EFL appeal

[Angry Ram]

20 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

So you "met" someone you thought looked like Clooney, then got "chip grease" on his Bentley seats. I think the rest of us in the car park saw something a little different. Was a good night out though.

Come to think of it, he did call me Ulrika from time to time.. Better leave this here or I will get a nudge from the mods.

[Ghost of Clough]

11 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

I think the best we can hope for is we don’t get done for the period ending 17/18 but probably we’ll get done for period ending 18/19. @Ghost of Clough please tell me I’m wrong. Is there a chance we can be done twice? 
 

As for anything beyond 18/19 we won’t get done because half the league will fail it and they’ll probably scrap the rules - ironically the period where we’ve really tried to cut our cloth accordingly. 

You're wrong. If the numbers do come out as us failing 18/19, 19/20 , etc then I would expect new charges against us. However, my estimates suggest we'll be fine, and backed up by the 'noises' coming from the club.

16/17 is the period I'd be more concerned about (estimated £6m over the limit). But, with the EFL starting with 17/18, I can't see them going even further back.

[BaaLocks]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Then the book value is readjusted (remaining amortisation plus new fees), with the ERV also adjusted.

Yeah, but the original value needs to be written off or are you saying we just carry it forward? So, if the RV of Lawrence is £3m, he signs a new contract and we consider what his RV would be at the end of that contract and amortise then between the two? Seems a bit messy doesn't it?

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The thing is, the EFL appear to be doing us a favour. With our method, I was seriously worried about failing P&S over the next couple of years. With us reverting to a standard method, those issues are eased by about £10m a year!

Which was kind of my point, we've gambled it on getting promoted before this hits the books - another example of why many are saying there is just too much debt on the books to make us worth buying.

And, to confirm, is the result of the appeal requiring us to restate all existing contracts or just comply going forward? If we restate then we also have to do that retrospectively - to your point we can't have it both ways.

[Ghost of Clough]

5 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Yeah, but the original value needs to be written off or are you saying we just carry it forward? So, if the RV of Lawrence is £3m, he signs a new contract and we consider what his RV would be at the end of that contract and amortise then between the two? Seems a bit messy doesn't it?

We carry it forward. It's the same under the commonly used straight line method too.

5 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Which was kind of my point, we've gambled it on getting promoted before this hits the books - another example of why many are saying there is just too much debt on the books to make us worth buying.

So if the EFL really wanted us punished, they should have just left us alone ?

5 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

And, to confirm, is the result of the appeal requiring us to restate all existing contracts or just comply going forward? If we restate then we also have to do that retrospectively - to your point we can't have it both ways.

I wouldn't expect the accounts to be resubmitted, but I would expect new P&S submissions for 15/16 onwards. Our P&S position is weakened in those 3 seasons in question, but I don't believe it's enough for us to fail P&S. That's not having it both ways.

[Spanish]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

We carry it forward. It's the same under the commonly used straight line method too.

So if the EFL really wanted us punished, they should have just left us alone ?

I wouldn't expect the accounts to be resubmitted, but I would expect new P&S submissions for 15/16 onwards. Our P&S position is weakened in those 3 seasons in question, but I don't believe it's enough for us to fail P&S. That's not having it both ways.

if we haven't already reworked these figures in the time we've had I would be very much surprised

[Boycie]

5 hours ago, CBRammette said:

But at least she will focus on getting to the end and finishing the task off rather than leaving it half finished to do something else ?

Sexist!

[CBRammette]

23 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Sexist!

But true

 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

41 minutes ago, Spanish said:

if we haven't already reworked these figures in the time we've had I would be very much surprised

I wouldn't be. The calibre of person the club is willing to sell to at this point has me seriously questioning the competence levels of the people making decisions at DCFC. 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

Sensible stuff from Wycombe, despite the media frenzy that has been whipped up this week.

https://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/2021/may/club-comments-on-Derby-county-situation/

[Srg]

They want to profit for something that happened when they weren't even in the league... kind of like how they profited from finishing mid table in League 1 and still getting promoted due to a pandemic.

[Ghost of Clough]

19 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Sensible stuff from Wycombe, despite the media frenzy that has been whipped up this week.

https://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/2021/may/club-comments-on-Derby-county-situation/

Maybe it's my black and white tinted glasses, but that comes across as a little bit passive aggressive. "...playing within the rules. We expect our opponents to do the same."

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

15 minutes ago, Srg said:

They want to profit for something that happened when they weren't even in the league... kind of like how they profited from finishing mid table in League 1 and still getting promoted due to a pandemic.

Exactly. Said the same yesterday. Peterborough were top 6 at the time and got replaced by a team who were 9th.  Please don't preach about achieving on a level playing field.  They didn't turn down the playoff spot did they. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Maybe it's my black and white tinted glasses, but that comes across as a little bit passive aggressive. "...playing within the rules. We expect our opponents to do the same."

Given the all percasive narrative of the issue put forward by the EFL, Middlesbrough and all sorts of commentators and pundits....it's not surprising.

[RandomAccessMemory]

4 hours ago, Animal is a Ram said:

The LAP seems to think not:

(p46, 82d)

However, from the original IDC report, by Pope’s own admission, it does appear some clubs are using methods other than straight-line amortisation, so there must be other methods that are seen as permissible?

They seem to be implying that because no one else has ‘ever’ done it, or thought to do it, then we shouldn’t either. One of the problems with that is that numerous accountants have thought it was an ok method to use, one academic didn’t, and they, a trio of lawyers, decided to go with the academics view, rather than that of the actual accountants.

Also, surely everything anyone ever does had a starting point somewhere, someone had to be the first to do it, otherwise things would never have happened and things will never evolve any further if everyone takes that stance.

Point 74 doesn’t make any sense, does it? It states many times in FRS 102 that consumption of future economic benefits includes both its use and its disposal, this isn’t ‘an appeal to common sense’ it is written plainly in black and white, how else are you supposed to take it?

Point 75, again I’m confused and feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s more that he couldn’t have done otherwise because there was evidence of other clubs financial statements apparently using different methods? Isn’t this because the wording of 18.22 makes it permissible? Why would you want him to be able to have done otherwise if it wasn’t right?

[EdinRam]

Devils advocate here regarding the whole ordeal, a little piece of me believes we should be a little bit grateful to middlesbrough for bringing up the allegations for the following reasons

1. If they hadn't brought other allegations we would have been relegated this season 

2. If they didn't bring ourselves and Wednesday to EFL attention how bad could it have been?

3. I believe this ordeal is the main reason for Mel wanting shot. I see this and the keogh ordeal as a hard reset for us. 

4. I think we have the quality under new management to see off any points deduction 

 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

5 hours ago, Rev said:

I'm not surprised.

I wouldn't let my driver eat in the car either.

Should let the outriders pass the chips through an open window individually....?

[rynny]

10 minutes ago, EdinRam said:

Devils advocate here regarding the whole ordeal, a little piece of me believes we should be a little bit grateful to middlesbrough for bringing up the allegations for the following reasons

1. If they hadn't brought other allegations we would have been relegated this season 

2. If they didn't bring ourselves and Wednesday to EFL attention how bad could it have been?

3. I believe this ordeal is the main reason for Mel wanting shot. I see this and the keogh ordeal as a hard reset for us. 

4. I think we have the quality under new management to see off any points deduction 

 

 

1. We haven't had any points deductions yet, so conjecture. 

2. How bad would what have been? Would it not be better to see if there is any punishment before making claims like that? 

3. Mel probably has had enough of the EFL and what appears to be a vendetta against him and the club. 

4. Again, what points deduction? And what quality in the squad? Currently we have a couple of average keepers, a decent full back and good prospect, no centre backs, a few good prospects yet to hit their full potential, an experienced workhorse and an injured star in centre mid, a couple of inconsistent wide players and 1 ageing striker.

[SinceIWasntSoYoung]

As others may have alluded to previously the emergence of Professor Plum…sorry Pope…gives a sense of a bizarre game of Cluedo. So whodunnit?…

My guess is Professor Pope in Gibson’s jacuzzi with a full transcript of the FFP rules.?

Edited May 12, 2021 by SinceIWasntSoYoung

[ck-]

2 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Sensible stuff from Wycombe, despite the media frenzy that has been whipped up this week.

https://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/2021/may/club-comments-on-Derby-county-situation/

Very classy and dignified response. I wonder if they want to buy a club?

[jono]

This isn’t law making or law giving. It’s politics pure and simple. Lobbyists, polarised mindsets, unspoken agendas from numerous sources of power and influence. I’d almost feel sorry for the lawyers but they are making a pile of dough from the fall out from every party so maybe not ! 
 

FFP is all about stoping an unfair advantage .. ummmm well DFC started in the championship, are still in the championship and the majority of parachute clubs continue their existence in the yo-yo world that is the lower half of the prem along with the odd enforced break down with the rest of us lads in the championship. Except perhaps Middlesbrough who seem to have spent an awful lot of money with limited results. 

this is tiresome in the extreme and is killing my love of this game.