Jump to content

EFL appeal


Sith Happens

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, ck- said:

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

They could then transfer all out rubbish players to Wycombe for unrealistic fees to solve our FFP issues, and we could transfer in their leather jacket weilding manager.

Oh wait, they're in the EFL, it's a no go unless we put Wycombe into a different league, perhaps Scotland or Wales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GboroRam said:

It's not solely about accountancy though, it's also about residual values of footballers. They aren't normal depreciating assets, so it's arguable that the expertise lies somewhere in the middle.

Its completely an accounting issue as that is what the EFL are saying is wrong. 

Now the auditors may use external experts in their assessment of residual values but there will be other indicators of whether the club were using appropriate residual values.

Pretty sure I read, maybe in the original case document, that Derby were applying a specific model used by other clubs for assessing residual values and amortisation amounts, I may have just dreamt that though, will do some digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

We declined to permit EFL to adduce evidence of the draft 2019 accounts which were delivered to EFL the day after the DC decision, and the very substantial impairment in relation to player amortisation costs which they showed. It was unnecessary to admit that evidence as it had been apparent to the DC as a result of cross-examination by EFL of the Club’s factual witnesses that the following year accounts would show a substantial impairment in relation to player cost amortisation.

Bankers even tried to add some more based on draft accounts from 2019 after the decision and were told it wasn't relevant to proceedings.  

I disagree, think it is relevant to proceedings.

As I stated previously there are indicators that should assist the auditors in assessing whether we were using appropriate accounting policies and estimates.

If we had say 3 years of £1m amortisation followed by £10m in year 4 then this would obviously be a red flag. Likewise if every time we sold a player we were making a loss as their ERV at time of sale was too high.

Of course if we only started using the policy in 2015 then we would possibly not start to see anomalies until 2018/19 so that could be a mitigating factor. 

As I also previously stated amortisation is an accounting estimate and, as far as I am aware, would not require you to go back and amend accounts retrospectively but may require a note in the accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DCFC1388 said:

Has any report come out yet based on yesterdays appeal decision?

You can read the full document here:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/judgments/judgments-202021/

Although I recommend the Middelsbrough one:

The EFL failed in their case against DCFC for selling Pride Park, so we should have a go. Dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting regards our potential accounts...

the emergence the day after the DC’s decision, long after the relevant deadline had expired in March 2020, of DCFCs draft accounts for 2018/19 which place the second charge in an entirely different light, in view of an impairment of £22.2m in relation to the value of its squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Interesting regards our potential accounts...

the emergence the day after the DC’s decision, long after the relevant deadline had expired in March 2020, of DCFCs draft accounts for 2018/19 which place the second charge in an entirely different light, in view of an impairment of £22.2m in relation to the value of its squad.

Looking at the players that left in 2018/19 I cant help but think this was a case of buying bad news after we had got the 2017/18 accounts out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

I disagree, think it is relevant to proceedings.

As I stated previously there are indicators that should assist the auditors in assessing whether we were using appropriate accounting policies and estimates.

If we had say 3 years of £1m amortisation followed by £10m in year 4 then this would obviously be a red flag. Likewise if every time we sold a player we were making a loss as their ERV at time of sale was too high.

Of course if we only started using the policy in 2015 then we would possibly not start to see anomalies until 2018/19 so that could be a mitigating factor. 

As I also previously stated amortisation is an accounting estimate and, as far as I am aware, would not require you to go back and amend accounts retrospectively but may require a note in the accounts.

Lets be honest, the only reason to push for this was to increase the size of any penalty. They were panicking they may look a bit silly if such a hoo har resulted in no charge / reasonably sized punishment.  I'll wait to see if their disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear mods,

Please may  I leave this here for those two blurts from the Bristol forum who check out what’s being posted here and scuttle off back to their forum badmouthing posters from here.

I’d have a modicum of respect for them if they logged in and fought their corner.

                                                                 spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Dear mods,

Please may  I leave this here for those two blurts from the Bristol forum who check out what’s being posted here and scuttle off back to their forum badmouthing posters from here.

I’d have a modicum of respect for them if they logged in and fought their corner.

                                                                 spacer.png

Ignore them, tinpot club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/05/2021 at 22:20, DCFC27 said:

The idea is to stop clubs going bust, there needs to be a massive overhaul of the system as at the moment the championship are trying to compete with premier league wages and transfer fees without the income.
Clubs should spend what they generate, but if an owner wishes to spend more they need to be accountable and affordability needs to be assessed before they commit the club to such fees.
Fortunately for Derby, when it all went wrong and Mel realised he’d messed up, he has paid for it. But had Mel walked away in 2016 or 17 the club would be massively in debt due to the massive wage bill. 
There is not easy fix but owners need to be more accountable. Alonso might well put £35 milllion in an account tomorrow, the EFL approve him, he buys Derby and he could take it back out and walk away the day after. Just look at Wigan for that example. 
Real time oversight and independent regulation on club activities is the only way to enforce this. Furthermore no more penalties for financial hardship further aggravating the situation.  
Instead a fund should also be set up to catch any clubs that fail and do slip into administration in the form on a levy on all clubs turnover. 

Everything you say sounds sensible, especially about spending matching income. And the commitment by Mel - you said that in a way that was a good reminder.

If the Premier League believe that it is in their interests to have a wider variety of teams making it up, even if many don't stay up for long - and having fans from more clubs thinking that their club has a chance of promotion - then restructuring the parachute payment seems sensible, especially if it is these that drives unsustainable spending in the Championship.

For example, the parachute payment could be used to encourage premier League clubs to buy talented players, making the premier League more exciting, while protecting clubs that get relegated for having paid out on good players.

The parachute payments should ensure that the club if not out of pocket for having tried to be competitive. But, that doesn't mean a fixed amount need be paid either! And maybe there should be an expectation that a certain number of players will be sold, with various protections, but without having s fixed amount.

Having praised your response ... I might sound a note if caution. If the system is changed, and less money is pushed into the Championship by clubs aiming to reap the rewards of promotion to the Premier League; either player costs will fall, or the quality of players in the Championship will fall.

Maybe there is an adequate supply of people willing to risk their money? Or, it may be that some of the people who take such risks bring considerable dangers to clubs.

And reducing the £13m per year acceptable loss over the years brings problems when single players can have such a value, and when eager bills can exceed that amount. Lower limits could have unintended consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pearl Ram said:

Dear mods,

Please may  I leave this here for those two blurts from the Bristol forum who check out what’s being posted here and scuttle off back to their forum badmouthing posters from here.

I’d have a modicum of respect for them if they logged in and fought their corner.

                                                                 spacer.png

 

1 hour ago, Philmycock said:

Ignore them, tinpot club

Yes, good advice, ignore them. 

I may have to take your post down in several weeks time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pearl Ram said:

Dear mods,

Please may  I leave this here for those two blurts from the Bristol forum who check out what’s being posted here and scuttle off back to their forum badmouthing posters from here.

I’d have a modicum of respect for them if they logged in and fought their corner.

                                                                 spacer.png

I think the forum rules say that you can insult people as long as they are neither members of the forum, nor part of DCFC.

As you say, if they joined the forum and posted their comments, we could reply in a non-insulting way!

But, there is the complication that nearly everyone is anonymous, so how do we know whether or not they are already members?!

As I understand it, mild profanity is not actually thought of as insulting - so I guess you can continue to stick up two fingers to them! (My only caveat is that, in the main, insults can be in the eye of the beholder. So, if someone tells you that they feel insulted by having Rik Mayall sticking up two fingers - rather than them finding it amusing and smiling - then, you should probably stop once they have told you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...