EFL appeal

[LE_Ram]

42 minutes ago, OohMartWright said:

The highlighted part beggars belief. In the absence of a prescribed amortisation model, the club, like most other companies, is obliged to follow financial reporting standards, in this case FRS102. The club's auditors, by definition qualified accountants, were clearly satisfied that they did, so how on earth can someone who is not an accountant say that they didn't. It is almost as if they deliberately chose not to have an accountant on the panel so that they could get the decision they wanted without having to let the facts get in the way of their disgusting face-saving ploy.

 

As an external auditor myself, one of our key jobs in any financial audit is ensuring that the accounting policies comply with the applicable standards (as others have mentioned, FRS102).

I personally haven't ever audited a football club, but seeing as the intangible assets are such a material part of the balance sheet I'm sure that any auditor would be massively thorough in auditing that balance (and the amortisation to go along with it).

The auditors sign off to say that the accounts are prepared in line with the applicable standards, so surely they must be. How the EFL can go back now and say that they're not is beyond me.

[Seaside Ram]

10 minutes ago, Frogram said:

Or saying " Haitch " instead of " Aitch " - aarrgghh .

My all time one !!!! 

[Jortat]

9 minutes ago, ThePrisoner said:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-do-football-players-spit-so-much/

Rooney spits constantly on the touch line so what is his excuse ? It’s just a habit that players do imo , no scientific  answer required.

[Spanish]

4 minutes ago, LE_Ram said:

As an external auditor myself, one of our key jobs in any financial audit is ensuring that the accounting policies comply with the applicable standards (as others have mentioned, FRS102).

I personally haven't ever audited a football club, but seeing as the intangible assets are such a material part of the balance sheet I'm sure that any auditor would be massively thorough in auditing that balance (and the amortisation to go along with it).

The auditors sign off to say that the accounts are prepared in line with the applicable standards, so surely they must be. How the EFL can go back now and say that they're not is beyond me.

might be a worthless victory given I can't see how the tribunal can, given they found nothing wrong, apply a penalty.  Worried that it will take months to sort out as seemingly Boro need to be consulted

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, Jortat said:

Rooney spits constantly on the touch line so what is his excuse ? It’s just a habit that players do imo , no scientific  answer required.

Because he is an uncivilies oger from a swamp that the Romans described as a "dirty pool"?

[Turnstile]

1 hour ago, GeneralRam said:

Am I right in thinking this is no where near as bad as was being reported the last couple of days?

Who knows!!!

[LE_Ram]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

might be a worthless victory given I can't see how the tribunal can, given they found nothing wrong, apply a penalty.  Worried that it will take months to sort out as seemingly Boro need to be consulted

The EFL move most things at a glacial pace, however I wouldn't put it past them that the one time they get their finger out is to screw over DCFC...

[maxjam]

 

[Spanish]

2 hours ago, GeneralRam said:

Am I right in thinking this is no where near as bad as was being reported the last couple of days?

well it may be worse given that still we don't know what the penalty will be and now have another wait to find out

[duncanjwitham]

5 minutes ago, LE_Ram said:

As an external auditor myself

No idea if this is your area of expertise but worth asking...

If I understand it, the club is saying we can give players residual values to intangible assets (i.e. players in this case) because we have an expectation (not a guarantee though) of selling them.  The EFL is saying no, you can't *guarantee* you can sell them, so you have to assume they have no residual value at all.

So surely this argument holds for any asset a company might have - you can't (outside of a pre-agreed sale or something) have any guarantee that there's someone on the other end to buy it from you.  So is it normal for companies to be able to give residual values to intangible assets they have an expectation of selling?  Are the EFL trampling over standard accounting practice or are we bending the rules?

[BucksRam]

Having read, and re-read Derby's statement I'm a bit confused as it seems, to me anyway to be somewhat conflicting; a board with no accountant implying an accountant got it wrong on a small technicality. However, that aside, the fact Derby were praised for their honesty and for providing truthful evidence at least tells me we've done everything in genuine good faith with absolutely no attempt to be deceitful or submit false or manufactured accounts.  I know ignorance is no defence of the law, but this bit alone gives me hope that if we are hit by sanctions it would be no more than a token fine to acknowledge we did get something a bit wrong, but innocently so.

If memory serves this is far, far less than the likes of Wednesday, Birmingham and others who were all found more guilty of deceit and miss-management than us.  Anything more would smack of a witch hunt and massively disproportionate vindictiveness based on what I've read. 

[Sparkle]

So then

as I have been saying for a while - this is all about legal costs which the EFL might not have to pay in full now?

I expect a fine to be given to DCFC which will be suspended for one or two years.

the most interesting thing is the fact that Middlesbrough football club appear to have been running this case and appeal process in a much more contributory way than has been previously exposed and personally I had no gripe against such a meaningless irrelevant football club but they are now a very marked card for all the other football clubs in our country.

[DCFC27]

28 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

They paid off the stadium? That is just blatantly untrue. MM paid the £15m mortgage off after taking over the club.

And despite GSE getting rid of the high earners we were still losing £9m per year, a loss that they no longer wanted to cover and they could not wait to get  rid of us.

I had no problems with GSE but its amazing seeing their tenure being praised when people were protesting against them and 'the Barker type fee' jibe was used against them on an almost daily basis.

It was a time whereby Derby stayed out of the headlines unless it was for the right reasons.

They are the type of custodians you want for your club. 
I remember the protests, but they were in the season following relegation from the premier league and maybe a little the following season. Ultimately responsible owners that built the club that Mel took over. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, DCFC27 said:

It was a time whereby Derby stayed out of the headlines unless it was for the right reasons.

They are the type of custodians you want for your club. 
I remember the protests, but they were in the season following relegation from the premier league and maybe a little the following season. Ultimately responsible owners that built the club that Mel took over. 

They were, if nothing else, implacably professional in all their dealings with DCFC. That would be appreciated right now by most. GSE + slightly better budget would've been nice and we were getting there before Mel came in.

[BucksRam]

15 minutes ago, Seaside Ram said:

My all time one !!!! 

Feel this needs a separate thread.  Ar-mond or All-mond anyone? Pri-vacy or Prai-vacy?  I could go (rant) on. Too many Americanisms in our language ?

[BaaLocks]

I've only just clicked that Trevor Birch is sat on the other side of the table on this one. Ghosts of Christmas past eh....

Edited May 11, 2021 by BaaLocks

[MrPlinkett]

I dont think what can be in doubt is the appalling way the news was leaked to the press.

[LE_Ram]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

No idea if this is your area of expertise but worth asking...

If I understand it, the club is saying we can give players residual values to intangible assets (i.e. players in this case) because we have an expectation (not a guarantee though) of selling them.  The EFL is saying no, you can't *guarantee* you can sell them, so you have to assume they have no residual value at all.

So surely this argument holds for any asset a company might have - you can't (outside of a pre-agreed sale or something) have any guarantee that there's someone on the other end to buy it from you.  So is it normal for companies to be able to give residual values to intangible assets they have an expectation of selling?  Are the EFL trampling over standard accounting practice or are we bending the rules?

You can allocate a residual value to an intangible asset under FRS102, provided that:

- There is a commitment by a third party to buy it at the end of its useful life, OR

- There is an active market for the asset, and its residual value can be determined by reference to the market, and the market will exist at the end of the asset's useful life.

 

So it looks like Derby are saying - there's clearly an active market for players, and we buy players with the expectation of selling them at the end of their contracts, so it's not fair to allocate a RV of nil because that's ultimately not representative of the true situation. But the EFL says, well at the end of the contract, the player can leave on a free, so you need to amortise down to a RV of nil.

Without looking at the detail for each player it's tough, because some players (probably someone like Jozwiak), DCFC will expect to sell before his contract is up, and so will have some sort of RV; but some like CKR will probably not be sold and should be amortised down to nil value.

There's ultimately a lot of judgment around it because the RV should be set at the amount that Derby will eventually get for the player - who knows how much we'll sell Joz for in a few years, there are so many factors. But in terms of whether it's allowable under FRS102 to allocate a non-nil residual value to an intangible, yes it is.

[Spanish]

Just now, MrPlinkett said:

I dont think what can be in doubt is the appalling way the news was leaked to the press.

what the press that were saying multi points for the season just gone.  Miles off the truth really

[JfR]

1 minute ago, BucksRam said:

If memory serves this is far, far less than the likes of Wednesday, Birmingham and others who were all found more guilty of deceit and miss-management than us.  Anything more would smack of a witch hunt and massively disproportionate vindictiveness based on what I've read. 

In Birmingham's case, they broke the P&S rules by overspending, and admitted straight away to having knowingly done so. It was a rule break that they knowingly made, but thought the punishment was worth taking. Seeing as they've not been relegated since, it seems to have been the smart call on their part.

In Wednesday's case, the biggest factor in their punishment was the timeline that decisions were made by the club. Effectively, at the time of the end of the financial window, the club believed that they had broken the spending rules. The stadium sale was actioned after the window had closed, and retroactively applied to the window. Their punishment was applied because the stadium sale was made to "undo" an overspend that they had already anticipated. I believe their panel found that they had been misinformed by the EFL, but it was ultimately irrelevant, because had the EFL informed them correctly prior to the stadium sale, it wouldn't have made a difference: Wednesday would have already have made the financial breach, and they would not have been able to have taken alternative measures to correct this. This resulted in the club having no punishment for misconduct, solely for the overspend.

If it is the case that the original panel still believes the club acted honestly and in good faith, I would be very surprised to see a particularly substantial punishment handed down by them.