EFL appeal

[Spanish]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

At which point in time the auditors should point out that we are not using appropriate accounting policies. 

I might be wrong here (its been a while since I did this sort of stuff) but amortisation is an accounting estimate, a change of accounting policy would require a note in the accounts but would not require the accounts to be retrospectively amended.

Sure someone will tell me if my views are outdated!

You are right and 2.e charge was found against us by the tribunal.  The auditors?  Easy to manipulate from my experience, allegedly, according to a friend

[One Andy Weimann]

https://www.efl.com/news/2021/may/efl-statement-Derby-county

[Sparkle]

14 minutes ago, Yani P said:

EFL have always been piss poor at securing decent financial media deals for clubs..they just sit under the Premier League dinner table begging for scraps then pretending they are tge guardians of the football pyramid..in reality they have and continue to do a woeful job..

There lies the problem - I suspect Rotherham Wycombe and say Luton are extremely happy to receive the £4 million hand me down and £80,000 for a home game and £10,000 for an away game on the TV where the likes of Derby or say Leeds United believe it’s a shocking deal 

[uttoxram75]

Leaked photo of Boro’s emergency board meeting this evening on hearing the news....

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

There lies the problem - I suspect Rotherham Wycombe and say Luton are extremely happy to receive the £4 million hand me down and £80,000 for a home game and £10,000 for an away game on the TV where the likes of Derby or say Leeds United believe it’s a shocking deal 

I seem to think the Derby and Leeds argument was both Derby and Leeds could get better for themselves because they are Derby and Leeds and so, make it more open market and if Leeds vs Derby is a biger game than Rotherham vs Wycombe the Leeds and Derby should get more.

It's not a case of one side or the other being right, so much as flaws in each and what's better overall - Mel certainly burned goodwill with the EFL throughout his ownership though.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

Leaked photo of Boro’s emergency board meeting this evening on hearing the news....

 

Sickening. There's clearly 7 people there, no masks, no scoial distancing and what appears to be an act of higly unprofessional conduct about to take place between the man on the left of the photo and part of the man partially out of shot.

And they're happy. That's been banned for over a year now.

[NottsRam77]

20 minutes ago, One Andy Weimann said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2021/may/efl-statement-Derby-county

Hasn’t this been posted about 5 hours ago lol

[LE_Ram]

24 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why would HMRC be after us? We are a loss making entity so no taxes to pursue.

If ground was overvalued that would only work in their favour. 

Amortisation does not affect taxes (I think) and even if it did they are not going to be missing out on anything if we are understating it.

Don’t quote me on this, not super hot on tax, but I believe that IFA Amortisation (unlike depreciation) is an allowable deduction for Corporation Tax.

However as you say we’re loss making, plus the net P&L impact under either amortisation method is the same so will have the same tax impact too.

[DCFC1388]

I just want this over & done with now. Hopefully this outcome is resolved soon, the Keogh issue is done so then the last piece off the club reset is a new owner.

Once Mel is gone and this hearing has gone hopefully the club can start from scratch with the EFL, no more agenda's from either side amd just be a normal football club.

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, LE_Ram said:

Don’t quote me on this, not super hot on tax, but I believe that IFA Amortisation (unlike depreciation) is an allowable deduction for Corporation Tax.

However as you say we’re loss making, plus the net P&L impact under either amortisation method is the same so will have the same tax impact too.

Yes thought the rules may have changed a few years back hence why I was not certain.

Even so the charge appears to be that we have understated amortisation so no reason why HMRC would be concerned.

[i-Ram]

4 hours ago, archram said:

Haven’t managed to read all this as it makes my brain hurt. However the bits I did read were a bit clearer when I realised DC didn’t stand for the club but for Disciplinary Committee! duh! ??

… and put the Harvey’s Bristol Cream back in the drinks cupboard.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, DCFC1388 said:

I just want this over & done with now. Hopefully this outcome is resolved soon, the Keogh issue is done so then the last piece off the club reset is a new owner.

Once Mel is gone and this hearing has gone hopefully the club can start from scratch with the EFL, no more agenda's from either side amd just be a normal football club.

I would imagine the Keogh issue is far from done.

Hopefully we can appeal and then neither the EFL nor Keogh can challenge the next ruling. 

I imagine we can even appoint our own people to hear the appeal.

This is how it works isnt it?

[kevinhectoring]

6 minutes ago, LE_Ram said:

Don’t quote me on this, not super hot on tax, but I believe that IFA Amortisation (unlike depreciation) is an allowable deduction for Corporation Tax.

However as you say we’re loss making, plus the net P&L impact under either amortisation method is the same so will have the same tax impact too.

The fact we have not filed accounts does not mean we haven’t filed a tax return.

Edited May 11, 2021 by kevinhectoring

[BramcoteRam84]

This is an exercise in the EFL saving face, self justification, and placating bitter football clubs looking to do one over on each other. It is not about protecting football clubs from Portsmouth scenarios or the integrity of the competition. 

The EFL is quite happy to overlook Watford and Forest’s unique methods of circumventing FFP (switch/loan players between clubs for fee values to help their compliance with rules), not penalise the overspending of the likes Villa Bournemouth Leicester QPR Wolves, and overlook the dodgy practices of Steve Gibson and the use of his haulage company to help circumvent rules. 
 

They are choosing to follow this grotesque charade and to ruin the integrity of competition with league positions being decided by arbitration panels instead of addressing the fundamental issue, that parachute payments are creating a grossly unfair competition, creating spiralling wages and resulting in clubs needing to spend beyond their means just to compete. Much has been made of Derby’s spending, yet it’s been dwarfed by the clubs that have come down by the premier league, highlighted by the spending and wages disparity between Derby and both clubs they have lost playoff finals to. The irony of all of this is the main club fighting this - Boro - are doing it because we beat them to the playoffs. Did we have an advantage over them? No. They had a bigger budget than we did due to parachute payments!! They blew it on Assombalonga and others and failed. 
 

How are clubs without parachute payments supposed to compete. Eventually the majority of those that do try and compete will eventually come into problems unless they have luck ie. they somehow get promoted. These clubs don’t want to spend over the odds on wages, they are forced to by the parachute funded clubs that set the market rate, like Boro giving Assombalonga £50k per week.

If they try to apply FFP for the past two seasons (average of 19/20 and 20/21) as has been suggested, half the clubs will fail it, they must do, they’ve had massive revenue cuts so how can they comply? Only the clubs who are parachute funded could possibly comply.
 

We will probably be punished to make a point and then FFP will be scrapped because half the league failing it will be ridiculous. It’s not working, it’s not making clubs more sustainable. How about fixing the distribution of money in the game and introducing salary caps either on players or in line with turnover if player salary caps is too difficult,  it would be far more effective and help level things up.

But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the EFL and Derby. I’m tired. I’m tired of reading about ERVs and FRS102, I’m tired Mel’s war with the other football clubs, I’m tired of all these jokers trying to take over our football club. When can it be just about Football again?! 

 

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 minute ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

This is an exercise in the EFL saving face, self justification, and placating bitter football clubs looking to do one over on each other. It is not about protecting football clubs from Portsmouth scenarios or the integrity of the competition. 

The EFL is quite happy to overlook Watford and Forest’s unique methods of circumventing FFP (switch/loan players between clubs for fee values to help their compliance with rules), not penalise the overspending of the likes Villa Bournemouth Leicester QPR Wolves, and overlook the dodgy practices of Steve Gibson and the use of his haulage company to help circumvent rules. 
 

They are choosing to follow this grotesque charade and to ruin the integrity of competition with league positions being decided by arbitration panels instead of addressing the fundamental issue, that parachute payments are creating a grossly unfair competition, creating spiralling wages and resulting in clubs needing to spend beyond their means just to compete. Much has been made of Derby’s spending, yet it’s been dwarfed by the clubs that have come down by the premier league, highlighted by the spending and wages disparity between Derby and both clubs they have lost playoff finals to. The irony of all of this is the main club fighting this - Boro - are doing it because we beat them to the playoffs. Did we have an advantage over them? No. They had a bigger budget than we did due to parachute payments!! They blew it on Assombalonga and others and failed. 
 

How are clubs without parachute payments supposed to compete. Eventually the majority of those that do try and compete will eventually come into problems unless they have luck ie. they somehow get promoted. These clubs don’t want to spend over the odds on wages, they are forced to by the parachute funded clubs that set the market rate, like Boro giving Assombalonga £50k per week.

If they try to apply FFP for the past two seasons (average of 19/20 and 20/21) as has been suggested, half the clubs will fail it, they must do, they’ve had massive revenue cuts so how can they comply? Only the clubs who are parachute funded could possibly comply.
 

We will probably be punished to make a point and then FFP will be scrapped because half the league failing it will be ridiculous. It’s not working, it’s not making clubs more sustainable. How about fixing the distribution of money in the game and introducing salary caps either on players or in line with turnover if player salary caps is too difficult,  it would be far more effective and help level things up.

But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the EFL and Derby. I’m tired. I’m tired of reading about ERVs and FRS102, I’m tired Mel’s war with the other football clubs, I’m tired of all these jokers trying to take over our football club. When can it be just about Football again?! 

 

Agree with most of this 

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

This is an exercise in the EFL saving face, self justification, and placating bitter football clubs looking to do one over on each other. It is not about protecting football clubs from Portsmouth scenarios or the integrity of the competition. 

The EFL is quite happy to overlook Watford and Forest’s unique methods of circumventing FFP (switch/loan players between clubs for fee values to help their compliance with rules), not penalise the overspending of the likes Villa Bournemouth Leicester QPR Wolves, and overlook the dodgy practices of Steve Gibson and the use of his haulage company to help circumvent rules. 
 

They are choosing to follow this grotesque charade and to ruin the integrity of competition with league positions being decided by arbitration panels instead of addressing the fundamental issue, that parachute payments are creating a grossly unfair competition, creating spiralling wages and resulting in clubs needing to spend beyond their means just to compete. Much has been made of Derby’s spending, yet it’s been dwarfed by the clubs that have come down by the premier league, highlighted by the spending and wages disparity between Derby and both clubs they have lost playoff finals to. The irony of all of this is the main club fighting this - Boro - are doing it because we beat them to the playoffs. Did we have an advantage over them? No. They had a bigger budget than we did due to parachute payments!! They blew it on Assombalonga and others and failed. 
 

How are clubs without parachute payments supposed to compete. Eventually the majority of those that do try and compete will eventually come into problems unless they have luck ie. they somehow get promoted. These clubs don’t want to spend over the odds on wages, they are forced to by the parachute funded clubs that set the market rate, like Boro giving Assombalonga £50k per week.

If they try to apply FFP for the past two seasons (average of 19/20 and 20/21) as has been suggested, half the clubs will fail it, they must do, they’ve had massive revenue cuts so how can they comply? Only the clubs who are parachute funded could possibly comply.
 

We will probably be punished to make a point and then FFP will be scrapped because half the league failing it will be ridiculous. It’s not working, it’s not making clubs more sustainable. How about fixing the distribution of money in the game and introducing salary caps either on players or in line with turnover if player salary caps is too difficult,  it would be far more effective and help level things up.

But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the EFL and Derby. I’m tired. I’m tired of reading about ERVs and FRS102, I’m tired Mel’s war with the other football clubs, I’m tired of all these jokers trying to take over our football club. When can it be just about Football again?! 

 

I think you are right we will be the last club to be sanctioned forPS breaches maybe even after it has been abandoned typical

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Ken Tram said:

I'm only just about misunderstanding ERV.

And now you're intruding another method!

24 hours ago, I hadn't heard of player amortisation! 

The extension method is similar to the normal one (value amortisation over the original contract), except adjusted if a contract extension is signed.

Wait until someone mentions impairment ?

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

At which point in time the auditors should point out that we are not using appropriate accounting policies. 

I might be wrong here (its been a while since I did this sort of stuff) but amortisation is an accounting estimate, a change of accounting policy would require a note in the accounts but would not require the accounts to be retrospectively amended.

Sure someone will tell me if my views are outdated!

Your views are definitely outdated.  I don’t know about the amortisation stuff though.

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Your views are definitely outdated.  

The ones about you being one of this forums funniest posters?

[Mucker1884]

7 hours ago, Frogram said:

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

Agreed.

That's my pet 'ate!  ?