Jump to content

Price Of Football .. DCFC

rsmini

By rsmini
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ariotofmyown

ariotofmyown

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, rsmini said:

I was pointed to this earlier. An article by the website "Price of football" relates to Derby. I have no idea if it's correct or not but makes interesting reading regarding the recent accounts the club published

 

http://priceoffootball.com/derby-county-respectable/

Really interesting and not too hard to follow either.

You can see why we'll have too tighten our belts next season unless we get promoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FindernRam

FindernRam

Posted
Posted

They used to say there were lies , damned lies, and statistics. I think you can now add accountancy to the bottom of that list. Does even Mr. Morris understand all this? Is there a stack of real money anywhere to back it all up.

I had a manager once who was worried by all the people booking time to his projects, so he said all bookers were to appear on the car park at 9:00 Monday morning with a statement of what they had done. Overnight 50% of workbooking disappeared. Made his (and my Project) look really good again and on budget. I guess like Derby CF Staff they all disappeared somewhere but miraculously they all still got paid each month!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintRam

SaintRam

Posted
Posted

Well, that was an interesting read.

Not entirely sure what to think, mind. 

The bit that I found most intriguing was that we take over 9 years to write-off player transfer fees, which is by far the longest time in the Championship and Prem; I say intriguing because I'm not 100% on what that actually means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mihangel

Mihangel

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

If it's within the rules then who cares? Wolves have got an agent involved in their club that provides them with the ability to sign players well outside of a normal championship standard, but it's within the rules. Don't see how any of the contents of that article are any different.

That's the saddest thing for me - Was it that long ago that most fans didn't give a flying duck about the club's accounts? Somebody has spent a lot of time there to come up with supposition and guesswork but it really shouldn't be for you or I to worry about. I trust Mel 100% on the financial front....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ramblur

ramblur

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SaintRam said:

Well, that was an interesting read.

Not entirely sure what to think, mind. 

The bit that I found most intriguing was that we take over 9 years to write-off player transfer fees, which is by far the longest time in the Championship and Prem; I say intriguing because I'm not 100% on what that actually means. 

If he'd taken the time to read the club's account notes, he might have found that we assign residual values to players,which means that we don't fully write off the asset, which makes nonsense of his 9 year comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carnero

Carnero

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ramblur said:

If he'd taken the time to read the club's account notes, he might have found that we assign residual values to players,which means that we don't fully write off the asset, which makes nonsense of his 9 year comment. 

I'm also surprised that he states that we are the only one doing this, under the new FRS102 regulations all clubs should be doing this rather than using the old policy of a flat rate over the length of the contract!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ramblur

ramblur

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Boycie said:

Well that’s saved @ramblur no end of stress.

Its all their in black and white, explained in layman’s terms.

Good find.

Far from it, it means I have to come on here to clear things up, and get rid of this' creative accounting business'. The first thing to be tackled is the Sevco year end. This wasn't changed for devious reasons, merely to get the company in line with the other companies in the group, meaning from 17/18 onwards the whole lot will report full years. Because Sevco only reported for 10 months, it doesn't simply mean that you can add 20% to all their figures to get  to a full year equivalent. If you tried to do that with transfer profits, for example, you'd be a long way out.

As far as the wages go, he doesn't point out that £1,593,654 of the consolidated wages (for 10 months) relates to Sevco 5112 (The company in its own right, as opposed to consolidator), that has nothing to do with the football club. This brings the consolidated figure down to £31,561,711 for comparative purposes, and you can't then merely add on 20% to compare with the football club.

When I reconciled the Sevco consolidated loss to the club's loss, I compared every bit of stated income and expenditure in Sevco's CSI with that in the club's CSI, and noted these differences. I then adjusted the Sevco consolidated loss by each difference, and the ultimate answer was the same loss that occurred in the club's accounts. This completely rid me of any concerns I had before the exercise.

It seems a bit pointless to compare our current income to that we had years ago in the Prem. A better comparison would be to other clubs in our league that aren't in receipt of 'chute payments. You can ignore this headline grabbing loan figure in Sevco, as it's got nothing to do with the club whatsoever- in fact the club has loaned a lot of loot to other companies within the group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boycie

Boycie

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Far from it, it means I have to come on here to clear things up, and get rid of this' creative accounting business'. The first thing to be tackled is the Sevco year end. This wasn't changed for devious reasons, merely to get the company in line with the other companies in the group, meaning from 17/18 onwards the whole lot will report full years. Because Sevco only reported for 10 months, it doesn't simply mean that you can add 20% to all their figures to get  to a full year equivalent. If you tried to do that with transfer profits, for example, you'd be a long way out.

As far as the wages go, he doesn't point out that £1,593,654 of the consolidated wages (for 10 months) relates to Sevco 5112 (The company in its own right, as opposed to consolidator), that has nothing to do with the football club. This brings the consolidated figure down to £31,561,711 for comparative purposes, and you can't then merely add on 20% to compare with the football club.

When I reconciled the Sevco consolidated loss to the club's loss, I compared every bit of stated income and expenditure in Sevco's CSI with that in the club's CSI, and noted these differences. I then adjusted the Sevco consolidated loss by each difference, and the ultimate answer was the same loss that occurred in the club's accounts. This completely rid me of any concerns I had before the exercise.

It seems a bit pointless to compare our current income to that we had years ago in the Prem. A better comparison would be to other clubs in our league that aren't in receipt of 'chute payments. You can ignore this headline grabbing loan figure in Sevco, as it's got nothing to do with the club whatsoever- in fact the club has loaned a lot of loot to other companies within the group. 

So it’s made you more work? Flippen eck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ramblur

ramblur

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Carnero said:

I'm also surprised that he states that we are the only one doing this, under the new FRS102 regulations all clubs should be doing this rather than using the old policy of a flat rate over the length of the contract!

I've not read FRS 102, but I do remember @Diag Ram saying something like we should be doing this, after FRS 102.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...