Abu Derby County

[hintonsboots]

When is the EFL appeal?

[rynny]

3 hours ago, WoollyJumper said:

Sorry to be such a bore.

Got your joke and just felt compelled to add one of my own.

Was never meant as a slight on yours.

Very sorry if it has come across the wrong way.

Don't worry about offending him, all the moderators tell him his jokes are poo, he is used to it now. 

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It won't make a difference. We were only guilty of not stating the amortisation policy in the accounts (and being a bit sneaky about it to the EFL). We didn't fail P&S, so no points deduction. Worst case is likely to be a fine, resulting in opposition fans thinking we got a fine for failing P&S instead.

Sorry GOC, but that's just not the case.

If that were true there'd be no appeal, as we've already been found guilty of failing to correctly state the policy clearly enough. The EFL are appealing the entire amortisation charge.

If found guilty we could be found to have failed P&S, depending on what the new figures look like. Of course, even if found guilty we could still pass as the stadium sale proceeds are still counted. Personally, I think that will be the case, but it's not possible to rule out a points deduction at this time without access to the full accounts and the raw data on the amortisation values.

[66DegreesNorth]

10 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Sorry GOC, but that's just not the case.

If that were true there'd be no appeal, as we've already been found guilty of failing to correctly state the policy clearly enough. The EFL are appealing the entire amortisation charge.

If found guilty we could be found to have failed P&S, depending on what the new figures look like. Of course, even if found guilty we could still pass as the stadium sale proceeds are still counted. Personally, I think that will be the case, but it's not possible to rule out a points deduction at this time without access to the full accounts and the raw data on the amortisation values.

Derby were not found guilty of anything, the committee did say the wording could have been clearer, but there was no guilty verdict of anything.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53907883

[CornwallRam]

9 minutes ago, 66DegreesNorth said:

Derby were not found guilty of anything, the committee did say the wording could have been clearer, but there was no guilty verdict of anything.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53907883

That's slightly misleading reporting. Here's that actual judgement:

e) The fifth Particular of the Second Charge is proven on the basis that, following the change to the Club’s approach to amortisation of the capitalised costs of player registrations at the end of the financial year ended 30 June 2015, the Club’s annual financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 failed to adequately disclose those changes to its accounting policies and/or estimates as required by section 10 of FRS 102.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/media/get/EFL Derby County Decision Document.pdf

Thus, we were indeed found guilty of that particular part of the charge.

[Ghost of Clough]

27 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Sorry GOC, but that's just not the case.

If that were true there'd be no appeal, as we've already been found guilty of failing to correctly state the policy clearly enough. The EFL are appealing the entire amortisation charge.

If found guilty we could be found to have failed P&S, depending on what the new figures look like. Of course, even if found guilty we could still pass as the stadium sale proceeds are still counted. Personally, I think that will be the case, but it's not possible to rule out a points deduction at this time without access to the full accounts and the raw data on the amortisation values.

If the EFL successfully appeal that would result in about a £15m swing in net amortisation/profit. Our P&S for the 3 years to 2018 gave us a £17.5m margin against the limit. It means we'll be close, but it's more than enough to cover for my own margin of error on the amortisation.

The knock on effect means we would fail the period running to 2019 but only by a small amount. This would have to go through as a new charge for failing P&S as it is a separate period to the one currently going through the appeal.

In my opinion, the realistic worst case scenario is a fine for not disclosing the policy adequately enough in the accounts.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If the EFL successfully appeal that would result in about a £15m swing in net amortisation/profit. Our P&S for the 3 years to 2018 gave us a £17.5m margin against the limit. It means we'll be close, but it's more than enough to cover for my own margin of error on the amortisation.

The knock on effect means we would fail the period running to 2019 but only by a small amount. This would have to go through as a new charge for failing P&S as it is a separate period to the one currently going through the appeal.

In my opinion, the realistic worst case scenario is a fine for not disclosing the policy adequately enough in the accounts.

I think the worse case scenario would be for the EFL to raise another charge or appeal against as after this one, leaving us in a never ending period of uncertainty.

[Mucker1884]

1 hour ago, Van Rammeister said:

Likely to be disappointed then-

When I checked admittedly online, a couple of days ago, there was only size - 4XL available.

 

Don't worry buddy.  Larger ones should be back in next week.   ?

[CornwallRam]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If the EFL successfully appeal that would result in about a £15m swing in net amortisation/profit. Our P&S for the 3 years to 2018 gave us a £17.5m margin against the limit. It means we'll be close, but it's more than enough to cover for my own margin of error on the amortisation.

The knock on effect means we would fail the period running to 2019 but only by a small amount. This would have to go through as a new charge for failing P&S as it is a separate period to the one currently going through the appeal.

In my opinion, the realistic worst case scenario is a fine for not disclosing the policy adequately enough in the accounts.

That's fair enough - I hope you're correct on the figures.

If we had to redo our accounts using straight line amortisation, wouldn't that make our current situation better?

[66DegreesNorth]

15 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

That's slightly misleading reporting. Here's that actual judgement:

e) The fifth Particular of the Second Charge is proven on the basis that, following the change to the Club’s approach to amortisation of the capitalised costs of player registrations at the end of the financial year ended 30 June 2015, the Club’s annual financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 failed to adequately disclose those changes to its accounting policies and/or estimates as required by section 10 of FRS 102.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/media/get/EFL Derby County Decision Document.pdf

Thus, we were indeed found guilty of that particular part of the charge.

I understand it to mean that Derby did not comply to the fifth particular of the second charge. 'Guilty' will only be referred to the charge as a whole and not just the fifth element of the charge.

Horses for courses really. Thank you for the pdf doc, it's a good insight ?

[May Contain Nuts]

On 09/12/2020 at 16:55, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

How do you know Mel, or whoever it was that told Rooney, hasn't got a clue? I doubt he's deliberately stringing him along.

"or worse you know it'll be another few weeks but keep giving out messages that it's right around the corner" I didn't say that he definitely doesn't know anything.

...but isn't it obvious?

Do you honestly believe that on Friday 27th November when Rooney said it was "days away" (14 and counting) and on Monday 30th November when he said  "I'm hoping in the next 24 - 48 hours there will be a completion" that everybody above him was fully confident in the whole thing being sorted out in that time frame?

It doesn't really matter whether it's the Sheik, his representatives, Michael Dell, Mel Morris or Rooney himself providing the info, if it doesn't transpire then you've lead someone on, whether you meant to or not.

This is a deal 7-8 months in the making, there really shouldn't be any major surprises at this stage, especially once you start cascading the message down that it could all be done in 48 hours.

If you've got any doubts at all just don't say it!

Ultimately it's the fans who are being strung along

 

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

Thank god I don't understand all this accounting business. It's giving me a headache reading about it let alone working out whether we are good or bad. 

[Anag Ram]

Just now, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said:

Thank god I don't understand all this accounting business. It's giving me a headache reading about it let alone working out whether we are good or bad. 

Morning Mel. 

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

Just now, Anag Ram said:

Morning Mel. 

Stephen actually

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

maybe a clause in the agreement, 12 point penalty means agreement is null and void

Think Owen Bradley confirmed on here last weekend any hold up is nothing to do with EFL appeals.  I would assume he would know more than some one guessing elsewhere being round the club, so i'll take his word for it.

[StarterForTen]

48 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If the EFL successfully appeal that would result in about a £15m swing in net amortisation/profit. Our P&S for the 3 years to 2018 gave us a £17.5m margin against the limit. It means we'll be close, but it's more than enough to cover for my own margin of error on the amortisation.

The knock on effect means we would fail the period running to 2019 but only by a small amount. This would have to go through as a new charge for failing P&S as it is a separate period to the one currently going through the appeal.

In my opinion, the realistic worst case scenario is a fine for not disclosing the policy adequately enough in the accounts.

My understanding is that the amortisation policy in itself was not found to be in breach of acceptable protocol, just the lack of clarity in announcing the change. The EFL will struggle to overturn the decision made on the 'legality' of the policy, but could well claim a victory through a punishment for the breach of part 5 of that charge. Realistically, it is an administrative breach and should only be dealt with by a small fine.

If that is the case, surely it would be a Pyrrhic victory that does no good what so ever.

[WestKentRam]

Now the various ticket refunds are finally being processed, I wonder if this means that the takeover is more imminent than it has been. Mel will take one last financial hit on this and the new owners will have a clean slate from these old debts.

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 hour ago, StarterForTen said:

My understanding is that the amortisation policy in itself was not found to be in breach of acceptable protocol, just the lack of clarity in announcing the change. The EFL will struggle to overturn the decision made on the 'legality' of the policy, but could well claim a victory through a punishment for the breach of part 5 of that charge. Realistically, it is an administrative breach and should only be dealt with by a small fine.

If that is the case, surely it would be a Pyrrhic victory that does no good what so ever.

The same as they did with Brum to prove a point but no punishment 

[wollatonram]

we are getting closer to january.. week by week nothing coming out.

Last we heard he agreed a deal which would mean he is required to show funding, a sticking point all his previous takeover attempts have failed at.

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

The same as they did with Brum to prove a point but no punishment 

Or then they don’t have to pay all the legal fees?