EFL Verdict

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

do you have a link to that paper?

no, I have the PDF, search for 'Fresh evidence application' or 'EFL Arbitration Derby' and you should get it

[Ghost of Clough]

17 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

do you have a link to that paper?

 

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

no, I have the PDF, search for 'Fresh evidence application' or 'EFL Arbitration Derby' and you should get it

This one? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/efl-v-Derby-county---appeal-decision.pdf

or this one? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-new-evidence.pdf

Edited June 29, 2021 by Ghost of Clough

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

It'll be sweet justice if/when we don't breach. We'll be making savings for the following seasons 2018/19 & 2019/20 by re-doing the figures so they'll have done us an inadvertent favour.

Possibly doing us a favour if we had money to spend! 

[Carnero]

26 minutes ago, Spanish said:

neither side did enough on charge 2.

Maybe one of the side's was trying to lose so that we can now re-jig the amortisation to our advantage, now we know the stadium sale is accepted. Why do you think we didn't bother with an "expert" for the LAP? ?

(Joking by the way... or am I....)

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Possibly doing us a favour if we had money to spend! 

Doing us a favour whether we had money to spend or not. Based on my calcs, we would have had to sell players in the summer just to meet P&S. Given the size of our squad already, we would have been in very serious trouble... so everyone should be thanking Gibson for helping us ?

We now need to wait for 5 sets of accounts to be released to have a clearer picture of where we'll be in terms of P&S for 21/22, but I estimate about £12m better off.

[sage]

So basically our amortisation policy was unreliable because our signings were so poor, that no one would sign them and they had to leave on a free.  

[Spanish]

20 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

This one? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/efl-v-Derby-county---appeal-decision.pdf

or this one? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-new-evidence.pdf

#2

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, sage said:

So basically our amortisation policy was unreliable because our signings were so poor, that no one would sign them and they had to leave on a free.  

effectively yes but was our amortisation policy as a result of the poor signings??

[sage]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

effectively yes but was our amortisation policy as a result of the poor signings??

It was mainly because we spent too much too quickly. However the policy of (amortisation) jam tomorrow was proven as unreliable because we had to write off too much in the last year of contracts for Blackman, Johnson, Butterfield, Shackell and Anya. 

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, sage said:

It was mainly because we spent too much too quickly. However the policy of (amortisation) jam tomorrow was proven as unreliable because we had to write off too much in the last year of contracts for Blackman, Johnson, Butterfield, Shackell and Anya. 

but really how many of us thought these guys would be worth anything at the end of their contracts.  I guess that Blackman, Butterfield and Anya were written of as less than worthless by the forum.  Johnson after the biting incident but I can't remember Shackell?.  We all know recruitment has been a massive failure

[sage]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

but really how many of us thought these guys would be worth anything at the end of their contracts.  I guess that Blackman, Butterfield and Anya were written of as less than worthless by the forum.  Johnson after the biting incident but I can't remember Shackell?.  We all know recruitment has been a massive failure

I'm not saying our approach was ideal, but I suppose we thought we could sell them with a year left on their contracts if we didn't get promoted in the first 2/3 years of their contracts. It's not unreasonable to expect some return on £3-6m signings on 3 and 4 year contracts but that didn't pan out. We should have been buying players a couple of years younger on lower wages, but it is what it is.

I think we are around £4m over our FFP loss limit. If so, just not buying Blackman or Anya would have meant we were ok.  

[RadioactiveWaste]

17 minutes ago, sage said:

I'm not saying our approach was ideal, but I suppose we thought we could sell them with a year left on their contracts if we didn't get promoted in the first 2/3 years of their contracts. It's not unreasonable to expect some return on £3-6m signings on 3 and 4 year contracts but that didn't pan out. We should have been buying players a couple of years younger on lower wages, but it is what it is.

I think we are around £4m over our FFP loss limit. If so, just not buying Blackman or Anya would have meant we were ok.  

D'oh!

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

#2

Are you referring to the large impairment? The DC document revealed £25.1m amortisation for 19/20, so I imagine it's just pulling that forward. All covered by my calculations no matter which year they were actually due to fall in under the 'Derby method'.

 

Another thought just crossed my mind. From my understanding, the latest DC decision doesn't state we have to use the standard method. Rather, we have to resubmit whilst meeting the requirements of FRS102. If this is true, then we could possibly create a completely new

EFLStatement: "file restated accounts... that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations"
DCFC Statement: "submit revised accounts...using a policy for the amortisation of player registrations which complies both with the requirements of FRS 102 and with the P&S Rules."

Given we were guilty of 2 particulars, that means we only need to modify our existing policy to suit:
     2. Reliably estimating estimating ERVs or use a straight-line method
     5. Accurately define the policy in the accounts

Defining the policy in the accounts should be straight forward. If we can 'engineer' a way to reliably estimate resale values, we can avoid using straight-line.

[RadioactiveWaste]

17 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Are you referring to the large impairment? The DC document revealed £25.1m amortisation for 19/20, so I imagine it's just pulling that forward. All covered by my calculations no matter which year they were actually due to fall in under the 'Derby method'.

 

Another thought just crossed my mind. From my understanding, the latest DC decision doesn't state we have to use the standard method. Rather, we have to resubmit whilst meeting the requirements of FRS102. If this is true, then we could possibly create a completely new

EFLStatement: "file restated accounts... that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations"
DCFC Statement: "submit revised accounts...using a policy for the amortisation of player registrations which complies both with the requirements of FRS 102 and with the P&S Rules."

Given we were guilty of 2 particulars, that means we only need to modify our existing policy to suit:
     2. Reliably estimating estimating ERVs or use a straight-line method
     5. Accurately define the policy in the accounts

Defining the policy in the accounts should be straight forward. If we can 'engineer' a way to reliably estimate resale values, we can avoid using straight-line.

Can you imagine the EFL reaction? Might be worth it just for boiling the urine of certain chairmen of certain clubs.

 

[Spanish]

45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Are you referring to the large impairment? The DC document revealed £25.1m amortisation for 19/20, so I imagine it's just pulling that forward. All covered by my calculations no matter which year they were actually due to fall in under the 'Derby method'.

 

Another thought just crossed my mind. From my understanding, the latest DC decision doesn't state we have to use the standard method. Rather, we have to resubmit whilst meeting the requirements of FRS102. If this is true, then we could possibly create a completely new

EFLStatement: "file restated accounts... that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations"
DCFC Statement: "submit revised accounts...using a policy for the amortisation of player registrations which complies both with the requirements of FRS 102 and with the P&S Rules."

Given we were guilty of 2 particulars, that means we only need to modify our existing policy to suit:
     2. Reliably estimating estimating ERVs or use a straight-line method
     5. Accurately define the policy in the accounts

Defining the policy in the accounts should be straight forward. If we can 'engineer' a way to reliably estimate resale values, we can avoid using straight-line.

hopefully we get the finding of DC2 soon

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, sage said:

I'm not saying our approach was ideal, but I suppose we thought we could sell them with a year left on their contracts if we didn't get promoted in the first 2/3 years of their contracts. It's not unreasonable to expect some return on £3-6m signings on 3 and 4 year contracts but that didn't pan out. We should have been buying players a couple of years younger on lower wages, but it is what it is.

I think we are around £4m over our FFP loss limit. If so, just not buying Blackman or Anya would have meant we were ok.  

this is the core of it, there are no records of our 6 monthly meetings to decide their ERV

[Spanish]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Are you referring to the large impairment? The DC document revealed £25.1m amortisation for 19/20, so I imagine it's just pulling that forward. All covered by my calculations no matter which year they were actually due to fall in under the 'Derby method'.

 

Another thought just crossed my mind. From my understanding, the latest DC decision doesn't state we have to use the standard method. Rather, we have to resubmit whilst meeting the requirements of FRS102. If this is true, then we could possibly create a completely new

EFLStatement: "file restated accounts... that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations"
DCFC Statement: "submit revised accounts...using a policy for the amortisation of player registrations which complies both with the requirements of FRS 102 and with the P&S Rules."

Given we were guilty of 2 particulars, that means we only need to modify our existing policy to suit:
     2. Reliably estimating estimating ERVs or use a straight-line method
     5. Accurately define the policy in the accounts

Defining the policy in the accounts should be straight forward. If we can 'engineer' a way to reliably estimate resale values, we can avoid using straight-line.

needs to be complaint with 18.22 of course

[BathRam72]

1 hour ago, sage said:

I'm not saying our approach was ideal, but I suppose we thought we could sell them with a year left on their contracts if we didn't get promoted in the first 2/3 years of their contracts. It's not unreasonable to expect some return on £3-6m signings on 3 and 4 year contracts but that didn't pan out. We should have been buying players a couple of years younger on lower wages, but it is what it is.

I think we are around £4m over our FFP loss limit. If so, just not buying Blackman or Anya would have meant we were ok.  

Hmm I would have thought the EFL would have taken sympathy and realised our worth dropped as soon as we bought those two

[RoyMac5]

15 minutes ago, Spanish said:

hopefully we get the finding of DC2 soon

Any sign of it blowing in the wind?

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.

It also has to be stated that the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge.
Also, the original DC revealed that the EFL claimed to have only been made aware of the different amortisation policy shortly before bringing the charges in January 2020. Please also note that Kieran Maguire wrote to the EFL regarding the amortisation policy in June 2018.

Incompetence.

Sorry to go on. See my earlier post - I said the EFl should look for anomalies and I’d guess they do. But they will be looking for anomalies in everything that underlies the EDITD(A) number, not only the amortisation numbers 

you say: “the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge”. What about the meetings in 2019? The meeting notes? Part of the problem was they were told we were amortising as per the notes in the accounts

The LAP blamed the club for the misunderstanding. The DC blamed both the club and the EFl. You seem to blame just the EFL   (Im not saying the EFl should not have done better)

If we stick our heads in the sand we all look like fools and the club just gets more and more isolated