Jump to content

EFL charge Derby over ffp


alexxxxx

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, Bazal77 said:

if the efl have charged us because we have sold an asset for a larger fee than what the efl consider it is worth, then surely they have to look at all sales of assets of all clubs. 
Shouldn’t players be classed as assets? 
If you do this to one club then all clubs should be treated the same, next tine a player is sold for big bucks what’s to stop someone complaining that he wasn’t worth that much and the efl having to value the player?
Or am I just being petulant 

Watford could get a points deduction for selling us Anya for £4 million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Is it ok for me to park my car there traffic warden?'

'Yes, it's fine.'

'Could I have that in writing?'

'Yes, here you go.'

a week later, a local resident complains that I parked there.

Traffic warden responds by issuing me a retrospective parking fine.

'That's why I asked before I did it. You confirmed that I could do so. Here's the letter confirming that I could park there. Bye'

same as?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:

I don’t think the sale of the stadium is the issue. It’s the amount paid. The stadium was on our books as an asset for 41 million,  yet was sold for 80. Add this extra 39 million onto our stated loss of 8 million and that’s the problem, it breaches the allowed 39 mil over 3 years. The FA accepted  the sale but not the amount. We are in bother,  as are the so called independent valuer who made up the 80 million figure. It’s not the FA I would worry about If I was Mel. It’s the possible investigation by the inland revenue and/or legal authorities, if this can be proved to be fraudulent 

I would have thought the inland revenue would be delighted we showed a profit .. then we’d be paying some tax. Naaa that’s not it.

This is accountants, lawyers, rules .. it’s all about interpretations and also the mindset of the panel and who is influencing it

. .. for once this isn’t about money as in affordability. There’s plenty of dosh, but the rules say Mel isn’t allowed to spend it. Mel has been trying to find a legal / acceptable way round it, as many clubs have.

This is a straight forward argument about technicalities .. I’d back Mel but if the EFL has decided it needs to “set an example“ - hypocritical so and so’s that they are then we could have a problem. ... ackkk que sera sera .. No detailed knowledge so not much point in speculating rights and wrongs IMO .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

And as far as I am aware we have not broken any rules.

My guess is something has happened where the rule in place is inadequate.

If not, then why has this charge only come now 13 months after the EFL had the figures?

Efl got someone in to value the ground.

That must have shown the massive over valuation so now it effects that 3 year period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Uptherams said:

I agree. But who thought the stadium had the potential to be upgraded in such a way that it could host 25 non football events per year? The valuation changes significantly. That isn't falsifying accounts or incompetence. It's very business savvy. Looking at an asset and seeing how that asset could be utilised more or differently and thus increasing the value of that asset. 

I agree. Which is why he should have valued it in the company accounts at 80 million not 41. That’s why I fear we will get a punishment. We appear to have 2 massively different values for the same asset at the same time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

I agree with Millennium Ram , my view of Mel was somewhat lukewarm as it was, this is the nail in the coffin for me. I'm disgusted, hope he ducks off.

Let's not bother with contesting the charge. Some people seem to have already found us guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What company was used to give the original valuation of the stadium? 

If it's a reputable company, then how can Morris or the club be held accountable for any financial irregularities, if all they have done is go along with the valuation given to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just been googling and found this interesting

it is safe to conclude that the players we watch, follow and read about every day are more than just employees of their clubs. They are like any other capital asset - be it land, machinery, building or goodwill. Lionel Messi and Neymar are as much revenue-generating assets for FC Barcelona as the Camp Nou itself, if not more! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Uptherams said:

Why not? This is the same period that the club and people like Mel were talking about the stadiums infrastructure and non footballing events. Strikes me as the only legitimate reason the value of the stadium would essentially double. 

I'd be very surprised to see a professional valuer including theoretical improvements in a valuation.

Of course it may be the valuation of £80m was given subject to certain works being carried out and certain income being derived from other events, if that is correct and DCFC have used that methodology for the valuation I can understand the EFL challenging it.

FWIW though, that is not stated in the accounts and these have also been signed off by independent auditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Let's not bother with contesting the charge. Some people seem to have already found us guilty.

Agree but has there ever been a case of an egl charge and the efl losing?

They surely don't do this lightly. 

Its very concerning 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

The stadium has been independently valued. The accounts have already been signed off by the EFL. The EFL's issue now is that the stadium valuation is too high compared to what they think it is worth, which therefore means our P&S (FFP) figure is out of kilter.

Why wasn't it an issue before?
Are the EFL calling the surveyors liars? Or are they trying to infer we've had a dodgy dealing with the surveyor?
Are they calling Mel a liar in fiddling what the surveyor has said? 
If the value of Pride Park has been overestimated, why haven't HMRC kicked off?
What do the EFL value Pride Park at? Why? On what information - purely on what other teams' stadia have been valued at?

This is different from the Brum or Wendies cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Squid said:

Well, i’m not suprised to say the least.

Yeah maybe it’s Mel’s fault but the reason he’s pumped so much money into the club is because the majority of our fanbase want a shortcut to success, they want promotion instantly and like we’ve seen this season, they get impatient.

He tried to please our fans and try and buy promotion and ultimately he failed.

Now he’s doing what he should do, taking it steady, we get ducked in the ******** by the EFL.

What a ducking time to be alive.

Maybe so. But pumping in money and chopping and changing managers every 5 minutes all with different styles of play doesnt help.

It almost makes sense now that MM  bought in Cocu. Putting him on a longish contract knowing he has a way of developing the youth.

Maybe MM  knew this was coming all along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ramchop said:

And all of those clubs are entitled clubs who think they belong in the Premier League.

If we werent throwing money about, if the other clubs weren't throwing money about, the cost of the championship wouldn't be as high for all clubs

If you can afford it, why shouldn't you? Loads of clubs that have cheated have been rewarded with millions and millions. Bournemouth, for example. duck the EFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

What company was used to give the original valuation of the stadium? 

If it's a reputable company, then how can Morris or the club be held accountable for any financial irregularities, if all they have done is go along with the valuation given to them.

I agree.

I think it could come down to how 'independent' was the independent valuation ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...