EFL Verdict

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I suspect there is a lot of work involved - time to be patient

with the months we have had don't you Mel has asked for draft figures in case the worst should happen?  Can't believe they don't already know and have known for some time.  Anybody have an idea why there may be a legitimate reason for why they couldn't have calculated the impact?

[Ambitious]

13 minutes ago, rammieib said:

But why not put them in now? If we are in within P&S, put them in, show we comply and get the transfer embargo lifted.

I would say if we were within P&S with the new amortisation policy (which I suspect we will be) then the EFL are more likely to fight the first charge much more vigorously and ultimately that could see the independent panel bending to their will. Ultimately, until that first charge is completely written off, I would imagine that we will be under a transfer embargo anyway. I think we will do everything to try and minimise any opportunity the EFL have to really kill us. 

I'm probably wrong, but I'd guess that the EFL will appeal the first charge anyway - we will get a bigger fine, but no retrospective points deduction. The new accounts will have us within P&S and we will go into the new season without any point deduction, however we will significantly under-prepared. It will take some effort to remain a Championship club. 

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I would say if we were within P&S with the new amortisation policy (which I suspect we will be) then the EFL are more likely to fight the first charge much more vigorously and ultimately that could see the independent panel bending to their will. Ultimately, until that first charge is completely written off, I would imagine that we will be under a transfer embargo anyway. I think we will do everything to try and minimise any opportunity the EFL have to really kill us. 

I'm probably wrong, but I'd guess that the EFL will appeal the first charge anyway - we will get a bigger fine, but no retrospective points deduction. The new accounts will have us within P&S and we will go into the new season without any point deduction, however we will significantly under-prepared. It will take some effort to remain a Championship club. 

an appeal for a fine in respect of a novel methodology which produced figures that were broadly in line with the accepted methodology?  LAP will throw it out or at least should do.  If we are compliant under their preferred methodology I think we should be shouting it from the rooftops 

[Rampage]

The delay appears to be like a punishment in its own right if we cannot progress with transfers. This could maybe even go on until the window closes at this rate of progress.

[Ambitious]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

an appeal for a fine in respect of a novel methodology which produced figures that were broadly in line with the accepted methodology?  LAP will throw it out or at least should do.  If we are compliant under their preferred methodology I think we should be shouting it from the rooftops 

This is why we obviously went with the amortisation we did. It allowed us to kick the can down the road and become more strategic with our approach, but with the sale of pride park - I do think we will be under the limit anyway.

We started our amortisation approach long before the pride park sale, which I imagine was to keep us under the FFP (P&S) regs, however it ran away from us a fair bit when we lost out on players who we thought we could get some resale value on. We effectively bought a ton of players and lost them for nothing. I think at that point we decided to sell the ground. It kept us within the limit quite comfortably in the end, hence why I think we will be ok. 

Player X could have been depreciated
Year 1 - 10%
Year 2 - 10%
Year 3 - 50%
Year 4 - 30% (or 20% as I think we held some of the value) 

But when we come to do our new accounts it will show:

Year 1 - 25%
Year 2 - 25%
Year 3 - 25%
Year 4 - 25% 

If you look at year 3 on both examples, there isn't actually that much difference. I think that is perhaps why the initial fine isn't significant. It will all come out in the wash, of course, but the only thing we have done is kick the can down the road. I find that to be stupid in itself, very short-sighted, but ultimately the deprecation in both examples is going to 100% from entering and leaving. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

3 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I’m not an accountant and very happy to be corrected and educated but, surely the accounts show that they DID have £111m in the bank as at 4/8/20. It’s offset by the large amount of creditors falling due within, and more than, 12 months but the vast majority of this is accruals and deferred income which seems to be a rolling amount and pretty much the same each year. Doesn’t that mean it’s just an accounting entry and those liabilities will never materialise provided the EFL continues to exist and deliver the league fixtures? 
 

I may well have got that completely wrong.

A liability like everything else in accounting is a best estimate which will cover a broad range of things from salaries owing to bills to anything else. 

Those liabilities will be met and maybe replaced with very similar sounding ones that are legally distinct. 

But if the directors felt a contingency was so remote that it would not happen then they would not have to recognise a liability. For example, they probably won't have a liability in respect of potentially successful legal action by aggrieved members or indeed in respect of their own legal fees where they expect to recover these. 

[ariotofmyown]

18 hours ago, Indy said:

This sounds like the worst kind of he said she said made up b@ll@cks. 

Alas I think it might be true. I just spotted a different friend of the person who posted this on the Wycombe messageboard buying patio furniture in B&Q.

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

This is why we obviously went with the amortisation we did. It allowed us to kick the can down the road and become more strategic with our approach, but with the sale of pride park - I do think we will be under the limit anyway.

We started our amortisation approach long before the pride park sale, which I imagine was to keep us under the FFP (P&S) regs, however it ran away from us a fair bit when we lost out on players who we thought we could get some resale value on. We effectively bought a ton of players and lost them for nothing. I think at that point we decided to sell the ground. It kept us within the limit quite comfortably in the end, hence why I think we will be ok. 

Player X could have been depreciated
Year 1 - 10%
Year 2 - 10%
Year 3 - 50%
Year 4 - 30% (or 20% as I think we held some of the value) 

But when we come to do our new accounts it will show:

Year 1 - 25%
Year 2 - 25%
Year 3 - 25%
Year 4 - 25% 

If you look at year 3 on both examples, there isn't actually that much difference. I think that is perhaps why the initial fine isn't significant. It will all come out in the wash, of course, but the only thing we have done is kick the can down the road. I find that to be stupid in itself, very short-sighted, but ultimately the deprecation in both examples is going to 100% from entering and leaving. 

year 3 is an assumption and consequently y4.  I disagree with the approach you suggest but I am not one for conspiracy theories.  I would rather confront this head on if we are compliant using their preferred method.  The scenario 

• efl appeal
• we produce figs which show we are compliant
• LAP enforce a penalty that means relegation

this will end up in court

[RoyMac5]

10 minutes ago, Spanish said:

year 3 is an assumption and consequently y4.  I disagree with the approach you suggest but I am not one for conspiracy theories.  I would rather confront this head on if we are compliant using their preferred method.  The scenario 

• efl appeal
• we produce figs which show we are compliant
• LAP enforce a penalty that means relegation

this will end up in court

Why on earth wouldn't you just wait - who wants to go to court if it can be avoided?!

[Woodley Ram]

22 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

This is why we obviously went with the amortisation we did. It allowed us to kick the can down the road and become more strategic with our approach, but with the sale of pride park - I do think we will be under the limit anyway.

We started our amortisation approach long before the pride park sale, which I imagine was to keep us under the FFP (P&S) regs, however it ran away from us a fair bit when we lost out on players who we thought we could get some resale value on. We effectively bought a ton of players and lost them for nothing. I think at that point we decided to sell the ground. It kept us within the limit quite comfortably in the end, hence why I think we will be ok. 

Player X could have been depreciated
Year 1 - 10%
Year 2 - 10%
Year 3 - 50%
Year 4 - 30% (or 20% as I think we held some of the value) 

But when we come to do our new accounts it will show:

Year 1 - 25%
Year 2 - 25%
Year 3 - 25%
Year 4 - 25% 

If you look at year 3 on both examples, there isn't actually that much difference. I think that is perhaps why the initial fine isn't significant. It will all come out in the wash, of course, but the only thing we have done is kick the can down the road. I find that to be stupid in itself, very short-sighted, but ultimately the deprecation in both examples is going to 100% from entering and leaving. 

you are right, I think from what I have read, but the end of the contract was always 0. I think offloading the value in year 3 and 4 feels right.  It does of course depend on when year 3 is in the financial cycle. If you are over loaded with debt for 2 years then 10% and not 25% would really help. We had that when we spent really big for a couple of years so it was better for us to have 10% instead of 25% and when we had cut our cloth in year 3 to have the bigger amount then. That's where the EFL think we bent the rules to escape FFP.   

I think with the sale of PP we will be ok or just over and at most get a few points deduction and the EFL are not happy about that either as the earliest they can impose that is the coming season or possible after appeals the season after that. It would be very harsh to keep us under an embargo for 3 years plus

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Here's one possibility- the efl is currently trying to get Wycombe to calm down and call off the attack dogs so it can annou ce it will not appeal. That's why it's taking so long.

I shall file that under "This is why we can have nice things - eventually".

[Woodley Ram]

17 minutes ago, Spanish said:

year 3 is an assumption and consequently y4.  I disagree with the approach you suggest but I am not one for conspiracy theories.  I would rather confront this head on if we are compliant using their preferred method.  The scenario 

• efl appeal
• we produce figs which show we are compliant
• LAP enforce a penalty that means relegation

this will end up in court

I don't think we will get a retrospective penalty, and if we are FFP compliant then we will not get a points penalty at all. However our inability to keep and buy players will be are undoing

[rammieib]

1 hour ago, Ambitious said:

I would say if we were within P&S with the new amortisation policy (which I suspect we will be) then the EFL are more likely to fight the first charge much more vigorously and ultimately that could see the independent panel bending to their will. Ultimately, until that first charge is completely written off, I would imagine that we will be under a transfer embargo anyway. I think we will do everything to try and minimise any opportunity the EFL have to really kill us. 

I'm probably wrong, but I'd guess that the EFL will appeal the first charge anyway - we will get a bigger fine, but no retrospective points deduction. The new accounts will have us within P&S and we will go into the new season without any point deduction, however we will significantly under-prepared. It will take some effort to remain a Championship club. 

I look at this completely the opposite way. If we are not within it, there will be more vigour to punish us now instead of this coming season (which is when the points penalty for the P&S would apply). If we are perfectly in line with P&S then it makes the EFL a little pathetic for continuing to go after us. 

Mel and Pearce will 100% have the drafted numbers done and would have done them months, if not years ago. they will know if right now we are or are not compliant. So my point is, if we are compliant, then every day which passes, we are restricting the ability for Rooney to go and do his job in recruiting players, even if many of his targets are free transfers.

If we are not compliant, then we wait until the last possible moment. Rooney brings in 3 or 4 new players, who will no doubt be of lower quality and we cannot pay more than £11k as week. (Hard life on £11k a week isn't it).

I imagine we don't need to retrospectively change the accounts into companies house but for the years we have not yet submitted, I assume we are going back to the old amortization process. Someone in the finance world would need to tell me how you change an amortization process mid-flow though?

[dcfcreece1601]

Reading all this is making my head hurt ??

[ollycutts1982]

Can we not just drag it on until next May? By that time we will have been promoted and be a Premier League club so won’t be an issue. ??

[Jimbo Ram]

5 minutes ago, dcfcreece1601 said:

Reading all this is making my head hurt ??

Yep, just a case now of wait and see and ?. Just hope the fiasco is concluded quickly ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

32 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I look at this completely the opposite way. If we are not within it, there will be more vigour to punish us now instead of this coming season (which is when the points penalty for the P&S would apply). If we are perfectly in line with P&S then it makes the EFL a little pathetic for continuing to go after us. 

Mel and Pearce will 100% have the drafted numbers done and would have done them months, if not years ago. they will know if right now we are or are not compliant. So my point is, if we are compliant, then every day which passes, we are restricting the ability for Rooney to go and do his job in recruiting players, even if many of his targets are free transfers.

If we are not compliant, then we wait until the last possible moment. Rooney brings in 3 or 4 new players, who will no doubt be of lower quality and we cannot pay more than £11k as week. (Hard life on £11k a week isn't it).

I imagine we don't need to retrospectively change the accounts into companies house but for the years we have not yet submitted, I assume we are going back to the old amortization process. Someone in the finance world would need to tell me how you change an amortization process mid-flow though?

I just get the feeling that whichever way it looks like going there will be furious calls to have us severely punished, retrospectivly as a preference.

DCFC floats! It's a witch! Burn it!

DCFC didn't drown! Push it further under, the only fair way to find out if it's witchcraft!!!

[Woodley Ram]

There must be other clubs looking at this that are a little bit worried, Stoke and Reading posted large losses, some will no doubt be written off to Covid but not all. You do wonder about some of the others as well that have either bought big or paid large loans fees and wages. I would of course love one of the to Gibsonville and the riverside posse 

[CornwallRam]

Does anyone know when our next P&S submission is due? Lots of we'll informed people are confident that our resubmitted figures will be compliant for the charge years, so I'm happy to accept that. 

I'm slightly concerned that the restated figures for the next couple of seasons could be a bit tricky. Everyone assumes that we are aiming for a loss of less than £39m over a rolling 3 season period, but that assumes that Mel has been putting £8m in equity in per season. He might well have, but there is also reason to believe that the cash to run the club has been borrowed, so it might not be as comfortable as we'd hope.

You can just imagine this charge being settled and the embargo lifted on July 18th only for a new charge and embargo to hit us on the day after.

[Leeds Ram]

On the tactics of delay or get it out the way now then surely the latter is the preferred option? If we wait and wait like some are suggesting we're basically dooming ourselves to league 1 next season due to the transfer embargo anyway. Anyone thinking we can survive with the squad we have and only a couple of cheap additions are living on another planet- we only just stayed up (without the points deduction we were down) with a stronger squad last season let alone now and that was a relatively low points scoring season for teams at the bottom. 

If we submit asap (surely we should have the numbers) then one of two things happen- 1) we are compliant and the EFL continue to come after us it makes them look pathetic. Then we can see the end in sight at the very least. 2) If we aren't compliant then delaying until the last possible moment is just sealing our fate for this season that we want to avoid in the first place. It'd be better to take our chances now and lift this horrible cloud from over the club