Jump to content

kevinhectoring

Member
  • Posts

    5,939
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kevinhectoring

  1. 41 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

    I was meaning I don't think the club benefited from the cash following the sale, think it merely covered cash MM had previously injected into the club.

    The stadium was let at an undervalue for a start. And I’d think that at the very least the ongoing stadium rental payable by the club would have been set off against the deferred purchase price.

    If you look at 202’s balance sheet before the sale to DC the payable to the club will indicate how much of the £82 m was actually paid over.  

  2. 25 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

    The gave a range of £77.4-89.5m (£83.45m mid range). The IDC had the power to go with this figure ratehr than the one stated in our accounts, but felt that it was fair to stick with our recorded figure as it sat within the acceptable range.

    The EFL's 'expert' not only based the value agaisnt Morecambe's ground, but also stated we would only need a 28k seater replacement as that's what our recent average was (20% less than actual capacity)

     

    Refering back to the amortisation charge:
    1. The IDC dismissed all particulars, excluding the failure to adequately disclose the change in policy. Importantly, the IDC dismissed the 'experts' evidence.

    2. The LAP (appeal) felt the opinion of the EFL's expert should have been taken more seriously - he felt the policy wasn't FRS102 compliant, esentially becuase we couldn't reliably estimate values. Despite the IDC panel containing Chartered accountants, their own opinion shouldn't have been used in favour of the non-practicing 'expert'. The club failed to provide their own expert, but if they had, his opinions would have been enough to change the outcome of the LAP's verdict.

    Prof Pope felt "no serious acccountant would deem is to be an acceptable amortisation approach based on the consumption of economic benefits". This is at odds with all of the Chartered Accountants involved in the case - the club, auditors, IDC, etc...

    The LAP themselves pointed out "there is no accountant on our panel (ii) we are differing from a DC which included and was required to include an accountant member" and "However, the DC was faced with expert evidence from a distinguished academic accountant, and this was the only expert evidence which was led before them". Hence, why the LAP felt the evidence of the academic 'expert' should have stood.

    The example given by the club suggested a straight amortisation to the start of the final year, then the remaining value amortised to zero. What some people with a lack of attention to the real details assumed (and I imagine this is what @Leeds Ram's BiL also assumed) was that a non-linear amortisation approach was used (ie values made up each year to suit our P&S budget). It was also not possible to uplift values (as a large number of people believed). Impairment could still be used (to drop the book value to a fairer value if deemed approriate) which is used in common amortisationn policies anyway.

    3. The 2nd IDC (which contained Chartered Accountants) couldn't argue agaisnt the LAP's findings. The decision was to task the club with creating a new policy which could be proven to be reliable - this didn't have to be drastically different from the one we had been using.

    4. The club then went into administration. The administrators didn't have the time or funds to argue the case of a new policy so accepted the EFL's charges.

    It was a ‘policy’ decision. And probably one that overall reflected the thrust of the EFL rules. No doubt the LAP members concerned will have continued doing lucrative work in cases involving EFL 
     

    Part of the problem was we claimed there was not a single document that we could produce which related to our estimation of player values. This led the LAP to believe we were engaged in manipulation of the numbers (regardless of the straight line approach you mention). The other big problem was the issue raised by MacGuire that kicked the whole thing off, namely that the rules are aimed at creating a level playing field for 72 clubs and that all except us used the same approach. We should have seen the risk and we certainly should have taken a ‘big 4’ technical opinion before stealthily adopting the policy. The problem is, a supporting big 4 opinion would probably have required a rigorous approach to player valuation. 

    These are precisely the sorts of points on which a strong CEO would have challenged MM. 

    (It seems very odd we didn’t put forward our own expert and it’d be interesting to know what lay behind that. I half recall we had one lined up and pulled him at the last minute. That’s not a good look)

  3. 1 hour ago, YorkshireRam said:

    Meanwhile trust can't even be started being rebuilt because he can't or won't do anything to alleviate the inherently logical mistrust hanging over him... That's how I see it. 

    I think it’s a bit weird that he’s still around.
     

    Word has it he was remorseful when Q was appointed, feeling he should have ‘stood up’ to MM (as his duties required). He then worked his balls off to help Q and this - as well has his expertise - would have been readily apparent to DC as the sale negotiations were ongoing. I’d also assume he was not going to be employed by any other club on the planet after the debacle, so the detailed terms of his ongoing role would have been largely dictated by DC and his team. Perhaps the initial intention was to keep him short term, and it then seemed to make sense for him to stay…? 

    But given the intent to ‘reset’ the culture and business of the club, and for that to be seen to be the case … yeah it’s pretty weird he’s still around. 

  4. 8 hours ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hdf286?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

    Pre-match presser with the bbc above, my main takeaways from it;

    - Gayle deal was delayed by the EFL scrutinising the deal due to our recent situation.

    - Gayle has trained since Monday and is fit to play on Sat but he did downplay his readiness a little bit, maybe fit to start, maybe fit for 60 mins. 

    - CBT back in training with the team, Warne said he seems to be over his injury but needs more time in training to be up to speed (I assume with how the team plays).

    - Waghorn back in training with the team, Saturday might be too soon for him to play. 

    - Fozzy is back on the grass but 2 weeks away from being involved with the squad 

    - Washington struggling with a knee injury. Warne mentioned the summer so it’s seemingly the injury he had before joining us rather than linked to the ankle injury done on international duty.

    - Warne said if you asked Collins he’d say he’s fit to play on Saturday but the medical team say he’s not.

    - Vickers back soon. 

    You forgot the hilarious comments about tea, bobble hats Etc

    ’you’re only as good as your keeper and your no 9’ was an interesting one. Revealing -  we have lost too many times this season and last to strong midfields …  

  5. 1 hour ago, ram59 said:

    The trouble is, that system is also flawed. That great team under SM1 played great football sweeping all before them, or so we'd like to remember. What actually happened, was that we'd come up against a manager who set his team up to play against us and would snuff out our attacking force and SM1 didn't have a plan B. Although we won a majority of our games, it wasn't enough to beat the 2 teams who finished above us.

    But this time we’re in div1. I’d hope that these players playing consistently well will indeed sweep all before them. Granted, we need Adams to stay fit … 

  6. Want to see us playing our preferred  system regardless of what we think the oppo will do. Give players the same job to do game after game and most will do much better than when they get new instructions each week. We’ve got a strong enough squad to play our own way. 3 at the back please and make it decent to watch . Give Ward and Wilson a start. Give Bradley the chance to keep improving. If Sibley is to be our super sub, give him time enough

    play it fast and short with lots of movement. nil something. 

  7. 5 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

    But he changed things and got the win? I understand what went before wasn’t enjoyable to watch but how can Warne not be due some credit for picking a side that kept a clean sheet, that battled with a bullying side, and making the subs to get us the 3 points?! Some people really won’t give him any dues, it’s surely ok to say some of it was bad and he did what he needed to…. Eventually 
     

    I don’t mind that set up. Needed NML to play well which he didn’t and things were much better with Smith. But if Warne sticks with a fortress 3 at the back and gets our midfielders in the right places we’ll get better and generally win something nil. Ward will be very effective in that set up. Just wish we’d play more through the middle and that we were more connected  


    Such an instinctive strike from Sibley, clean as a whistle. 

    Didn’t miss the players’ captain. Adams is fabulous and Bradley after his early season wobbles is looking excellent.  
     

  8. On 05/02/2024 at 19:19, i-Ram said:

    I think the change he wanted was to play football that better suited his skills. It could have been Bristol, Blackpool, Birmingham or Brentford.  One way or another he almost certainly wanted to kick on personally, and sorry everyone but Warne was not making him a better player, in fact he was making him look very average. We have lost our best player in my opinion.

    A careful listen to Warne’s pre Exeter presser sort of supports this, tho’ whether the move was Warne’s or Max’s decision is not made clear    
    Great shame he’s going 

  9. On 11/02/2024 at 08:55, 8Leeds said:

    Wildsmith

    Nyambe Nelson Cash Elder

    Thompson Smith Bird

    Wilson Collins NML

    But Hourihane the players’ captain will start. 
    If it has to happen, and it seems it does, he should be told that’s he’s got to run his balls off for 55 minutes, then come off the pitch and throw up. And he should have his own training regime which tones him for 55 not 90 minutes. We can learn things from the rugby fitness coaches 

  10. If all our older players did the extra training Collins does, we’d likely have gone up last year.
     

    Biggest difference between this season and last imo is that he’s started timing his headers much better. Oh and he’s not had Didzy stealing the limelight 

  11. On 05/02/2024 at 12:08, plymouthram said:

    Don't understand why Warne would keep sticking our young striker Brown on the bench regularly then send him out on loan to a non-league side. Some on here would say, "to improve his development" but the way I see it is different. Playing on loan with Gateshead, who don't have the same facilities as Moor Farm, nor have the same standard of coaches with their club compared with ours. And lastly playing against lower standard teams and with his Gateshead team mates also not being as good could halt his "development".

    Yes. Playing on crap pitches, and against thuggish defenders who are often slow but who know precisely what rubbish refs will let them get away with. 

  12. 10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

    Other than the one that I have already given you mean.

    Not sure that said poster is well renowned for ITK info to be fair.

    I assume you’re referring to your comment that: ‘he had a couple of poor performances and was dropped’. Fact is, he made one horrendous error resulting in a pen. Not a reason to drop your better keeper. W is a PL level keeper. V is decent and solid for this div. But there is not a single aspect of V’s game that reaches W’s standard. If you don’t agree, maybe seek out GoC’s stats on the topic.  If Warne doesn’t see it, I’m worried. But I’d guess he does see it and that there is a reason for this that’s unrelated to performance in matches. Sorry to go on but watching V deciding whether or not to ‘come’ stresses me out. 

     

  13. 31 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

    No, my implication is that this is a squad game and a member of said squad has come in and has not done anything to lose his place. 

    Wilson was on the bench today, is he being punished?

    According to another poster,  Wildsmith has indicated he wants to leave. That seems pretty plausible because imo there is no footballing reason to prefer V    

×
×
  • Create New...