EFL appeal

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:

Not true. They can easily appoint their own valuation team and act on their findings if they differ. The true value is the ground it sits on. Who would buy a 2 nd hand football ground???? It’s only worth for a potential buyer is to knock it down and construct retail/offices or flats. The first 2 have zero demand, so flats it is. Probably around 5-10 million quid tops 

Not true we had a valuation provided by a competent international firm.  Undoubted.  That’s why they haven’t appealed.  I think there have been other values since that support the professional value

[Indy]

33 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

We're under an embargo for not submitting our accounts anyway, so it's pretty academic at this point.

Forgot about that. Did we think that the reason we hadn’t submitted was because we were waiting for the appeal to conclude and determine if they expected us to change amortisation policy (rather than just clarify the system we use more fully) and then amend figures accordingly? 

[Wolfie20]

14 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:

Not true. They can easily appoint their own valuation team and act on their findings if they differ. The true value is the ground it sits on. Who would buy a 2 nd hand football ground???? It’s only worth for a potential buyer is to knock it down and construct retail/offices or flats. The first 2 have zero demand, so flats it is. Probably around 5-10 million quid tops 

My understanding is that the EFL has already stated their appeal is in relation to the second charge i.e. the format in which the accounts were submitted. If they decided to re-visit the issue 're the sale of PP and challenged the actual valuation they would be questioning the competency of a heavyweight company with plenty of financial clout to bounce them into then out of court. As stupid and myopic as the EFL are, I doubt even they would consider going down this route - we've already witnessed the furore their last legal bill caused amongst the majority of the member clubs of the Football League.

[Reggie Greenwood]

14 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

My understanding is that the EFL has already stated their appeal is in relation to the second charge i.e. the format in which the accounts were submitted. If they decided to re-visit the issue 're the sale of PP and challenged the actual valuation they would be questioning the competency of a heavyweight company with plenty of financial clout to bounce them into then out of court. As stupid and myopic as the EFL are, I doubt even they would consider going down this route - we've already witnessed the furore their last legal bill caused amongst the majority of the member clubs of the Football League.

Not to mention that they did appoint a valuation “ expert” who had no experience valuing stadia , didn’t bother to visit or survey PP ( think his mate drove by ) and compared PP with Morecambe and MK Cuckoos grounds ? , as you say Wolfie they would be laughed out of court by the company DCFC used. 

[1967RAMS]

12 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

My understanding is that the EFL has already stated their appeal is in relation to the second charge i.e. the format in which the accounts were submitted. If they decided to re-visit the issue 're the sale of PP and challenged the actual valuation they would be questioning the competency of a heavyweight company with plenty of financial clout to bounce them into then out of court. As stupid and myopic as the EFL are, I doubt even they would consider going down this route - we've already witnessed the furore their last legal bill caused amongst the majority of the member clubs of the Football League.

I don’t expect they will either I just suggested they could. Certain owners of other EFL clubs, may even finance it. But doubt that too. When the arbitrators of the rules are the rule makers themselves, I just don’t think we can be certain it won’t happen 

[Reggie Greenwood]

Just now, 1967RAMS said:

I don’t expect they will either I just suggested they could. Certain owners of other EFL clubs, may even finance it. But doubt that too. When the arbitrators of the rules are the rule makers themselves, I just don’t think we can be certain it won’t happen 

Other clubs owner ( Gibson ) tried. He was told its not allowed. They can have no input. 

[CornwallRam]

38 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

My understanding is that the EFL has already stated their appeal is in relation to the second charge i.e. the format in which the accounts were submitted. If they decided to re-visit the issue 're the sale of PP and challenged the actual valuation they would be questioning the competency of a heavyweight company with plenty of financial clout to bounce them into then out of court. As stupid and myopic as the EFL are, I doubt even they would consider going down this route - we've already witnessed the furore their last legal bill caused amongst the majority of the member clubs of the Football League.

The problem with that argument is that they already have challenged the independent valuation. OK, they ended up looking stupid because their expert effectively argued that you can best value Pride Park by comparing it to the cost of buying 36,000 seats from IKEA and a 70 inch TV from Currys. Nevertheless, the EFL still challenged the competency of that particular heavyweight company. 

OK, I doubt they'll do it again because they will fear losing, rather than out of fear of a lawsuit for defamation. 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, 1967RAMS said:

The true value is the ground it sits on

Surely the true value is mostly based on the npv of the cashflows it generates as a stadium. Not least because it’s subject to a lease for God knows how many years.
One problem incidentally with the complex web MM has woven is that the stadium  lease rental appears to be at an undervalue which may be an issue the EFL has got its teeth into - the stadium co is a related entity and so the rental should be in arms length terms for FFP purposes 

[Rev]

29 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Surely the true value is mostly based on the npv of the cashflows it generates as a stadium. Not least because it’s subject to a lease for God knows how many years.
One problem incidentally with the complex web MM has woven is that the stadium  lease rental appears to be at an undervalue which may be an issue the EFL has got its teeth into - the stadium co is a related entity and so the rental should be in arms length terms for FFP purposes 

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the rental value was arrived at by working out the cost of annual rent, dividing that by 365, then charging the club for the days they'd actually use it.

 

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, 1967RAMS said:

Not true. They can easily appoint their own valuation team and act on their findings if they differ. The true value is the ground it sits on. Who would buy a 2 nd hand football ground???? It’s only worth for a potential buyer is to knock it down and construct retail/offices or flats. The first 2 have zero demand, so flats it is. Probably around 5-10 million quid tops 

It was valued on an exisiting use basis.

Nothing wrong with that. 

[Sparkle]

My take on the appeal is that it is all about legal fees - the EFL wants a ‘win’ of any kind because the costs were reported to be about £50,000 to each club in the league - EFL  ( or maybe the championship) so that the clubs don’t have to pay that. 
 

whilst a recalculation might be taking place we still need to put our accounts in to the taxman which is the most concerning aspect 

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Sorry, said this before. Still worried about this despite all the posts saying the efl does not have a leg to stand on. EFL’s view may be: the disclosure of change in policy was inadequate. And we think it was inadequate because the club didn’t want us to focus on the change because the club didn’t want us to challenge it. The harsh interpretation is that the accounts were intentionally misleading because they underplayed the change in policy.  
 

Also, the suggestion in the Sun that the EFL has decided to delay publication of the judgement/sanction until after season’s end has a ring of truth about it. I think it’s what they did w Wendies last season 

The fact that quite a few on here understood the change in policy and its implications, but the EFL supposedly didnt, tells you all you need to know about that outfit.

[Sparkle]

4 hours ago, Indy said:

I think it should be made public if the EFL’s appeal means we are under a soft transfer embargo. If so, then that risks torpedoing our preparations regardless of the outcome of the appeal anyway. 

Reading football club are about to get clobbered over FFP but there are about 10 clubs sat under a soft embargo currently it seems, the league is in a mess  

[Sparkle]

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Sorry, said this before. Still worried about this despite all the posts saying the efl does not have a leg to stand on. EFL’s view may be: the disclosure of change in policy was inadequate. And we think it was inadequate because the club didn’t want us to focus on the change because the club didn’t want us to challenge it. The harsh interpretation is that the accounts were intentionally misleading because they underplayed the change in policy.  
 

Also, the suggestion in the Sun that the EFL has decided to delay publication of the judgement/sanction until after season’s end has a ring of truth about it. I think it’s what they did w Wendies last season 

If the EFL request the financial records they get them and they should read them but it’s not the responsibility of every club to explain a lawful transaction in detail after three years of the EFL sitting on the information 

in terms of future sanctions that’s always possible because no one knows the true position of our finances because they haven’t been published for whatever reason. Like many clubs we could be playing in a mini league of points deducted teams which could be about 6 clubs over the season.

[DCFC1388]

If the EFL win this appeal then all it means is that they can sign off & say yes to EFL clubs but in a few years time change their mind and fine them or maybe even take points off them

[kevinhectoring]

56 minutes ago, Rev said:

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the rental value was arrived at by working out the cost of annual rent, dividing that by 365, then charging the club for the days they'd actually use it.

 

That rings a bell. But it makes commercial sense only if third parties are paying for alternative use whenever the club is not there.  
 

[B4ev6is]

Well I say we help Derby county if the efl want a fight us the fans will protest against efl and bring media into play.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

I have just watched highlights of the Sky Sports coverage from the game yesterday. Straight after the final whistle the commentator says of Derby "there may be bleak news on the horizon in other respects, but their main task of stopping in this division has been achieved"

What bleak news is he on about? Sounds like he knows something we dont.

[Shipley Ram]

19 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

What bleak news is he on about? Sounds like he knows something we dont.

At the time I thought he was talking about the takeover issues, but this and all the twitter talk is making me paraniod and I'm starting to think we are getting a FFP ducking and everyone knows apart from the fans.

[rammieib]

26 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

I have just watched highlights of the Sky Sports coverage from the game yesterday. Straight after the final whistle the commentator says of Derby "there may be bleak news on the horizon in other respects, but their main task of stopping in this division has been achieved"

What bleak news is he on about? Sounds like he knows something we dont.

I don't believe any commentator is in the know. Just a generic comment given everything thats happening.