EFL Verdict

[Rampant]

Will Steve Gibson be present at PP when Boro visit? 

Genuine question - would it be advisable for him to stay away?

[Pearl Ram]

3 minutes ago, Rampant said:

Will Steve Gibson be present at PP when Boro visit? 

Genuine question - would it be advisable for him to stay away?

Blimey, I was just thinking a moment ago Mel Morris should inform MFC that Gibson is no longer welcome at Pride Park and will not be allowed entry to the stadium. 

We do it for all other undesirables, why not him ?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Pearl Ram

[NottsRam77]

3 hours ago, DCFC1388 said:

Always liked that maguire lad ?

[NottsRam77]

2 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

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, 

?

Brilliant absolutely brilliant 

Take a bow son 

[RoyMac5]

2 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

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, 

?

Got a link mate, I feel blessed as I've been quoted on there too! ? 

Edited July 3, 2021 by RoyMac5

[RoyMac5]

How I'm feeling about the EFL verdict and their help in pointing out that we could use the 'extra' money from the sale of Pride Park! #COYR ?

 

 

[Rampage]

6 hours ago, Spanish said:

No, no and yes

Be more specific Spanish. Haha

[Wignall12]

1 hour ago, Rampant said:

Will Steve Gibson be present at PP when Boro visit? 

Genuine question - would it be advisable for him to stay away?

He'd get a VERY warm reception !!

[Wignall12]

Just now, Wignall12 said:

He'd get a VERY warm reception !!

Then we'd get dragged over the coals for it !!

[AutoWindscreens]

6 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It is very close to the limit under a straight line method (DC report hints at being over).

We have/are prepared/preparing an alternative non-linear amortisation method which will mean we will be within the limits.

If we can include even a little bit of the £30m amount, we will be fine either way.

I think it is a very strong hint at para 73 that we fall foul of P&S on a straight line method. 

The DC said that Pearce put in evidence showing what our P&S submissions would be with straight line and with an alternative non-linear method (which may or may not be compliant). Seems to me he would only prepare the alternative if the straight line put us in trouble. And the DC said that Pearce's statement shows there is an issue between us and the EFL over whether we can meet P&S targets using compliant accounts, which will have to be resolved by a future DC.

The Nightmare isn't over! This is going to dog us for a good while yet ...

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

I think it is a very strong hint at para 73 that we fall foul of P&S on a straight line method. 

The DC said that Pearce put in evidence showing what our P&S submissions would be with straight line and with an alternative non-linear method (which may or may not be compliant). Seems to me he would only prepare the alternative if the straight line put us in trouble. And the DC said that Pearce's statement shows there is an issue between us and the EFL over whether we can meet P&S targets using compliant accounts, which will have to be resolved by a future DC.

The Nightmare isn't over! This is going to dog us for a good while yet ...

I don't agree with your interpretation. But anyway the extra cash from the PP sale that the EFL pointed out to us should makes things much easier!

[AutoWindscreens]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I don't agree with your interpretation. But anyway the extra cash from the PP sale that the EFL pointed out to us should makes things much easier!

Read para 73 again, it's plain.

[Pearl Ram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Got a link mate, I feel blessed as I've been quoted on there too! ? 

https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/212464-Derby-deserve-relegation-are-the-football-league-going-to-bungle-this-one-too/page/9/

This is a link to page 9, if you’re not there try another page.

On page 10, one of them reckon the 71 other clubs should form their own league and we can “swivel in the sun” ?

Bless them, imagine being taken in by the Daily Mail to that extent. ?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Pearl Ram

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

2 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

Blimey, I was just thinking a moment ago Mel Morris should inform MFC that Gibson is no longer welcome at Pride Park and will not be allowed entry to the stadium. 

We do it for all other undesirables, why not him ?

No, we have to be the bigger club in all of this and welcome them and go on the charm offensive as a club. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once the Tw@ is in the ground let us loose on his sorry ass and we can all let him know what we think of him for the full 90mins the annoying little ?end ?????

[Pearl Ram]

Just now, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

No, we have to be the bigger club in all of this and welcome them and go on the charm offensive as a club. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once the Tw@ is in the ground let us loose on his sorry ass and we can all let him know what we think of him for the full 90mins the annoying little ?end ?????

No problem with that. I was just sitting here wondering what I would do if I was in Mel Morris’s position. Even in my position, I can’t abide the “I’ll load the bullets, you fire the gun” types, we’ve got one at work and I put Gibson in that category. ?

[RoyMac5]

25 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Read para 73 again, it's plain.

No its not. In bold is surely meaning in relation to straight line amortisation:

"85) That does not seem to us to be of any consequence for the task before us – sanctioning the Club for the proven breaches – save perhaps to reinforce the view expressed above that, on the evidence before us, it is impossible for us to conclude that by virtue of the adoption of a non-compliant amortisation policy in each/any of the seasons in question, the Club(1) Was able to spend sums that it would not otherwise have been permissibly able to spend had it operated an amortisation policy that complied with FRS 102, and so(2) Gained a sporting advantage over other Championship clubs. As we have said, while the amortisation policy may well have had the consequence of depressing losses in the Club’s Annual Accounts in one or more of the seasons under scrutiny, it does not automatically follow that that meant that the Club was able to spend, or in fact spent more, on players in any season than it would otherwise have permissiblybeen able to do had it been operating an FRS 102-compliant amortisation policy"

 

[Ghost of Clough]

4 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

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?

Obviously it will help with the 3 years to 2018. It then follows that this would have helped in the periods up to and including 2020. However, due to Covid, the 3 yewr period became four, which means it will actually help for the 4 year period to 2021.

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

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. 

That's right. I very much doubt we actually did use Transfermarkt (I ran a quick analysis and the numbers simply wouldn't add up), I think that was thrown in there to imply we didn't just make numbers up.

The best method I can think of is like this:

A straight line is used from when signed towards typical retirement age or the end of the contract (whichever is later). A second straight line is used between the start of the final year of contract to the end of contract.

A couple examples here, and I'll assume typical retirement age is 33.

Example 1: 32 year old player signs for £500k on a 2 year deal. Contract runs beyond typical retirement age, so £250k is amortised each year.

Example 2: 23 year old player signs for £2.5m on a 4 year deal. End of contract is before typical retirement age. £250k is amortised for the first 3 years (the fully amortised point would fall in the season he turns 33). Then £1.75m is amortised in the final year.

Hopefully I've explained that well enough? ?

It ensures numbers arent plucked from thin air, it's systematic, but is it reliable? It sounds reasonable to me though.

Maybe a get out is to get a few accountancy bodies to give our policy a seal of approval.

2 hours ago, Rampant said:

Will Steve Gibson be present at PP when Boro visit? 

Genuine question - would it be advisable for him to stay away?

He'll be welcomed as a hero if it means we can realise the £30m stadium 'lost' money.

[Malty]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

No its not. In bold is surely meaning in relation to straight line amortisation:

"85) That does not seem to us to be of any consequence for the task before us – sanctioning the Club for the proven breaches – save perhaps to reinforce the view expressed above that, on the evidence before us, it is impossible for us to conclude that by virtue of the adoption of a non-compliant amortisation policy in each/any of the seasons in question, the Club(1) Was able to spend sums that it would not otherwise have been permissibly able to spend had it operated an amortisation policy that complied with FRS 102, and so(2) Gained a sporting advantage over other Championship clubs. As we have said, while the amortisation policy may well have had the consequence of depressing losses in the Club’s Annual Accounts in one or more of the seasons under scrutiny, it does not automatically follow that that meant that the Club was able to spend, or in fact spent more, on players in any season than it would otherwise have permissiblybeen able to do had it been operating an FRS 102-compliant amortisation policy"

 

I just can’t imagine that DCFC would accept that their policy is non compliant with FRS102. And I’m not sure that’s a matter for this appeal panel, nor the original disciplinary panel. Sadly there is still an argument to be us there. The only way that this is resolved quickly is if the club decides to revert immediately to a straight line method. The implications of this are not known, but if they would result in DCFC failing P&S, then I would very much expect DCFC to appeal and possibly win (again).

[Woodley Ram]

2 hours ago, Rampant said:

Will Steve Gibson be present at PP when Boro visit? 

Genuine question - would it be advisable for him to stay away?

I think the police should advise him that because he is a total Bamford he should stay in the toilet that is Middlesbrough 

[JfR]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's right. I very much doubt we actually did use Transfermarkt (I ran a quick analysis and the numbers simply wouldn't add up), I think that was thrown in there to imply we didn't just make numbers up.

If I remember correctly, I think the actual report said that the club used Transfermarkt as one of a few resources to find the reported values of player transfers of comparable players. I think a lot of people have gotten confused and thought the club were going off of Transfermarkt's "Market Value" of Derby players and using that within the accounts.