Ken Tram Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 Maybe we can assume that it will be good news! If the newspapers have got wind of that, they may be trying to make hay while the sun shines - and no that trains are about to ruin the story! How positive is that! SamUltraRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ken Tram said: Maybe we can assume that it will be good news! If the newspapers have got wind of that, they may be trying to make hay while the sun shines - and no that trains are about to ruin the story! How positive is that! I'd be surprised if the EFL got nothing in their appeal, but it may be less bad than many are fearing. I do remember lots of "it's going to be devestatingly bad for Derby" noise going round newspapers before the first judgment. r_wilcockson and Ken Tram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I'd be surprised if the EFL got nothing in their appeal, but it may be less bad than many are fearing. I do remember lots of "it's going to be devestatingly bad for Derby" noise going round newspapers before the first judgment. Good memory of the first time. Glad that my positivity is but entirely without basis. I have been ignoring this issue! But seeing as the shall is imminent - and shrug it seems that I will only have to wait until tomorrow (!). Who is doing the appealing? Is the EFL appealing it's own decision? Or is it other clubs ego have appealed? What new evidence has come to light to trigger the appeal - and does that new evidence seem significant to most people on the forum who seem aware of the process? Or is not new evidence - but a claim that particular evidence or rules were not interpreted correctly - and if so, same question as above - does this request seem significant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 This is a really good explanation of what's going on in the first two or three minutes ... YouRams, mozza and Boycie 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 (edited) And, this in an introduction to player amortisation, which I'm sure that everyone else knows is that the appeal is about. I didn't fully understand it, but have a slightly better understanding than I did five minutes ago! And, the previous video suggested that exceeding a £39m loss over three years can be a six points deduction, and exceeding £54m, can be a 12 point deduction; with the number of points increasing or decreasing depending upon mitigating factors, or malicious wrong doing. The other thing that everyone else probably knows - according to the previous video - although I have seen comments on the forum about the stadium - is that we were found not guilty about the stadium transfer, and that was not part of the EFL appeal; and that it is only an appeal about the player amortisation calculation that has been appealed. How fascinating that a given set of accounts can be adjudged to have not broken the rules - and yet the same figures can be worthy of being re-evaluated - implying that there is a grey area about how the figures should be evaluated and calculated. Edited May 11, 2021 by Ken Tram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 (edited) But ... if the calculation of player amortisation has been a grey area (having been initially evaluated as not breaking the rules) ... then it would seem unreasonable of the EFL to have appealed, as opposed seeking to clarify the rules and guidance moving forwards. However, because the EFL has not done that ... unless they are annoyingly vindictive ... and simply unwilling to accept the panel's decision ... it makes me fear that the EFL are suggesting that Derby deliberately misled the first hearing. And if that is the case, that might increase the point deduction. Although, ideally, it is a vindictive appeal, and it is a genuine grey area, and easy to have misinterpreted the rules, just as the original panel did, meaning that any points deduction will be minimal. (And I guess that if I read the past 61 pages, I would find answers to that.) (I wish that there was a way to highlight key posts within a thread, especially any posts that summarise key points - so that I could easily jump to this handful of posts within the thread - maybe going to the posts with the highest number of likes, as a passive way of identifying key posts?) Some way of finding the key info without reading 60 pages!) Edited May 11, 2021 by Ken Tram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8TY Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 (edited) I love football and I love this club but when is it just going to be about football !!! You can blame players and managers and coaches for bad performances on the pitch but how the club is run is down to one person and that’s Mel .....he’s a fan and Thankyou for trying and using your own money to try and help us go forward but the fact is the mess off of the pitch with the efl etc is down to Mel ...I for one will be glad when he’s gone and that is meant with no disrespect to Mel Morris Edited May 11, 2021 by S8TY Derby_Dave, Turnstile, Chester40 and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaftesbury Street Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 What I can't get my head around is that we have knowingly pushed the rules. Submitted them, expecting them to be rejected, but they haven't and we have continued to operate that way. On that basis, they cannot retrospectively punish us. Also what we have done is not some random new way of reviewing assets, its common practice, so the notion that we have pulled the wool over their eyes is absolute tosh. Ken Tram and Indy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Just now, Shaftesbury Street said: What I can't get my head around is that we have knowingly pushed the rules. Submitted them, expecting them to be rejected, but they haven't and we have continued to operate that way. On that basis, they cannot retrospectively punish us. Also what we have done is not some random new way of reviewing assets, its common practice, so the notion that we have pulled the wool over their eyes is absolute tosh. You missed the bit where we asked then if it was acceptable before we actually submitted the P&S figure to them Carnero, Indy, Andicis and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 I just quickly skimmed through this. I should imagine those of you not using AdBlocker - yeah there will be a good few @David - must be getting banner adverts for products at least similar to these two. kevinhectoring, Ken Tram and EtoileSportiveDeDerby 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaftesbury Street Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: You missed the bit where we asked then if it was acceptable before we actually submitted the P&S figure to them You would have thought that it is the EFL's job to review and reject any dodgy P&S accounts. They didn't and consistently signed it off. So it's either negligence or they have accepted it at the time and Rick Parry has come in and decided to retrospectively take action. What we have done is wrong, but the buck stops with the EFL in my opinion. Ken Tram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 (edited) Maguire's explanation as to how he has arrived at the cited £30 million deficit based on straight line vs residual value amortisation policies... Essentially he's saying that he's used historical data. Hmmmm.... Edited May 11, 2021 by 86 Hair Islands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said: Maguier's explanation as to how he has arrived at the cited £30 million deficit based straight line vs residual value amortisation policies... Essentially he's saying that he's used historical data. Hmmmm.... Its a pretty reasonable assumption to make if the historical data shows a trend. One thing I would say though, is didn't we start handing out ridiculously long contracts of 4 years as standard procedure around this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexxxxx Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Its a pretty reasonable assumption to make if the historical data shows a trend. One thing I would say though, is didn't we start handing out ridiculously long contracts of 4 years as standard procedure around this time? Not to mention odd contract extensions... Ghost of Clough 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: You missed the bit where we asked then if it was acceptable before we actually submitted the P&S figure to them Did the P&S return/accounts actually reflect the basis of amortisn we had discussed w EFL ? I thought there was divergence (and that the Tribunal addressed that in their judgement). @spanish posted the relevant paragraph if I recall Spanish 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, alexxxxx said: Not to mention odd contract extensions... That wouldnt affect him calculating the amortisation under the old method though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 18 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said: Maguire's explanation as to how he has arrived at the cited £30 million deficit based on straight line vs residual value amortisation policies... Essentially he's saying that he's used historical data. Hmmmm.... Looks like he doesn't take into account contracts extending, spreading the amortisation charges out further Andicis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: That wouldnt affect him calculating the amortisation under the old method though. Old method does take into account contract extensions though? Even if Derby's reviews method didn't, it's still the most commonly used method in the top 2 divisions. If we weren't allowed to use our current method, we would have beenbusijg that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaftesbury Street Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Taking Kieran Maguires assumed £30m amortisation 'saved' and our published £14m profit in 17/18 can someone workout if we will still be in the £39m loss threshold? Ken Tram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtoileSportiveDeDerby Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Accountants 1 EFL 0. They are just bad losers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now