EFL appeal

[Reggie Greenwood]

11 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

Looking at the replies to that everyone wants us down. 

Who cares about what other fans think ?? I never have in 50 odd years supporting the Rams .

[RandomAccessMemory]

Probably been posted before but the below quote is from the original decision document. It makes sense that we haven’t filed any accounts since the ones under scrutiny because their claim was that we breached the rules just by filing the accounts with the ERV method of amortisation, as opposed to straight line amortisation. Had we submitted accounts for 2018/19 and 2019/20 and continued to use that method, and they won their appeal, as appears to be the case, we would likely also be in further trouble for that.

It also doesn’t mention breaching spending limits as a part of this charge, it was part of the first charge which we won and they didn’t appeal, so I’d have thought that would have to be a new charge, if we have breached the £39m limit on submission of restated accounts, a new decision panel, and surely therefore the ability to appeal any decision?

Quote

11) The Second Charge relates to the approach to amortisation of the capitalised costs of player registrations adopted by the Club in its financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018. In essence the EFL contends:
a) That the approach to amortisation of capitalised costs of player registrations adopted by the Club
in those financial statements did not comply with FRS 102;
b) That as a result, 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
c) That the consequent submission by the Club of non-compliant Annual Accounts for those years
placed the Club in breach of the P&S Rules.

@Ghost of Clough has already mentioned, when you alter the amortisation, it may also alter the profit made on certain players. Off the top of my head this might affect the transfers of Ince, Vydra and Weimann, the first 2 could be quite a significant profit difference if their ERV at time of sale was high in the accounts submitted. I don’t know if Kieran Maguire has factored this into his figures.

The original forecast losses mentioned for the accounts not yet submitted in the decision document would also change. Partly because if players weren’t able to be sold for their ERV, then the difference between the ERV and zero was to be amortised in the final year, where with the straight line method this would be much smaller in that final year. Partly because it depends whether we were carrying on with the ERV method of amortisation for the players acquired after 2017/18, if yes, then their amortisation would have been low in the early years, if not, then it would be higher anyway.

Another thing, if we have gone over for any of the years between 2015/16 and 2017/18, once punishment is handed out, those years should be reset to the maximum for each year over the limit shouldn’t they? So £13m max for each one, I think that’s what happened before with Birmingham, so you’re not punished for that same year being over the limit twice, as it is included in every set of 3 years (now 4 with covid counting 2019/20 and 2020/21 as one) whether it is year 1, 2 or 3.

[StarterForTen]

Parachute payments skew the viability of the entire Football League structure and are at the core of all of the problems within the EFL right now. Championship clubs stretch themselves to offer playing budgets to compete with the recently relegated PL cohort which pushes up the average earnings of the players in the division and, in turn pushes up the demands of those playing in the divisions below causing the entire pyramid to totter in the 99th percentile of viability.

But what is the other option? To close off the Premier League and allow them to eat themselves? It would bring back sporting integrity to the EFL, but no-one would vote for capping ambition.

[Robert Earnshaws Workrate]

I'm just glad the 30 minutes he put his arse in gear as a player this season was worth all this hassle.

[Eddie]

39 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

I expect the worse and will then be pleasantly surprised if it is not  that bad.

When conclusión  is confirmed on the official site or by the BBC, then I will consider my next steps. ?

"Plan for the worst, hope for the best" - Jack Reacher.

Has anyone got a couple of Glocks, a hunting knife and a thermonuclear device handy? I'm sure we can sort this out.

[NottsRam77]

7 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Probably been posted before but the below quote is from the original decision document. It makes sense that we haven’t filed any accounts since the ones under scrutiny because their claim was that we breached the rules just by filing the accounts with the ERV method of amortisation, as opposed to straight line amortisation. Had we submitted accounts for 2018/19 and 2019/20 and continued to use that method, and they won their appeal, as appears to be the case, we would likely also be in further trouble for that.

It also doesn’t mention breaching spending limits as a part of this charge, it was part of the first charge which we won and they didn’t appeal, so I’d have thought that would have to be a new charge, if we have breached the £39m limit on submission of restated accounts, a new decision panel, and surely therefore the ability to appeal any decision?

@Ghost of Clough has already mentioned, when you alter the amortisation, it may also alter the profit made on certain players. Off the top of my head this might affect the transfers of Ince, Vydra and Weimann, the first 2 could be quite a significant profit difference if their ERV at time of sale was high in the accounts submitted. I don’t know if Kieran Maguire has factored this into his figures.

The original forecast losses mentioned for the accounts not yet submitted in the decision document would also change. Partly because if players weren’t able to be sold for their ERV, then the difference between the ERV and zero was to be amortised in the final year, where with the straight line method this would be much smaller in that final year. Partly because it depends whether we were carrying on with the ERV method of amortisation for the players acquired after 2017/18, if yes, then their amortisation would have been low in the early years, if not, then it would be higher anyway.

Another thing, if we have gone over for any of the years between 2015/16 and 2017/18, once punishment is handed out, those years should be reset to the maximum for each year over the limit shouldn’t they? So £13m max for each one, I think that’s what happened before with Birmingham, so you’re not punished for that same year being over the limit twice, as it is included in every set of 3 years (now 4 with covid counting 2019/20 and 2020/21 as one) whether it is year 1, 2 or 3.

So is this good or bad 

 

totally lost with it all now 

[Jimbo Ram]

4 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

So is this good or bad 

 

totally lost with it all now 

We look as lost off the field as we do on it, what a wonderful combination.....

[Woodley Ram]

19 minutes ago, Eddie said:

"Plan for the worst, hope for the best" - Jack Reacher.

Has anyone got a couple of Glocks, a hunting knife and a thermonuclear device handy? I'm sure we can sort this out.

yes, I will meet you at the normal place, bring cash and make sure you are not followed ......................................................................lol

[Barney1991]

1 minute ago, Woodley Ram said:

yes, I will meet you at the normal place, bring cash and make sure you are not followed ......................................................................lol

I’ve got a silencer but no gun can I come along I’ll be as quiet as a mouse. Can I borrow one off you. We could all go on cod and select 6 attachments and then get too it. I’ll have Rick parry 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Cant see that this would have any real major impact to the figures. £2m or £3m at most. There werent many players that had their contracts extended were there?

Youre right on that. I can only recall Keogh, Russell, Forsyth, Roos and Thorne. So very little difference at all.

The other factor is the change in player profits. We would have seen more for Weimann, Ince, Shotton, Albentosa, Christie, Dawkins and Russell (and Vydra?)

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

short extensions for Johnson, Blackman and Butterfield

Supposedly extended towards the end of 18/19, so not relevant to this period

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

With one large summer spend? £30m spend, say over 4 years = £7.5m per year or £22.5m over 3 years.

So that moved us from £30m to £55.5m...still £23.5m short.

Admin expenses (whatever they are) mat have hit £20m one year, with £10m being the norm iirc

[Carnero]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Admin expenses (whatever they are) mat have hit £20m one year, with £10m being the norm iirc

Yeah but we obviously have to add back on sales of players such as Hendrick, Hughes, etc.

Something doesn't add up.

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, Barney1991 said:

Sky saying the punishment likely to be points deduction and transfer embargo. Surely can’t be both as no other clubs have had this. Surely it has to be either fine, points deduction or embargo 

When it was FFP, failing it meant an automatic embargo alongside other potential penalties. The embargo was lifted once a club could show that it was now FFP compliant. 

[RandomAccessMemory]

42 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

So is this good or bad 

 

totally lost with it all now 

It’s difficult to know whether it’s good or bad in relation to each 3 year period, as we don’t know 1. what a player was actually bought/sold for (not including any add ons that you never pay/receive), and 2. what ERV’s have been given to who and when.

I think you can relatively safely suggest that every player will have a somewhat higher (than the straight line value last year norm) ERV given to them at the start, although it may be not too different for the older ones, as you’d expect a player to come in, do well and keep their value (dependent on their age at the time of purchase) otherwise why buy them. But when this changes with injuries/form, it’s difficult to calculate how much difference it has made.

Over the course of a contract or until a sale (generally 3-5 years + extensions) there is zero difference in the amount accounted for as we still have to account for it all at some point, it’s just back loading the amounts, rather than spreading them out equally.

As I understand it, any profit made from a sale firstly cancels out what is left to amortise and then what’s left after that is the profit, so when you back load with an ERV and it equals a higher value on the books it equals less profit on the books.

£4m player on a 4 year contract, sold for £4m at the beginning of Year 4.

Straight line basis:

Year 1 £1m

Year 2 £1m

Year 3 £1m

Year 4 £1m

Profit = £3m

ERV of £3m given at the start:

Year 1 £333k

Year 2 £333k

Year 3 £333k

Year 4 £3m

Profit = £1m

[Animal is a Ram]

I'm getting to the point where I just want it done.

It's been 8 months since the EFL appealed. 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

6 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

When it was FFP, failing it meant an automatic embargo alongside other potential penalties. The embargo was lifted once a club could show that it was now FFP compliant. 

They can back date our embargo over the last year, and we should be arguing that we have already lost points due to being unable to conduct transfer windows properly thanks to the EFL's 18 months of sheer incompetence dragging us through this process.

Edited May 11, 2021 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

[Reggie Greenwood]

Pretty sure @RoyMac5 found hidden at the bottom of one of the Daily Fail articles that " sources say we may only get a fine for breach of accountancy practises" backtracking on all the hyperbole in the headlines .

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

It’s difficult to know whether it’s good or bad in relation to each 3 year period, as we don’t know 1. what a player was actually bought/sold for (not including any add ons that you never pay/receive), and 2. what ERV’s have been given to who and when.

I think you can relatively safely suggest that every player will have a somewhat higher (than the straight line value last year norm) ERV given to them at the start, although it may be not too different for the older ones, as you’d expect a player to come in, do well and keep their value (dependent on their age at the time of purchase) otherwise why buy them. But when this changes with injuries/form, it’s difficult to calculate how much difference it has made.

Over the course of a contract or until a sale (generally 3-5 years + extensions) there is zero difference in the amount accounted for as we still have to account for it all at some point, it’s just back loading the amounts, rather than spreading them out equally.

As I understand it, any profit made from a sale firstly cancels out what is left to amortise and then what’s left after that is the profit, so when you back load with an ERV and it equals a higher value on the books it equals less profit on the books.

£4m player on a 4 year contract, sold for £4m at the beginning of Year 4.

Straight line basis:

Year 1 £1m

Year 2 £1m

Year 3 £1m

Year 4 £1m

net gain = £3m

ERV of £3m given at the start:

Year 1 £333k

Year 2 £333k

Year 3 £333k

Year 4 £3m

Profit = £1m

good one

 

[Ghost of Clough]

19 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Yeah but we obviously have to add back on sales of players such as Hendrick, Hughes, etc.

Something doesn't add up.

15/16

Turnover = £23m

Player Profit = £9m

Admin Expenses = £15m

Amortisation = £3m

Operating Costs = £37m

 

16/17

Turnover = £25m

Player Profit = £7m

Admin Expenses = £10m

Amortisation = £4m

Operating Costs = £37m

 

17/18

Turnover = £29m

Player (and Manager) Profit = £6m

Admin Expenses = £17m

Amortisation = £7m

Operating Costs = £53m