Tribunal Update

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

With all due respect @duncanjwithamwithout wishing to start a debate I do think he did explain things pretty well. We don’t use the “straight line” amortisation method and selling the stadium is a legitimate way to attract profit under the present rules. He also explained clearly why Wendies got hammered and we didn’t. I’ll let others listen and they’ll form their own views.

With the stadium value, he implied that the only reason we got ~£80m for it is because we artificially inflated it's value by speculating on it's future potential.  That's absolutely not true, the £80m is strictly a "replace it with a modern equivalent, less depreciation" value, i.e. its actual value in the here-and-now.  Nothing to do with potential (other than physical things that already exist, like the strengthened foundations for adding another tier).  Fans at other clubs have been expressly accusing us of inflating the value and getting away with it, and he backs up their opinion, but then says we were allowed to do it.  He's wrong on both counts, we wouldn't be allowed to do that, but we didn't do it anyway.  It shifts the discussion away from what we actually did, to should we be allowed to do something we didn't actually do.

We don't use straightline amortisation, but we don't used fixed increments like he suggested either.  That's probably irrelevant because it goes over most fans heads though.

[Ellafella]

12 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

With the stadium value, he implied that the only reason we got ~£80m for it is because we artificially inflated it's value by speculating on it's future potential.  That's absolutely not true, the £80m is strictly a "replace it with a modern equivalent, less depreciation" value, i.e. its actual value in the here-and-now.  Nothing to do with potential (other than physical things that already exist, like the strengthened foundations for adding another tier).  Fans at other clubs have been expressly accusing us of inflating the value and getting away with it, and he backs up their opinion, but then says we were allowed to do it.  He's wrong on both counts, we wouldn't be allowed to do that, but we didn't do it anyway.  It shifts the discussion away from what we actually did, to should we be allowed to do something we didn't actually do.

We don't use straightline amortisation, but we don't used fixed increments like he suggested either.  That's probably irrelevant because it goes over most fans heads though.

Yes; you’re correct on both counts and in hindsight Jordan does get the detail wrong BUT he does clearly correct fans who think we’ve exploited a loop-hole in buying our stadium. The plan was initiated by Mel’s intention to roof and use the stadium for extra-curricular activity and that’s where the need to take control of the stadium out of the sole ownership of the football arm comes from, as I’m sure you know. 
You’re correct on the detail of the 2nd point too BUT the essence of what Jordan says is true: it’s a more accurate way of assessing a player’s net worth than the other straight line method. 
My overall assessment is that Jordan is right to put the case as he does because it totallly concurs that the outcome is the correct one and differentiates between Wendies’s crooked accounting and our legitimate approach. 

[Ramslaar]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

Yes; you’re correct on both counts and in hindsight Jordan does get the detail wrong BUT he does clearly correct fans who think we’ve exploited a loop-hole in buying our stadium. The plan was initiated by Mel’s intention to roof and use the stadium for extra-curricular activity and that’s where the need to take control of the stadium out of the sole ownership of the football arm comes from, as I’m sure you know. 
You’re correct on the detail of the 2nd point too BUT the essence of what Jordan says is true: it’s a more accurate way of assessing a player’s net worth than the other straight line method. 
My overall assessment is that Jordan is right to put the case as he does because it totallly concurs that the outcome is the correct one and differentiates between Wendies’s crooked accounting and our legitimate approach. 

Agreed....I'm sure I read somewhere that the stadium was valued at a high of 93.4mill and the middle ground was 84.1 mel actually took the lower end at about 79mil.so to all the numbers that say we over valued it we actually took the lowest price and then to boot it was the EFL that told us we had to adjust it to that.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, Ramslaar said:

Agreed....I'm sure I read somewhere that the stadium was valued at a high of 93.4mill and the middle ground was 84.1 mel actually took the lower end at about 79mil.so to all the numbers that say we over valued it we actually took the lowest price and then to boot it was the EFL that told us we had to adjust it to that.

Our valuers stated a DRC value of £74.4m due to a depreciation and obsolescence discount of 33.33%. The upper limit they used was £86.1m
Derby's expert witness stated a range of £77.4-89.5m with a discount of 30.5%
The EFL's 'expert' stated £44m-50m with a discount of 27.5%

 

[Ramslaar]

19 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Our valuers stated a DRC value of £74.4m due to a depreciation and obsolescence discount of 33.33%. The upper limit they used was £86.1m
Derby's expert witness stated a range of £77.4-89.5m with a discount of 30.5%
The EFL's 'expert' stated £44m-50m with a discount of 27.5%

 

Thankyou I knew I had read something like what i put but i didnt quite get the figures correct.thanks for the detail tho mate

[Sith Happens]

surely its time to retire 'bamford ' and replace with 'Gibson'

 

[Sith Happens]

5 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Dont think all the corners are filled in at Boro and interior is inferior to PP 

they used to be but someone knicked em

[Archied]

26 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

surely its time to retire 'bamford ' and replace with 'Gibson'

 

You no good gibbo 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

16 minutes ago, Archied said:

You no good gibbo 

You utter Gibson. 

[Mucker1884]

You funky gibson

[Spanish]

On 20/08/2020 at 09:25, Spanish said:

pretty sure Gibson would have referred to the onerous conditions, it's his way.  Cant't we have a rude word replaced by 'Gibson', banker with a w?

 

56 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

surely its time to retire 'bamford ' and replace with 'Gibson'

 

Bump

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

surely its time to retire 'bamford ' and replace with 'Gibson'

 

We must be mindful though of our own Colin Gibson and not to besmirch his Ram-ness. 

[MaltRam]

Nah. A Bamford's a Bamford's a Bamford. No getting away from it.

A merchant banker, on the other hand, one who routinely buffs the magic lamp, that type of person...that's a Gibson.

[MaltRam]

1 minute ago, Ellafella said:

We must be mindful though of our own Colin Gibson and not to besmirch his Ram-ness. 

 

Just now, Needlesh said:

Nah. A Bamford's a Bamford's a Bamford. No getting away from it.

A merchant banker, on the other hand, one who routinely buffs the magic lamp, that type of person...that's a Gibson.

Come to think of it, we do need to be specific here. A Steve Gibson. As in 'That Kenny Burns, what a fat, sweaty, Steve Gibson he is.'

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

surely its time to retire 'bamford ' and replace with 'Gibson'

 

A poll perhaps, to get the notion passed? Feel a long time since we've had one of them... 

[SaintRam]

We could also have one of the other words correct to gibson and use them both ? 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

4 minutes ago, Coconut said:

A poll perhaps, to get the notion passed? Feel a long time since we've had one of them... 

Are we allowed polls since the ban on politics chat? 

[SaintRam]

2 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Are we allowed polls since the ban on politics chat? 

Depends if posters can refrain from constantly calling each other Gibsons.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

31 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Depends if posters can refrain from constantly calling each other Gibsons.

No then. 

[May Contain Nuts]

35 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Are we allowed polls since the ban on politics chat? 

We could have a poll on whether we should be allowed polls?