Ghost of Clough Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 My rough P&S calculations comparing the current ERV method and the possible adjusted contract extension method: Changes to amortisation and transfer profits accounted for. kevinhectoring and hintonsboots 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 5 hours ago, StarterForTen said: 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. 5 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said: 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 . Dare I say, it is one good thing about the Daily Mail Online. They can be biased (are often biased), and push a (political) agenda, but ... ... they often give different sides of a story. Albeit at the bottom, as you say - and often not fairly balanced - but it is not surprising to see both sides. I don't know if it is an editorial thing - they just whack out so many stories per day - and I guess it is hard to ensure accuracy (!), so, maybe, one way around that is to include different opinions, to fend off any complaints!? I also think it is an editorial decision to make great long articles, where they cut and paste every possibly relevant thing that they can find! And, although I haven't been to their website for quite a while, I have found that I prefer their longer more detailed articles, knowing the bias, and finding more information; than most other news outlets, which tend to provide such short articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said: 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 Thanks. But... The conclusion is ...? (I don't even know which figures to add and subtract!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 If the accounting experts on the DC are anything like other expert witnesses i've come across then they'll flounce off in a massive huff rather than be told "you're wrong" by a bunch of people they consider to be unqualified to judge. So we'll then have to wait for all the fall out from that to be settled.....? It really does beggar belief...... Ghost of Clough and RadioactiveWaste 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, Ken Tram said: Dare I say, it is one good thing about the Daily Mail Online. They can be biased (are often biased), and push a (political) agenda, but ... ... they often give different sides of a story. Albeit at the bottom, as you say - and often not fairly balanced - but it is not surprising to see both sides. I don't know if it is an editorial thing - they just whack out so many stories per day - and I guess it is hard to ensure accuracy (!), so, maybe, one way around that is to include different opinions, to fend off any complaints!? I also think it is an editorial decision to make great long articles, where they cut and paste every possibly relevant thing that they can find! And, although I haven't been to their website for quite a while, I have found that I prefer their longer more detailed articles, knowing the bias, and finding more information; than most other news outlets, which tend to provide such short articles. My other half scrolls down and only reads the last paragraph of Daily Mail articles. The rest is clickbait. r_wilcockson and Ken Tram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimeram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, Ken Tram said: Thanks. But... The conclusion is ...? (I don't even know which figures to add and subtract!) I think the conclusion is we are cattle trucked Ken Tram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 4 hours ago, Curtains said: He also says he doesn’t understand why the EFL want to immerse themselves in this and the Premier League do amortization this way anyway . Last night, I read that amortisation is a FIFA thing introduced to make European football fairer. I'm getting the impression that different leagues are applying these rules differently. Doesn't that undermine FIFA's objectives? Does FIFA take a view on punition and relegation - for example the concept of a Super League without it - or the structure of leagues that prevent it? Should parachute payments be more restrictive - paid if a buyer cannot be found at a "reasonable (defined) price. Rather than it just being a cash payment - being a safety net to mitigate actual costs of having attempted to do well in the Premier League - rather than something that imposes pressure on other Championship clubs. If Norwich deliberately didn't spend in the Premier League, were relegated, took the cash, regrouped, and went back -is this really in the interests of the Premier League? Do they want to encourage clubs to underspend, and offer up poor opposition? Although maybe more goals for bigger clubs ? And do they want to restrict the chance of promotion of a wider spread of Championship clubs? The chance of promotion has to be real to be motivating? And if the parachute payments were remodelled, clubs needn't compete - and drive the risk of breaching financial fair play. Curtains 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: My rough P&S calculations comparing the current ERV method and the possible adjusted contract extension method: Changes to amortisation and transfer profits accounted for. If this happened to be bang on any idea what we face sanction wise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, Indy said: My other half scrolls down and only reads the last paragraph of Daily Mail articles. The rest is clickbait. That’s one paragraph too much ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said: If the accounting experts on the DC are anything like other expert witnesses i've come across then they'll flounce off in a massive huff rather than be told "you're wrong" by a bunch of people they consider to be unqualified to judge. So we'll then have to wait for all the fall out from that to be settled.....? It really does beggar belief...... That would be quite funny. Especially if they say something publically along the lines of "In light of being bound by a decision which in my view as qualified expert in this field and as stated in the orginal decision, is incorrect, I can not in good consience sit on the panel that enacts sactions based on this (WRONG) decision, arrived at for politcal reasons by someone NOT a qualified expert in this field, and therefore I will not be taking part in the process going forward." Van der MoodHoover 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, Ken Tram said: Thanks. But... The conclusion is ...? (I don't even know which figures to add and subtract!) Carnero questioned where losses of c£79m came from. Those figures Inposted total £84m (unless I miscalculated) Ken Tram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 21 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: My rough P&S calculations comparing the current ERV method and the possible adjusted contract extension method: Changes to amortisation and transfer profits accounted for. I should have stated these are the figures for the 3 year rolling period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, The_Sheriff said: If this happened to be bang on any idea what we face sanction wise? Based on our current method, 3 points for 19/20 and I think it's 8 for 20/21. Contract extension method would just be 5 points for 20/21. The_Sheriff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee SCREAMER !! Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Why do Radio Derby keep inviting that tit Kieran Maguire on the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yani P Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 10 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said: Why do Radio Derby keep inviting that tit Kieran Maguire on the station. He is treated like some mystical guru rather than the hack that he is.. Gee SCREAMER !! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 4 hours ago, Carl Sagan said: The original Disciplinary Committee acquitted us. The EFL appealed against an accountancy offense, with no accountants on their appeals panel. They won one of their charges. It now goes back to the original Disciplinary Committee to decide what, if any, punishment there should be. My hope is that there will be none. Good News 1 And one advantage is ... the people on the original panel have already made a decision ... and QCs may not be overly pleased about having their judgement challenged. It seems that they didn't think that this Pope guy's evidence was relevant, or perhaps his reference to a particular rule was relevant. They will either feel embarrassed, and seek to punish, to make it up to the EFL - or seek to minimise punishment, because they still think they're right - or, as QCs, they may more interested in the process, and having been told to consider new evidence, genuinely take a fresh look at it. Good News 2 More good news is that although there is a risk that the panel are on a good gig, doing EFL hearings, they went against the EFL, so they are not kowtowing. However, did you see the line about the third panel member being appointed by the EFL? I wonder if they are more inclined to take the EFL's line. But the QCs still outnumber them 2 to 1. Bad news I think that the appeal says: you must take into account a specific piece of evidence, which you discounted previously. Unfortunately, all options may still be on the table. Good news 3 More good news is that it may take time, meaning applying sanctions to this season is unlikely. Good news 4 More good news is that several matters brought to appeal were dismissed, which implies a slightly malicious intention. Good cop: bad cop If I were a nice cop, I might arrest a person for something that they definitely did. If I were a bad cop, I might try and get them charged for every crime that I could think of, whether or not I was convinced that they were guilty. No one likes a bad cop (regardless of whether or not people like good cops)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Can everyone pause for a few minutes? I'm still on page 67 ... and I don't think I'll ever catch up. nogbad van 50, IslandExile, Carl Sagan and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Right, have we been slippery or not ? Don’t want any “ well technically no as the EFL have moved the goalposts after the initial inquiry” type answers, just a straight yes or no please. Thank you. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPlinkett Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Ken Tram said: Can everyone pause for a few minutes? I'm still on page 67 ... and I don't think I'll ever catch up. fear not, let me fill in the gaps.. blah blah blah ? nogbad van 50 and Ken Tram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 14 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said: Why do Radio Derby keep inviting that tit Kieran Maguire on the station. He clearly likes the sound of his own voice and is clearly making a name for himself out of this. The crazy thing is, he openly admitted he was the one who wrote to the EFL and flagged up our accounting practices. The EFL dismissed his concerns and Maguire wrote back again and insisted they looked into it. Derby fans and the media should be blocking him out best they can, he is not on our side in the slightest. Indy, Deej and Gee SCREAMER !! 3 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