Jump to content

EFL Verdict


DCFC90

Recommended Posts

Dear Mr Pop,

Thank you for taking the trouble to screenshot a post of mine last night to include on the OTIB forum, I feel blessed.

Despite all your guff and gnashing of teeth, the only  discrepancy The EFL ever had on us was the explanation of our amortisation could have been clearer which is regrettable.

Everything else was approved by them.

 What  I am having trouble comprehending though, is why it’s so difficult for you and your cohorts to understand that though The EFL, aided by the goon at Middlesbrough FC, wanted us hammered and were determined to do so, doesn’t the fact they couldn’t hammer us, even slightly give you the impression they had nothing to hammer us for? ?‍♂️

Give it up old son, you’ve made yourself look a bit silly over this, I mean, you obsess with us yet not a peep out of you regarding Bournemouth, Villa, Leeds or Leicester who have all benefitted far more than us by wandering from the straight and narrow.

And now your work with us is now done, keep your minces on Stoke and Reading, they might give you something else to get your teeth into. Don’t forget to say hello when you visit the cathedral of football on the 23rd of March.

Good grief, imagine if you come here needing points to stay up and we tonk you and send you down...? Karma can be a good thing you know.

Best Regards, 

? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

Its sonething like this...

In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).

Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).

The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.

I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.

IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:

1) Sale price less historical cost

Or

2) Sale price less net book value

Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

I would laugh so hard if this happened. I think this figure would not just mean we were within P&S limits, but would also give us substantial room for new owners to spend on new players …

Edited by Indy
Clarifying that this wouldn’t actually give us a transfer fund, just allow us to spend more
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

I would laugh so hard if this happened. I think this figure would not just mean we were within P&S limits, but would also give us substantial room for new owners to spend on new players …

I wondered how the newly found money would carry forward - will it help with the two years P&S accounts still to be submitted as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCleary does highlight another important point.

He does point to another bodged, vindictive, decision by the EFL (including rushing out a statement at midnight, and raising the prospect of the Rams/Wycombe interchanging leagues) when a) at the time the appeals committee hadn’t completed and filed their report, and b) they hadn’t clearly sought their own legal opinion at the time that an appeal was of any merit. They clearly are not fit for purpose  / bankers (*delete as appropriate).

Edited by i-Ram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With their policy, best described as: Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, it wouldn't be a terrible idea if someone with photoshopping skills were to make a big poster of Rick ‘Vicky Pollard’ Parry and we all clubbed together to put it on a billboard outside EFL HQ, like those lads at Led by Donkeys who call out the lies of politicians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

McCleary does highlight another important point.

He does point to another bodged, vindictive, decision by the EFL (including rushing out a statement at midnight, and raising the prospect of the Rams/Wycombe interchanging leagues) when a) at the time the appeals committee hadn’t completed and filed their report, and b) they hadn’t clearly sought their own legal opinion at the time that an appeal was of any merit. They clearly are not fit for purpose  / bankers (*delete as appropriate).

Delete the EFL is the most appropriate action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

My favourite post on that forum is:

Rooney getting praise for keeping them up is like Arsenal's on pitch celebrations for finishing 8th

? At least they’ve got something right 

I feel a little sad for Ploppy 

Let's dedicate a song to help cheer him up

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I had a feeling we'd be exploring a nonlinear option. It'll be interesting to see how they're 'reliably' estimating values.

Impossible task really isn't it? I think they mentioned sites like Transfrmkt (shudder!) and also sale prices of players of similar age, experience etc. We all know though that even if you use a reliable 'fair market value', it only holds up if you have a buyer or buyers willing to meet the asking price. This is the main reason I think the EFL should have nominated straight line amortisation as the only acceptable methodology from the off. It's a can of worms otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the disadvantage inflicted on the club by a 2 year embago (almost relegated) far exceeds any perceived 'advantage' we have derived from overspending (promotion thwarted by clubs who have bent the rules to a far greater extent than ourselves without punishment).

There have been so many changes of attack by the EFL, it is plainly a vendetta.

It's all been said before but it irks me that they plainly make things up as they go along. Now the rule about selling stadia. The only thing that surprises me about that is that it doesn't have a date retrospective to when ours was sold.

As for penalising clubs for taking advantage of (legally) submitting accounts late due to COVID, when they did the same thing themselves just highlights the double standards they apply.

I hope that MP, who someone on the forum wrote to, recommends an investigation into the machinations of the EFL.

Edited by Phoenix
Typo
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...