Curtains Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Spanish said: Do you think that the reason the EFL lean so heavily on accounting standards is because they had no intention in drawing up exhaustive rules when industry ones exist? Perhaps I am giving them too much credit? If indicative market values were available and I don't know of any (?) it would have been sensible to wrap them within the club's methodology. Not that I have any knowledge of this because the details are not published but the theory that players have a residual value may not be practically correct given our recruitment experiences. Corporate governance is based on industry and business experience and amortisation should surely lean on that heavily I would think. There is no point on having a policy that is not fit for purpose unless the point of it is to delay the hit until something comes along to save you errr...... like selling your stadium. All this would be very fascinating if it wasn't so serious for the club. I am very worried about the threat and the impact of the long embargo I’m worried as well mate It’s all about the perception of what other people think Derby have done or not done. Being as I posted the original story I need to post this. Sorry Prisoner ? https://planetswans.co.uk/2021/06/29/Derby-county-fans-hit-back-after-our-farce-story/ PS Don’t miss David B comments at the end of article Edited June 30, 2021 by Curtains Added word and corrected predictive text BucksRam and Spanish 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 13 hours ago, Tamworthram said: I think “independent” only means the auditors are not part of Derby County or any of it’s associated companies. Provided they fulfil their role professionally it shouldn’t matter which team they support. Yes exactly and this is so ridiculous. So someone is saying the whole audit team threw all their professional standards and training out of the window also and the partner signing off high profile accounts did the same as well as reputation because they were a Derby fan. Now if they had said being auditors they just did the same as last year that I would get Tamworthram, Carnero and RadioactiveWaste 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 28 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said: That is a completely tautologous statement which looks like it is just there for a legal flourish. Nobody I think is claiming that you can use what now appears to be called the "cost model" but amortize cost in some non linear way are they? Our case was built around being able to use a "sale model" which is the subject of the dispute. It honestly feels like the DC, the LAP, the EFL and the Club are all talking across each other, using the same terms to mean different things and quoting different bits of FRS102 at each other out of context. And I'm really not an expert on any of this, so I'm basically going by a surface reading of the written reasons and regs, so I may well be wrong on everything here too. So... It does seems to be taken as fact by everyone that there is no "active market" and hence we have to use the cost model. Even the club agrees with that with their statements to the DC and say they are using the cost model. And going by my reading of the regs, I agree. The EFL/LAP/ProfPope etc claimed we were using the cost model but were revaluing players, which is a feature of (and only of) the revaluation model. That's the root of their appeal win. We claim we were doing no such thing. We claim we were using the cost model, but we were factoring potential sales into the future economic benefits of the asset. So for someone like Jozwiak, his future economic benefits might only be 20% in actually playing for the club, and 80% in what we think we can sell him for in a year or 2. Obviously if his form dropped or he got injured, that balance would shift and we'd readjust. The LAP reasons are really weird, they go on for pages and pages quoting FRS102 about things we weren't claiming we were doing, and saying we can't do them (well, so what?). And then there's just a few statements that basically boil down ProfPope's opinion about future economic benefits without any real legal analysis about whether they're correct or not. What analysis there is doesn't seem to tally with the regs either. The regs say future economic benefits can include that from the disposal of an asset, but the LAP decision is clear that they believe they can only come from the clubs use of an asset. The regs say you can amend your amortisation model, useful life (or residual value) if your use of an asset or market conditions changes, the LAP decision makes it clear they they believe you can only do that for the revaluation model. The LAP's understanding of the regs really doesn't seem right to me. From what I can tell, the entire issue is that they think we were doing something that we weren't (cost model + revaluing players). They claim in the LAP reasons that ProfPope's lack of experience in practical accountancy and football finances was irrelevant because the issue came down to a matter of fact (the regs so you can't do X and we did X). But to my reading, ProfPrope's lack of experience is exactly what's lead him to this erroneous conclusion about what were doing. He didn't have the experience or knowledge to see if what we were doing is appropriate or not. Sorry for the long post... The Scarlet Pimpernel, BucksRam, Van der MoodHoover and 3 others 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 12 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: From what I can tell, the entire issue is that they think we were doing something that we weren't (cost model + revaluing players). They claim in the LAP reasons that ProfPope's lack of experience in practical accountancy and football finances was irrelevant because the issue came down to a matter of fact (the regs so you can't do X and we did X). But to my reading, ProfPrope's lack of experience is exactly what's lead him to this erroneous conclusion about what were doing. He didn't have the experience or knowledge to see if what we were doing is appropriate or not. Sorry for the long post... ? Cracking analysis. But what can be done about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: It honestly feels like the DC, the LAP, the EFL and the Club are all talking across each other, using the same terms to mean different things and quoting different bits of FRS102 at each other out of context. And I'm really not an expert on any of this, so I'm basically going by a surface reading of the written reasons and regs, so I may well be wrong on everything here too. So... It does seems to be taken as fact by everyone that there is no "active market" and hence we have to use the cost model. Even the club agrees with that with their statements to the DC and say they are using the cost model. And going by my reading of the regs, I agree. The EFL/LAP/ProfPope etc claimed we were using the cost model but were revaluing players, which is a feature of (and only of) the revaluation model. That's the root of their appeal win. We claim we were doing no such thing. We claim we were using the cost model, but we were factoring potential sales into the future economic benefits of the asset. So for someone like Jozwiak, his future economic benefits might only be 20% in actually playing for the club, and 80% in what we think we can sell him for in a year or 2. Obviously if his form dropped or he got injured, that balance would shift and we'd readjust. The LAP reasons are really weird, they go on for pages and pages quoting FRS102 about things we weren't claiming we were doing, and saying we can't do them (well, so what?). And then there's just a few statements that basically boil down ProfPope's opinion about future economic benefits without any real legal analysis about whether they're correct or not. What analysis there is doesn't seem to tally with the regs either. The regs say future economic benefits can include that from the disposal of an asset, but the LAP decision is clear that they believe they can only come from the clubs use of an asset. The regs say you can amend your amortisation model, useful life (or residual value) if your use of an asset or market conditions changes, the LAP decision makes it clear they they believe you can only do that for the revaluation model. The LAP's understanding of the regs really doesn't seem right to me. From what I can tell, the entire issue is that they think we were doing something that we weren't (cost model + revaluing players). They claim in the LAP reasons that ProfPope's lack of experience in practical accountancy and football finances was irrelevant because the issue came down to a matter of fact (the regs so you can't do X and we did X). But to my reading, ProfPrope's lack of experience is exactly what's lead him to this erroneous conclusion about what were doing. He didn't have the experience or knowledge to see if what we were doing is appropriate or not. Sorry for the long post... To summarise: Lawyers think they understand accounting regs better than accountants. Edited June 30, 2021 by Ghost of Clough Tamworthram, Raich Carter and duncanjwitham 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Just now, Ghost of Clough said: To summarise: Lawyers think they understand accounting regs better than accountants. Yes, I was wondering that very point. Who, if there is another appeal, does it go to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 What's the timescale for the efl to appeal the fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 56 minutes ago, CBRammette said: Now if they had said being auditors they just did the same as last year that I would get You know it! CBRammette 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Yes, I was wondering that very point. Who, if there is another appeal, does it go to? Unfortunately back to the lawyers ie LAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: ? Cracking analysis. But what can be done about it? 5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Yes, I was wondering that very point. Who, if there is another appeal, does it go to? There's basically nothing that can be done about it now. That part of the process is over, no more appeals on the actual decision. The LAPs opinions about accounting regs are now the actual accounting regs as far as we (and potentially other clubs by precedent) are concerned. The appeal is only on the punishment for breaking these fantasy regs. The only other route is an appeal to the CAS but I have no idea what the timescales, costs and even legality of that are. 4 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said: What's the timescale for the efl to appeal the fine? Up to 14 days after the panel release their written reasons, which they haven't yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 16 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Yes, I was wondering that very point. Who, if there is another appeal, does it go to? Steve Gibson, the guiding light and moral guardian of the EFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 13 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: There's basically nothing that can be done about it now. That part of the process is over, no more appeals on the actual decision. The LAPs opinions about accounting regs are now the actual accounting regs as far as we (and potentially other clubs by precedent) are concerned. The appeal is only on the punishment for breaking these fantasy regs. The only other route is an appeal to the CAS but I have no idea what the timescales, costs and even legality of that are. Ah right, I hadn't quite got that we were at that point. So if the EFL appeal the punishment and it's changed and we don't like it, can we appeal that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Just now, RoyMac5 said: Ah right, I hadn't quite got that we were at that point. So if the EFL appeal the punishment and it's changed and we don't like it, can we appeal that? I don't think so, short of a potential CAS case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 6 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: I don't think so, short of a potential CAS case. Oh. I suppose that if EFL appeal, rather than waiting for our new P&S, it will be a slow process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Oh. I suppose that if EFL appeal, rather than waiting for our new P&S, it will be a slow process? The new P&S is a completely separate thing, we don't have to file until mid-August, and anything arising from that will probably be new charges, new panels and take months etc. In terms of an appeal over the £100k fine, we don't know how long it will take. It took months to sort the last appeal, because of COVID restrictions making it difficult to get the panel together and the EFL/'Boro intervening, so it could take months again. Or it could be sorted in a few days, we just don't know. I imagine the EFL will be doing everything they can to expedite it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said: The new P&S is a completely separate thing, we don't have to file until mid-August, and anything arising from that will probably be new charges, new panels and take months etc. Yeah I know it's separate, but meant the EFL might just wait for their submission and hope to see us fail P&S. So as I was trying to articulate yesterday, as we can't appeal the EFL 2nd appeal punishment - which they are hoping (supposedly) to be a points deduction, wouldn't it be better if we appealed first and took a long time about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Morning guys. Can someone help me please? What’s the difference between deferred revenue and accounts receivable? Also a bit unsure as to when you can capitalise rather than expense a purchase? Its a minefield this accounting lark. Up the Rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Yeah I know it's separate, but meant the EFL might just wait for their submission and hope to see us fail P&S. So as I was trying to articulate yesterday, as we can't appeal the EFL 2nd appeal punishment - which they are hoping (supposedly) to be a points deduction, wouldn't it be better if we appealed first and took a long time about it? first game, August 7th, they will fast track any DC2 appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Yeah I know it's separate, but meant the EFL might just wait for their submission and hope to see us fail P&S. So as I was trying to articulate yesterday, as we can't appeal the EFL 2nd appeal punishment - which they are hoping (supposedly) to be a points deduction, wouldn't it be better if we appealed first and took a long time about it? I'm not sure if we can realistically "take a long time about it". We only have the 14 days to submit an appeal, then the panel will get to together as soon as possible to hear it. I'm not sure if we're allowed to be involved in the panel or not, but even that's not going to last more than a day or so. We could try the same intervention thing that the EFL/'Boro tried, but I'm not sure on what grounds, and I'd honestly be worried about prejudicing the panel if they're hearing an EFL appeal at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: We could try the same intervention thing that the EFL/'Boro tried, but I'm not sure on what grounds, and I'd honestly be worried about prejudicing the panel if they're hearing an EFL appeal at the same time. Ah right, didn't realise they'd hear both appeals (if they happened) together. Bit more worried than previously now. I still don't believe we're guilty of anything bar some technicalities, but still... #COYR 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