Abu Derby County

[RoyMac5]

11 minutes ago, ossieram said:

All of us.

Mel told us he was looking for a buyer or investor. since then we were told about Derventio Holdings offer to buy the club. We have now had another statement saying the deal is still on.

What more do you need to know?

The little they told us suggested it'd be done by now. Who gives a damn though.

[G STAR RAM]

9 hours ago, wollatonram said:

This is always said but not sure I believe it. We are in a terrible position, a club bleeding money, he has no future here and an offer is on the table - he is going to take it whether it's the Queen or Del Boy.

Money is money

Can you give us an update on the finances please?

How much money are we bleeding?

[Mafiabob]

Last post for a while..... enjoy your Christmas all ??

[Boycie]

4 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

Last post for a while..... enjoy your Christmas all ??

Come on mate, no need for a text book flounce. ?

[Mucker1884]

48 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I’ll do the original one if you’d rather. I thought a profile pic was worse to be honest as that’s what stands out more, but hey, it doesn’t matter either way up. This takeover will not happen. Fact.

What "I'd rather" is by the by.  It matters not to me, other than allowing me an opportunity to poke my nose in and agitate some poo.

What matters, is that you can sleep at night, with a clear conscience.  As long as you sleep soundly, and keep yourself at the peak of well being, then whether you change your username and/or your profile pic will have no bearing on my feelings.

... Or you could go with a chest-w**king L**ds tattoo... Now that, I would happily donate towards!  ?

 

??  

[Millenniumram]

3 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

What "I'd rather" is by the by.  It matters not to me, other than allowing me an opportunity to poke my nose in and agitate some poo.

What matters, is that you can sleep at night, with a clear conscience.  As long as you sleep soundly, and keep yourself at the peak of well being, then whether you change your username and/or your profile pic will have no bearing on my feelings.

... Or you could go with a chest-w**king L**ds tattoo... Now that, I would happily donate towards!  ?

 

??  

Now even I wouldn’t go that far?

[Millenniumram]

13 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

Last post for a while..... enjoy your Christmas all ??

Curtains, is that you?

[wollatonram]

1 hour ago, Mafiabob said:

Last post for a while..... enjoy your Christmas all ??

merry christmas bob, have a good one

[MuespachRam]

6 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

I can't say I'm totally bored, but I might wash my hair tonight.

Wash your hair...?? Give It up brother, I haven’t washed mine all year, it’s great. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, Boycie said:

Come on mate, no need for a text book flounce. ?

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, wollatonram said:

merry christmas bob, have a good one

Cratchit?

Ask him how Tiny Tim is.

[Ibby]

[kevinhectoring]

On 11/12/2020 at 22:28, Van der MoodHoover said:

FRS are not "law" they are regulatory standards set by the Financial Reporting Council who amend, refine and police them. Any shortfall against them is subject to their procedures rather than being a breach of the law as such. 

 

On 11/12/2020 at 22:31, Rev said:

I'll look at it in depth tomorrow,but as I understand it we changed our policy to better reflect the requirements of the new accounting regs, and didn't make that totally clear in our annual reports.

hi both   In the end I did have a quick look at this. The accounting SIs issued under the companies act are a nightmare. But I noticed that the EFL charge that was upheld was this, below. So it does in fact seem to have been decided that the accounts contravened the CA. I can see why Sheffield Wednesday fans (and others) are agitated 

...the ‘Annual Accounts’ submitted by the Club for those years were not (as is required by the P&S Rules) ‘prepared … in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of [the Companies Act 2006]’, and

[Van der MoodHoover]

4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

 

hi both   In the end I did have a quick look at this. The accounting SIs issued under the companies act are a nightmare. But I noticed that the EFL charge that was upheld was this, below. So it does in fact seem to have been decided that the accounts contravened the CA. I can see why Sheffield Wednesday fans (and others) are agitated 

...the ‘Annual Accounts’ submitted by the Club for those years were not (as is required by the P&S Rules) ‘prepared … in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of [the Companies Act 2006]’, and

That's  interesting. As a member of a professionally regulated institution myself (regulated by the frc as well) only they, as the regulator have the authority to determine whether you have broken their regulation...

So it seemed odd to have a different regulator (the efl) who doesn't have jurisdiction over those regulations determining whether you've broken them. 

In theory, the efl should raise a complaint to the FRC and they investigate and make a ruling on the accounting aspect. 

[G STAR RAM]

6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

 

hi both   In the end I did have a quick look at this. The accounting SIs issued under the companies act are a nightmare. But I noticed that the EFL charge that was upheld was this, below. So it does in fact seem to have been decided that the accounts contravened the CA. I can see why Sheffield Wednesday fans (and others) are agitated 

...the ‘Annual Accounts’ submitted by the Club for those years were not (as is required by the P&S Rules) ‘prepared … in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of [the Companies Act 2006]’, and

I'd love to know in what capacity the EFL have decided our accounts are not in accordance with the Companies Act.

That is both a professional valuer and auditors that they seem to think they have more knowledge than in this case.

Maybe if they were competent in their own field of running the football league their opinion would carry some weight, unfortunately they are not.

Perhaps they should spend more of their time concentrating on getting their own job right before telling professional bodies how to do their job.

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'd love to know in what capacity the EFL have decided our accounts are not in accordance with the Companies Act.

That is both a professional valuer and auditors that they seem to think they have more knowledge than in this case.

Maybe if they were competent in their own field of running the football league their opinion would carry some weight, unfortunately they are not.

Perhaps they should spend more of their time concentrating on getting their own job right before telling professional bodies how to do their job.

Not really followed the EFL stuff that closely but would that comment not have come from the people who did the independent appeal? What is their expertise is more the question.

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Not really followed the EFL stuff that closely but would that comment not have come from the people who did the independent appeal? What is their expertise is more the question.

Yeah fair comment, although I don't believe the IDC had any accountant/auditor on it.

Point stands re them questioning the ground valuation though.

[Angry Ram]

26 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yeah fair comment, although I don't believe the IDC had any accountant/auditor on it.

Point stands re them questioning the ground valuation though.

Nothing would surprise me but you would think that would have been a prerequisite for being on the panel. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'd love to know in what capacity the EFL have decided our accounts are not in accordance with the Companies Act.

That is both a professional valuer and auditors that they seem to think they have more knowledge than in this case.

Maybe if they were competent in their own field of running the football league their opinion would carry some weight, unfortunately they are not.

Perhaps they should spend more of their time concentrating on getting their own job right before telling professional bodies how to do their job.

There's an obvious and easy defence for dcfc in that the accounts were signed off by an auditor as complying. Therefore it becomes a difference in professional view which should be referred to the FRC for a ruling.

Only once you have the ruling should you be able to make any claims about the accounts. Otherwise its just someone's opinion. 

[Rab a dab doo]

Surely this ruling would have been the next obvious step to take this matter to for a 'final and ultimate' resolution at the time when the case was being heard. 

Why leave all these ambiguous loopholes and rights to challenge.

The decision is either a final and absolute or the hearing has made not resolved the matter nor made a binding outcome.

So the layman (such as myself) could say its all been an expensive talking shop and waste of time,energy and money.