EFL charge Derby over ffp

[OohMartWright]

11 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

My point isn't the ratio by which it would increase the value. My point is that it doesn't seem right that club money put into an asset to increase its value would not go into the FFP books if selling it for its now-increased value would.

Tbh I just need to find something that details it all in more info; the little lists I can find of what doesn't count against FFP don't seem complete.

That's not how it works. If you buy an asset for £5m, then spend another £5m doing it up before selling it for £12m, only the £2m profit counts for FFP as income.

[SaintRam]

2 minutes ago, OohMartWright said:

That's not how it works. If you buy an asset for £5m, then spend another £5m doing it up before selling it for £12m, only the £2m profit counts for FFP as income.

So the money you spend on increasing its value is taken as part of FFP?

[cosmic]

1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Once the legal aspects have been resolved, this is a point that shouldn't be lost.

BuT iTs NoT mEls FaUlT hE's OnE oF oUr OwN

[Ghost of Clough]

5 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

So the money you spend on increasing its value is taken as part of FFP?

The money spent to increase its value is accounted for in the accounts but doesn’t count towards P&S. The profit on the new value is what counts towards P&S. 

[ThePrisoner]

18 minutes ago, TramRam said:

When we Bought Johnson I can't remember too many if any at all said he'd be someone who would get his teeth into the team.

To be fair to Johnson, he got his teeth into the opposition.

[SaintRam]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The money spent to increase its value is accounted for in the accounts but doesn’t count towards P&S. The profit on the new value is what counts towards P&S. 

Ok, simply (yes or no will do): Does it benefit us for a company that is not DCFC to fund the renovation of the stadium? Which is what I always assumed was one of the reasons Mel sold the stadium to another of his companies.

It's that assumption I've been hoping to get resolved with all of this ? 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Even if we come through this smelling of roses and are found not guilty of anything and even if Mel is able to claim a few quid from the EFL for damages, surely the next few years are going to be challenging financially.

The EFL will change rules, ensure the way we do our accountancy going forward is legit and inline with the other clubs and we no longer have a stadium to sell ourselves.

With so many players out of contract in the summer, I can see the majority of those savings will just help us get our house in order, I can't see we will be able to go out and sign a whole new set of players.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Ok, simply (yes or no will do): Does it benefit us for a company that is not DCFC to fund the renovation of the stadium? Which is what I always assumed was one of the reasons Mel sold the stadium to another of his companies.

It's that assumption I've been hoping to get resolved with all of this ? 

I don’t think it makes a difference. 
But, it safeguards the stadium from the likes of asset strippers if Mel was to sell the club on - maybe makes it more affordable for anyone buying into the club as well. 

[OohMartWright]

4 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

So the money you spend on increasing its value is taken as part of FFP?

No, the money you spend on it is treated as additional cost of a capital asset, just like when you buy the asset in the first place. When you buy an asset you don't make a profit or a loss, you simply exchange one asset (cash) for another (whatever it is you've bought). You only realise a profit when you sell the asset for more than its total cost. You realise a loss when you sell it for less than its total cost less any amounts previously written off. If an asset falls in value after you have bought it, accounting rules require you to write the asset down to its fair value and the fall is recorded as a loss, known as an impairment write-down, in the accounts.

[SaintRam]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

I don’t think it makes a difference. 
But, it safeguards the stadium from the likes of asset strippers if Mel was to sell the club on.

Thanks

[Coneheadjohn]

2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

It’s the recruitment teams fault.

[SaintRam]

1 minute ago, OohMartWright said:

No, the money you spend on it is treated as additional cost of a capital asset, just like when you buy the asset in the first place. When you buy an asset you don't make a profit or a loss, you simply exchange one asset (cash) for another (whatever it is you've bought). You only realise a profit when you sell the asset for more than its total cost. You realise a loss when you sell it for less than its total cost less any amounts previously written off. If an asset falls in value after you have bought it, accounting rules require you to write the asset down to its fair value and the fall is recorded as a loss, known as an impairment write-down, in the accounts.

And a club's cash asset is determined by what? Their profit? Or their income minus (expenditure minus exclusions)? Or a fixed figure?

[Archied]

Jeez ,,,alongside investing in and improving our academy ,revenue streams and profile  mel Morris took a punt on pumping money into a team that was close to promotion as can often happen in football the gamble just did not produce the hoped for promotion,,,,

the clue here is in mels response to the gamble not paying off , he’s not thrown his toys out the pram and just walked away leaving the club in dire financial straits he is working his socks and bank accounts off to keep the club moving forward all be it with a change of tactic needed ,the Morris slaters just bore me senseless 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

19 minutes ago, Archied said:

Jeez ,,,alongside investing in and improving our academy ,revenue streams and profile  mel Morris took a punt on pumping money into a team that was close to promotion as can often happen in football the gamble just did not produce the hoped for promotion,,,,

the clue here is in mels response to the gamble not paying off , he’s not thrown his toys out the pram and just walked away leaving the club in dire financial straits he is working his socks and bank accounts off to keep the club moving forward all be it with a change of tactic needed ,the Morris slaters just bore me senseless 

If a manager works hard, puts his all into a job and it ultimately doesn’t work out, is he immune from criticism? Even if he brings through some good youth prospects? 

There’s no reason why we can’t come to a considered view on MM’s performance, just like we would with Cocu.

[Van der MoodHoover]

21 minutes ago, Archied said:

Jeez ,,,alongside investing in and improving our academy ,revenue streams and profile  mel Morris took a punt on pumping money into a team that was close to promotion as can often happen in football the gamble just did not produce the hoped for promotion,,,,

the clue here is in mels response to the gamble not paying off , he’s not thrown his toys out the pram and just walked away leaving the club in dire financial straits he is working his socks and bank accounts off to keep the club moving forward all be it with a change of tactic needed ,the Morris slaters just bore me senseless 

Yes, i think if you were to do a mock "performance review" of Mel then you'd acknowledge that most of our current predicament stems from decisions and practices a few years ago (I'd say pre rowett).

I think he's sharpened up his act considerably since his early days - and its kind of understandable that hes kind of like a kid with a new toy at first. He was never incompetent or motivated by the wrong things imo.

[Dimmu]

35 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Ok, simply (yes or no will do): Does it benefit us for a company that is not DCFC to fund the renovation of the stadium? Which is what I always assumed was one of the reasons Mel sold the stadium to another of his companies.

It's that assumption I've been hoping to get resolved with all of this ? 

I know nothing about that, but I think it's better that his company is owning the stadium if the investment group wants to buy more than 50% of the shares.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

I also wonder, if Mel had have fought Sam Rush in court as he said he would and had the details of what Sam had been up to were made public (as Mel was excited by this prospect), if Sam had been found to be offering contracts, wages and signing on fees over inflated and without the say so of Mel, surely those details could be used in any fight against the EFL.

Part of the reason we have had to sell our stadium is because of the mess we are in due to someone potentially acting unlawfully...bloody shame Mel chose to settle out ot court.

[RadioactiveWaste]

14 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I also wonder, if Mel had have fought Sam Rush in court as he said he would and had the details of what Sam had been up to were made public (as Mel was excited by this prospect), if Sam had been found to be offering contracts, wages and signing on fees over inflated and without the say so of Mel, surely those details could be used in any fight against the EFL.

Part of the reason we have had to sell our stadium is because of the mess we are in due to someone potentially acting unlawfully...bloody shame Mel chose to settle out ot court.

Good points, but presumably the information that would've come out of the Rush camp would've been sufficiently damaging (had it gone to court) for MM to agree to the non disclosure aspects of the settlement. Or perhaps the circumstance now wasn't foreseen at the time of the settlement.

[Van der MoodHoover]

16 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I also wonder, if Mel had have fought Sam Rush in court as he said he would and had the details of what Sam had been up to were made public (as Mel was excited by this prospect), if Sam had been found to be offering contracts, wages and signing on fees over inflated and without the say so of Mel, surely those details could be used in any fight against the EFL.

Part of the reason we have had to sell our stadium is because of the mess we are in due to someone potentially acting unlawfully...bloody shame Mel chose to settle out ot court.

more of a shame that he trusted the man in the first place. Much of business is based on trust. When it is shown to be misplaced the feeling is horrible.

[BriggRam]

4 hours ago, Carnero said:

He's also representing Sheffield Wednesday v EFL

Hopefully he’ll get them cleared of any wrongdoing then the Wendies will sing his praises and we can nick another chant off them