Woodley Ram Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 3 hours ago, Gritty said: Putting the charge to one side, what is the right approach? 1. Does it make sense to apply an accounting model that requires yearly revaluations of players, when there is no way of testing those valuations? If so, why are we the only club of all 92 to do this? I don't think it does make sense as previous accounts suggest we had players valued well in excess of zero who ended up leaving on a free that we had to write down significantly, indicating we got our values wrong. 2. Is it a comfortable position to be in for the club to not own its ground? Charlton are in a complete mess now because the club was sold but owner kept ground. But then again, it's a common model elsewhere so I think this more debatable. Overall, I think it's bad as we lose control of rental rate should Mel ever need to cash in on ground. It's not a given that if club is sold the stadium is acquired too. I realise that some people strongly disagree with some of my posts on these issues. I'm not trying to troll. I just genuinely feel that our club has not acted correctly in these areas and don't agree with an 'ends justifies means' or 'all is fair in love and war' approach. I don't think it is disloyal to question our club's actions. These are matters on which reasonable people can simply disagree I think. The accounting needs to follow accepted accounting principles and financial reporting standards, these are all written down and followed by companies in all sectors. What is being said is that we didn’t follow these standards. to be honest this gives me more concern than the sale of PP charge as we do not appear to have followed the rules. I don’t know what dialogue we had with the EFL but unless we can show they audited and signed off the accounts we could be in trouble. I think we will know the outcome soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said: Forest fans seem convinced we're getting a 15 point ban . At first I assumed it was a load of balls. Now i've heard it from so many of them, I fear the red dogs top lads have infiltrated the upper echelons of the EFL and it's a conspiracy. The ineptitude gives it further credence. If you spot this lot coming out of the EFL Blandford Street offices start sweating I might be corrected on this but I think the maximum you can be deducted is 12 points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said: The accounting needs to follow accepted accounting principles and financial reporting standards, these are all written down and followed by companies in all sectors. What is being said is that we didn’t follow these standards. to be honest this gives me more concern than the sale of PP charge as we do not appear to have followed the rules. I don’t know what dialogue we had with the EFL but unless we can show they audited and signed off the accounts we could be in trouble. I think we will know the outcome soon They must have signed off on the accounts for at least a couple of seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee SCREAMER !! Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said: I might be corrected on this but I think the maximum you can be deducted is 12 points I think it could be 21 for crimes of Al Capone level , as it's two charges. 12 for one, 9 for the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 4 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said: I think it could be 21 for crimes of Al Capone level , as it's two charges. 12 for one, 9 for the other. That is what the guidelines stated, but they're guidelines and EFL reserves the right to impose sanctions in excess of the guidelines. There is actually no maximum, but it would be strange for the EFL to ignore their own guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 20 minutes ago, CornwallRam said: That is what the guidelines stated, but they're guidelines and EFL reserves the right to impose sanctions in excess of the guidelines. There is actually no maximum, but it would be strange for the EFL to ignore their own guidelines. Just to add from the Birmingham decision (the 'sanctioning guidelines' were set by a meeting of the clubs in 2018 and are not part of the regulations) - " 38.The Commission reiterates that it is not bound by the sanctioning guidelines, but as set out above each party accepts that they should be taken into account." https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 7 hours ago, Woodley Ram said: The accounting needs to follow accepted accounting principles and financial reporting standards, these are all written down and followed by companies in all sectors. What is being said is that we didn’t follow these standards. Where has this been said? This would be down to the auditors up Companies House, unless the EFL have to decided to branch out following their successful move into commercial property valuation. As far as I can see, DCFC have used fair value for valuing some of their assets (how they have been calculated I do not know) and the auditors have reported that this is a suitable accounting policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 7 hours ago, Woodley Ram said: I might be corrected on this but I think the maximum you can be deducted is 12 points Up to 12 based on how much over budget, plus up to 9 extra based on aggravating factors, minus some for any mitigating factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 hours ago, CornwallRam said: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf .....that’s what we need. A fully transparent assessment and judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said: Up to 12 based on how much over budget, plus up to 9 extra based on aggravating factors, minus some for any mitigating factors. ok thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 9 hours ago, ossieram said: They must have signed off on the accounts for at least a couple of seasons. I have no idea what DCFC have to produce to the EFL, but I have a limited company and all I have to produce is a P&L account and a balance sheet for the company. it doesn't go into the ins and outs of my business so if I accounted for my assets in a way that was inconsistent with general accounting standards HMRC and Companies House would not know. The accounts are signed off by a qualified accountant so they should be right others wise the accountant (if the error was found out) would be in deep dodo. So signing off high level accounts by the EFL would not suffice for a defence. If DCFC spoke to them about it or produce or had their full accounts scrutinised by the EFL then that is a different story. I am not an accountant so I would love to hear the views from one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said: I have no idea what DCFC have to produce to the EFL, but I have a limited company and all I have to produce is a P&L account and a balance sheet for the company. it doesn't go into the ins and outs of my business so if I accounted for my assets in a way that was inconsistent with general accounting standards HMRC and Companies House would not know. The accounts are signed off by a qualified accountant so they should be right others wise the accountant (if the error was found out) would be in deep dodo. So signing off high level accounts by the EFL would not suffice for a defence. If DCFC spoke to them about it or produce or had their full accounts scrutinised by the EFL then that is a different story. I am not an accountant so I would love to hear the views from one It probably comes down to the disclosure notes in the accounts and whether there was enough detail for the EFL to pick up an issue and query it. If a unusual but acceptable accounting policy was used the notes should have been cleverly drafted to argue the position was fully disclosed even if a moron reviewing them at the EFL didnt pick up. However, an accountant will have signed off the accounts as everyone states on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 19 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said: I have no idea what DCFC have to produce to the EFL, but I have a limited company and all I have to produce is a P&L account and a balance sheet for the company. it doesn't go into the ins and outs of my business so if I accounted for my assets in a way that was inconsistent with general accounting standards HMRC and Companies House would not know. The accounts are signed off by a qualified accountant so they should be right others wise the accountant (if the error was found out) would be in deep dodo. So signing off high level accounts by the EFL would not suffice for a defence. If DCFC spoke to them about it or produce or had their full accounts scrutinised by the EFL then that is a different story. I am not an accountant so I would love to hear the views from one From the EFL Regulations https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-4---clubs/ Quote 16 Clubs’ Financial Records 16.1 All Clubs shall keep their financial records in accordance with the provisions of The Football Association Rules and The League may arrange for an inspection of all such books. 16.2 Each Club shall submit a copy of its Annual Accounts (as defined in Regulation 16.3 below) to The League, but in any event: 16.2.1 by no later than 1 March following the end of the financial year to which those Annual Accounts relate (in the case of a Championship Club); Quote 16.3 For the purposes of this Regulation 16, Annual Accounts means the annual accounts in respect of the Club’s most recent financial year (such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditor’s report (if any) on those accounts. 16.4 If the Club considers it appropriate, or The League so requests, the Annual Accounts required to be submitted in accordance with Regulation 16.2 shall relate to the Group of which the Club is a member. 16.5 Where a Club relies on any statutory and/or regulatory exemptions such that the Annual Accounts are either abbreviated in nature or unaudited the Club shall within 14 days of any request provide to The League such additional information as The League deems appropriate. Any information request will ordinarily be limited to information that would be disclosed if the Club was required to prepare annual accounts under the provisions of Section 396 of the 2006 Act and The Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 (as may be amended or replaced from time to time) other than the requirement to have an audit report prepared. Also this bit is important Quote 16.6 The League shall have the powers set out in Regulation 16.7 if: 16.6.1 the Club has failed to submit to The League the Annual Accounts as required by Regulation 16.2; 16.6.2 the Club has failed to submit to The League Annual Accounts for the Group where requested by The League in accordance with Regulation 16.4; and/or 16.6.3 the Club has failed to submit to The League any additional information as required by Regulation 16.5, to The League’s satisfaction. 16.7 The powers referred to in Regulation 16.6 are: 16.7.1 to require the Club to provide such further information as The League shall determine and for such period as it shall determine; and 16.7.2 subject the Club to a registration embargo such that it shall not be permitted to register any Player with that Club without the prior written consent of The League until such time as the breach identified by Regulation 16.6 has been rectified in its entirety to The League’s satisfaction. So they should have seen them in their entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 So the change of title means nothing then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: So the change of title means nothing then... Just updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 33 minutes ago, CBRammette said: It probably comes down to the disclosure notes in the accounts and whether there was enough detail for the EFL to pick up an issue and query it. If a unusual but acceptable accounting policy was used the notes should have been cleverly drafted to argue the position was fully disclosed even if a moron reviewing them at the EFL didnt pick up. However, an accountant will have signed off the accounts as everyone states on here. From the 2016 accounts, when the policy changed Quote Amortisation and residual values on intangible assets Intangible assets are amortised on a straight line basis over their useful life after consideration of their residual values. Those intangible assets capitalised in relation to amounts paid to third parties for players' registrations, EFL levies, agents' commissions and compensation are allocated a residual value and amortised over the life of the asset down to the residual value. This value will be reviewed continuously for its appropriateness and any indications the value might be impaired. The directors believe that the current residual values are appropriate based on market values. It was a change that was picked up very quickly by posters on here. From the 2017 accounts Quote Intangible assets Player registrations, levies and associated costs The costs associated with acquiring players' registration, inclusive of EFL levies, or extending their contracts, including agent fees, are capitalised and amortised over the period of the respective players' contracts after consideration of the residual values. When a contract is renegotiated, the unamortised costs, together with the new costs relating to the contract extension, are amortised over the term of the new contract. Residual values are reviewed by the board on an ongoing basis over the course of the season by reference to active market values. Under the conditions of certain transfer agreements, further fees may become payable in the event of players or the Company achieving specified outcomes. Costs are capitalised at the date of achievement with any future costs considered to be contingent liabilities. The profit or loss on sale of players' registrations represents the proceeds of sale less the net book value of the registration, levy and associated costs. The Company undertakes annual impairment reviews for player registrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 48 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said: I have no idea what DCFC have to produce to the EFL, but I have a limited company and all I have to produce is a P&L account and a balance sheet for the company. it doesn't go into the ins and outs of my business so if I accounted for my assets in a way that was inconsistent with general accounting standards HMRC and Companies House would not know. The accounts are signed off by a qualified accountant so they should be right others wise the accountant (if the error was found out) would be in deep dodo. So signing off high level accounts by the EFL would not suffice for a defence. If DCFC spoke to them about it or produce or had their full accounts scrutinised by the EFL then that is a different story. I am not an accountant so I would love to hear the views from one Derby file full accounts as they are a large company, you can see them on Companies House, they show a lot more than your company will have to disclose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuitYourJibbaJivin Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: Where has this been said? This would be down to the auditors up Companies House, unless the EFL have to decided to branch out following their successful move into commercial property valuation. As far as I can see, DCFC have used fair value for valuing some of their assets (how they have been calculated I do not know) and the auditors have reported that this is a suitable accounting policy. I've seen a few people suggest that the amortisation policy is dodgy, because they think we're having players leaving on a free when they still have a book-value. But I don't think any of the people I've seen talking about it actually know how our policy works, so they're just guessing based off hearsay of how other people think it works. I don't think the actual policy is published in detail anywhere, is it? I don't think it's actually explained in the accounts or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 37 minutes ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said: I wonder if this means our charge will just keep rumbling on now until Sheff Wednesdays appeal is done with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.