meet this then we would have gone over! What it doesn't mean, however, is that the same decisions would have been made with the knowledge that the EFL would suddenly change their minds.
  4. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Will Hughes Hair in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    This is the biggest thing in my opinion, as well as reneging their agreement for the stadium sale and the amortisation policy, they've let us manage our finances for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and plan the finances for the near future based on BOTH of those things having been accepted.
    I imagine this is part of the reason why the club say they cannot re-trace their steps ie. had both not been accepted at the time then we would not have signed some of the players we signed on the wages we have, which as well as meaning the amortisation (via the method other clubs use) would not have been as high but also that the wage bill would not have been as high. We cannot undo this, and the wage bill and amortisation are things that will affect us until all of the players we signed until this was notified have been accounted for.
    So this 'lost £30m more than the £39m allowed' is absolutely ridiculous. Of course if they go back on things that change the finances drastically after the fact and then they crudely change the figures to meet this then we would have gone over! What it doesn't mean, however, is that the same decisions would have been made with the knowledge that the EFL would suddenly change their minds.
  5. Haha
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to Ghost of Clough in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Thanks. I was too lazy to check.. it backs up the rationale behind spending the way we did.
  6. Clap
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to Ghost of Clough in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Exactly this. Some sources say we changed amortisation method in 16/17, but a couple say 15/16. 
    Working off the 16/17 date first... Most of the damage from recruitment had already been done by this point, with a number high transfer players already on the books: Thorne, Johnson, Butterfield and Blackman. These 4 players probably account for a difference of close to £15m in the P&S reports. Other players signed before the switch were either low transfer value, or left before the end of the 17/18 period anyway (Camara, Shackell, Ince and possibly Weimann). However, later signings such as Vydra, Anya and Lawrence may not have occured due to transfer fees if the EFL didn't approve of our methods. Nugent, Wisdom, Huddlestone, Davies and Jerome based on wages. e may even have accepted the offer from Wolves for Martin.
    Switching amortisation method in the 15/16 season would make a lot of sense, and explain why we were comfortable slashing out as much as we did that summer - Johnson, Ince, Butterfield, Shackell, Weimann, Blackman, Camara, Baird, Pearce, Carson. These players reportedly costing more than £30m and all on high wages. However, if we were told we couldn't change amortisation method, I doubt we'd have recruited as we did.
    Let's say we didn't recruit any differently, the difference over the 3 year period compared with other amortisation methods would be something like this...
    Residual values - £9m profit (iirc)
    Contracts (straight-line) - £8.5m
    Contracts (straight-line with extensions) - £5.5m
  7. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Ghost of Clough in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    This is the biggest thing in my opinion, as well as reneging their agreement for the stadium sale and the amortisation policy, they've let us manage our finances for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and plan the finances for the near future based on BOTH of those things having been accepted.
    I imagine this is part of the reason why the club say they cannot re-trace their steps ie. had both not been accepted at the time then we would not have signed some of the players we signed on the wages we have, which as well as meaning the amortisation (via the method other clubs use) would not have been as high but also that the wage bill would not have been as high. We cannot undo this, and the wage bill and amortisation are things that will affect us until all of the players we signed until this was notified have been accounted for.
    So this 'lost £30m more than the £39m allowed' is absolutely ridiculous. Of course if they go back on things that change the finances drastically after the fact and then they crudely change the figures to meet this then we would have gone over! What it doesn't mean, however, is that the same decisions would have been made with the knowledge that the EFL would suddenly change their minds.
  8. Like
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to Ambitious in Mason Bennett - joined Millwall on loan until the end of the season   
    I don't particular like how Bennett has been labelled an alcoholic, even troublesome player by some. I saw Millwall fans talking about him being a negative influence in the dressing room. 
    He was daft, in the heat of the moment did something that he shouldn't, but by all accounts is a hard working and very positive influence in the dressing room. If you gauge the comments from Lampard, in particular, the difference between Mason and Marriott is night and day. 
    I've got a lot of time for him; he's consistently punching up and I would say he's fairly consistent in his own ability. I just don't think that he's got the ability to step it up another level and I would personally move on. I think the biggest loss could be someone who turns up and gives 100% at training every day and encourages others to push themselves.  
    I really hope he does well. 
  9. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Carnero in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    This is the biggest thing in my opinion, as well as reneging their agreement for the stadium sale and the amortisation policy, they've let us manage our finances for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and plan the finances for the near future based on BOTH of those things having been accepted.
    I imagine this is part of the reason why the club say they cannot re-trace their steps ie. had both not been accepted at the time then we would not have signed some of the players we signed on the wages we have, which as well as meaning the amortisation (via the method other clubs use) would not have been as high but also that the wage bill would not have been as high. We cannot undo this, and the wage bill and amortisation are things that will affect us until all of the players we signed until this was notified have been accounted for.
    So this 'lost £30m more than the £39m allowed' is absolutely ridiculous. Of course if they go back on things that change the finances drastically after the fact and then they crudely change the figures to meet this then we would have gone over! What it doesn't mean, however, is that the same decisions would have been made with the knowledge that the EFL would suddenly change their minds.
  10. Clap
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to Ghost of Clough in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    My rough estimates..
    Stadium sale + residual values = pass 17/18, & pass 18/19
    Stadium sale + 'normal' amortisation = pass 17/18, & fail 18/19
    No stadium sale + residual values = fail 17/18, & fail 18/19
    No stadium sale + 'normal' amortisation = fail17/18, & astronomically fail 18/19
  11. Clap
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to EssendonRam in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    If you’re talking in pure English terms, you’re quite right. “Which” would be “who” if it was an EFL executive. But it’s in legal English; hence the capitalisation of the word “Executive”.
    And that means the “EFL Executive” is whatever the EFL says it is. You’ve touched upon an important point the statement is making; whether or not the “Executive” was (for instance) the CEO or the full Board (or the ladies in the lunchroom), the statement is deliberately inferring that that person/those people were vested with the authority to make the decision by the EFL.
  12. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from EssendonRam in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Yes it could. I did find it interesting to compare the EFL statement about our charges to the EFL statement about Sheffield Wednesday's:
    Ours
    Sheffield Wednesday
    Their charges include 'Misconduct', ours is simply 'recording losses in excess'.
    From the rest of that paragraph of the club statement it seems that the club are saying the EFL are not alleging the club haven't been transparent with them, just that they've made a mistake.
     
  13. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from LeedsCityRam in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Just been having a read through of the Birmingham FFP/P&S ruling
    https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf
    I thought the bit I've bolded below was quite interesting:
     
  14. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Carnero in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Just been having a read through of the Birmingham FFP/P&S ruling
    https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf
    I thought the bit I've bolded below was quite interesting:
     
  15. Clap
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from The Orange Pimpernel in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Just been having a read through of the Birmingham FFP/P&S ruling
    https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf
    I thought the bit I've bolded below was quite interesting:
     
  16. Clap
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from gccrowdpleaser in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    For reference to my earlier post about the club repeatedly mentioning the EFL Executive and the FFP/P&S rules also repeatedly mentioning the Executive, I thought to look at the definition section of the EFL rules, this is what it says:
    https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-1----general/
    I re-read the club statement and noticed the wording:
    Maybe it's just me reading it wrong (it is late!) but would it be worded 'which asked for', if the EFL Executive referred to was a single person?
  17. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Carnero in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Yes it could. I did find it interesting to compare the EFL statement about our charges to the EFL statement about Sheffield Wednesday's:
    Ours
    Sheffield Wednesday
    Their charges include 'Misconduct', ours is simply 'recording losses in excess'.
    From the rest of that paragraph of the club statement it seems that the club are saying the EFL are not alleging the club haven't been transparent with them, just that they've made a mistake.
     
  18. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Carnero in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    For reference to my earlier post about the club repeatedly mentioning the EFL Executive and the FFP/P&S rules also repeatedly mentioning the Executive, I thought to look at the definition section of the EFL rules, this is what it says:
    https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-1----general/
    I re-read the club statement and noticed the wording:
    Maybe it's just me reading it wrong (it is late!) but would it be worded 'which asked for', if the EFL Executive referred to was a single person?
  19. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Carnero in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    I've seen a few comments in various places saying things such as we only have one side of the story and that the EFL wouldn't charge us if they didn't think they could make the charges stick.
    Well now we have the two charges specified this got me thinking about the facts regarding the second charge in particular, the one to do with the amortisation policy.
    Is it not the case that this policy has been in place since (at least) the 2015/16 accounts, when Butterfield and Johnson were purchased?
    Was it not common knowledge that our amortisation policy differed from that of other clubs? It had been mentioned many, many times by various people analysing the accounts.
    Have our accounts not previously been signed off in years 2015/16 (old rules) and 2016/17 (current rules)?
    Were our accounts not also originally signed off in 2017/18? If not, why, as I posted previously before knowing about the second charge, did the EFL statement re: Birmingham from March 2019 confidently state:
    https://www.efl.com/news/2019/march/efl-statement-birmingham-city/
    If this is worthy of an EFL charge, and one that they think they can make stick, how exactly can they explain the quote above if they do not accept our amortisation policy, which had been in place during all of the years included in that reporting period?
    This could fall quite neatly into the
    part of the club statement.
    Given the quotation marks around the word 'mistake' do you think we are to assume this was the word used directly by the EFL in the correspondence with the club?
  20. Like
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to Srg in Tom Lawrence appreciation thread   
    He gets so much unfair stick. He’s been tarred with the same brush Ince was. 
    No he’s not perfect, but this level of criticism and commentary about his consistency is ridiculous. If he was consistent he wouldn’t be in this league with all the other inconsistent wingers. 
     
     
    p.s. duck Ramage for continually perpetuating the Lawrence hate brigade 
  21. Like
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to Big Trav in Tom Lawrence appreciation thread   
    Our tom get a lot of stick. Like a lot. I would say hes our scapegoat that many fans use against him. He receives a lot of abuse rightly or wrongly. I just wanted to give my  two sense on this situation. The problem with Tom is he needs to play as a 10 behind 2 strikers. Out wide he has to cut in as his crossing isn’t the greatest. Also the lads a massive confidence player. Massively. Do you think 20,000 shouting abuse at him will help his confidence?? He always tries hard and presses well however he can be lazy tracking back. The lads been involved with a lot outside the world of football. He’s lost his bloody mother not long ago. And this has led to him drinking a load which ended up with joinersgate. He looks broken inside. I’m just begging you to please not scapegoat Tom. He isn’t a bad football he’s not the worst player you’ve ever seen just get behind the lad show him extra appreciation we need to make sure he knows we’ve got his back not get angry and shout abuse at him. 
     
    I do think Tom needs a break from football to really sort himself out. You can tell he’s heartbroken just by the way he never plays with a smile anymore. 
     
    Im begging each and every single person that reads this post to just think before you shout abuse at any Derby player but tom in particular. He needs picking up from the ground not being kicked while on the ground. 
  22. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from ossieram in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    For reference to my earlier post about the club repeatedly mentioning the EFL Executive and the FFP/P&S rules also repeatedly mentioning the Executive, I thought to look at the definition section of the EFL rules, this is what it says:
    https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-1----general/
    I re-read the club statement and noticed the wording:
    Maybe it's just me reading it wrong (it is late!) but would it be worded 'which asked for', if the EFL Executive referred to was a single person?
  23. Like
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from Ted McMinn Football Genius in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    I've seen a few comments in various places saying things such as we only have one side of the story and that the EFL wouldn't charge us if they didn't think they could make the charges stick.
    Well now we have the two charges specified this got me thinking about the facts regarding the second charge in particular, the one to do with the amortisation policy.
    Is it not the case that this policy has been in place since (at least) the 2015/16 accounts, when Butterfield and Johnson were purchased?
    Was it not common knowledge that our amortisation policy differed from that of other clubs? It had been mentioned many, many times by various people analysing the accounts.
    Have our accounts not previously been signed off in years 2015/16 (old rules) and 2016/17 (current rules)?
    Were our accounts not also originally signed off in 2017/18? If not, why, as I posted previously before knowing about the second charge, did the EFL statement re: Birmingham from March 2019 confidently state:
    https://www.efl.com/news/2019/march/efl-statement-birmingham-city/
    If this is worthy of an EFL charge, and one that they think they can make stick, how exactly can they explain the quote above if they do not accept our amortisation policy, which had been in place during all of the years included in that reporting period?
    This could fall quite neatly into the
    part of the club statement.
    Given the quotation marks around the word 'mistake' do you think we are to assume this was the word used directly by the EFL in the correspondence with the club?
  24. Clap
    RandomAccessMemory got a reaction from The Orange Pimpernel in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    I've seen a few comments in various places saying things such as we only have one side of the story and that the EFL wouldn't charge us if they didn't think they could make the charges stick.
    Well now we have the two charges specified this got me thinking about the facts regarding the second charge in particular, the one to do with the amortisation policy.
    Is it not the case that this policy has been in place since (at least) the 2015/16 accounts, when Butterfield and Johnson were purchased?
    Was it not common knowledge that our amortisation policy differed from that of other clubs? It had been mentioned many, many times by various people analysing the accounts.
    Have our accounts not previously been signed off in years 2015/16 (old rules) and 2016/17 (current rules)?
    Were our accounts not also originally signed off in 2017/18? If not, why, as I posted previously before knowing about the second charge, did the EFL statement re: Birmingham from March 2019 confidently state:
    https://www.efl.com/news/2019/march/efl-statement-birmingham-city/
    If this is worthy of an EFL charge, and one that they think they can make stick, how exactly can they explain the quote above if they do not accept our amortisation policy, which had been in place during all of the years included in that reporting period?
    This could fall quite neatly into the
    part of the club statement.
    Given the quotation marks around the word 'mistake' do you think we are to assume this was the word used directly by the EFL in the correspondence with the club?
  25. Haha
    RandomAccessMemory reacted to reverendo de duivel in EFL charge Derby over ffp   
    Mel's got short arms?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.