Please don’t blame Morris and Pearce.

[G STAR RAM]

11 minutes ago, Spanish said:

nope the LAP and DC decided this not the EFL

Nope, the IDC concluded (where accountancy experts were present) concluded that our wording was unclear. 

The LAP (no accountancy experts present) decided our accounts were not compliant, something that is blatantly incorrect. 

[Spanish]

31 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nope, the IDC concluded (where accountancy experts were present) concluded that our wording was unclear. 

The LAP (no accountancy experts present) decided our accounts were not compliant, something that is blatantly incorrect. 

either way it wasn't the EFL.  The LAP relied on evidence form a Professor of Accounting

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

either way it wasn't the EFL.  The LAP relied on evidence form a Professor of Accounting

You really think the LAP are independent of the EFL?

The IDC had experts at the hearing where the matter could be discussed.

The LAP just made a decision without discussing the matter with people involved in the decisions. 

I can tell you categorically that the assertion that our policy did not comply with FRS is 100% incorrect and the assumptions they used were fatally flawed.

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

You really think the LAP are independent of the EFL?

The IDC had experts at the hearing where the matter could be discussed.

The LAP just made a decision without discussing the matter with people involved in the decisions. 

I can tell you categorically that the assertion that our policy did not comply with FRS is 100% incorrect and the assumptions they used were fatally flawed.

this is like arguing with you about covid, haha. 

DC2 at 60.2 are quoted as confirming that our description was not compliant.  I can't cut and paste this.  We are arguing over little matters when the situation we find ourselves in is dire.  Doesn't matter that you believe that we didn't lose I believe differently.  We have to restate our accounts and summaries in a more standard manner. Whether we do that in the manner expected or, as i have suggested, the Directors get the specific support of an audit letter confirming compliance I don't know.  I just want this to end without a direct (points penalty) or indirect (forever in embargo) penalty

[ck-]

21 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I can tell you categorically that the assertion that our policy did not comply with FRS is 100% incorrect and the assumptions they used were fatally flawed.

I agree with the vast majority of what you’ve written, but there is perhaps an element of us not quite being blameless. 
While non-linear amortisation is clearly sensible given that many players hold or even increase their value, where we let ourselves down is by not being able to show even the minutes of a meeting where we set the valuations. Even a simple record of “We compared x to the recent transfer of y and deemed that because of the following similarities [a list ….] x has a current market value of £n” would have put us in a much better position to argue the validity of our approach.

It seems that the arguments were not so much “Is this FRS compliant” per se and more about did we show sufficient rigour in our process that it isn’t simply a book-cooking exercise with the numbers adjusted to meet the desired year end figures.

Any scheme where you’re going against the norm is one where you should make sure you’ve got your defence well lined up.

Notwithstanding all that, the EFL is IMHO overstepping its role of setting and maintaining the rules and has strayed uncomfortably into the territory of aggrieved party who can’t see beyond perceived slights to their character. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by ck-
Autocorrect idiocy

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

this is like arguing with you about covid, haha. 

DC2 at 60.2 are quoted as confirming that our description was not compliant.  I can't cut and paste this.  We are arguing over little matters when the situation we find ourselves in is dire.  Doesn't matter that you believe that we didn't lose I believe differently.  We have to restate our accounts and summaries in a more standard manner. Whether we do that in the manner expected or, as i have suggested, the Directors get the specific support of an audit letter confirming compliance I don't know.  I just want this to end without a direct (points penalty) or indirect (forever in embargo) penalty

Changing the wording should not facilitate changing the numbers.

The LAP have just rode roughshod over the findings of the IDC who looked at the matter in great detail.

The fact that there is no challenging the findings of the LAP shows that it is a complete charade.

We both want this to end with us not to have any points penalty, however, I want the EFL challenged because what they have done is a complete abuse of power and just goes to further highlight they are not fit for purpose.

[BramcoteRam84]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

i think we were in a mess before covid that's why we had to sell our stadium

But within the rules and it was accepted. Without Covid impact we wouldn’t be in embargo as HMRC bills would have been settled.

He gambled on the basis he could sell the stadium, then thought we’ll cut our cloth accordingly bring through the academy players and we will comply with P&S and more importantly he’ll haemorrhage less money. Covid has completely screwed that.

There are other clubs on the edge you’re just not hearing about it.

 

[BramcoteRam84]

Anyone thought the EFL and Derby are actually working together now. Pearce’s intent was clear. 
 

Let’s hope this announcement today is the first of some better news for this club. When we sign these 5 players, it gives us a “chance” to finish 21st. We need more, which means the HMRC issue and accounts resubmission being sorted pretty damn quick.

I think first half of the season is about staying in touch with the league, and then Bielik staying fit, and then (hopefully) a takeover to enable us to build again sustainably around the young players who should’ve further progressed.

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

But within the rules and it was accepted. Without Covid impact we wouldn’t be in embargo as HMRC bills would have been settled.

He gambled on the basis he could sell the stadium, then thought we’ll cut our cloth accordingly bring through the academy players and we will comply with P&S and more importantly he’ll haemorrhage less money. Covid has completely screwed that.

There are other clubs on the edge you’re just not hearing about it.

 

If it was within the rules and was accepted why are we in this mess?

The HMRC non payment is not clear to me but it seems to be related to the failed takeover?  Not sure why you think it is covid related.  It is not helping now but the other clubs can wholly stand behind covid as a reason if they had no problems before that.  I suppose I am getting a little tired of everybody blaming covid for delayed payments in my real life

[BramcoteRam84]

Just now, Spanish said:

If it was within the rules and was accepted why are we in this mess?

The HMRC non payment is not clear to me but it seems to be related to the failed takeover?  Not sure why you think it is covid related.  It is not helping now but the other clubs can wholly stand behind covid as a reason if they had no problems before that.  I suppose I am getting a little tired of everybody blaming covid for delayed payments in my real life

Covid has contributed definitely. He gambled and would’ve got away with it if not for Covid, he didn’t bargain on the pandemic. But if we weren’t living beyond our means in the first place we wouldn’t have these issues. Im now expecting him to sort it, we will see. This is only a slight defence of Mel. The buck definitely stops with him but he can still rectify some of it.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

 

 

Ignore!

Edited July 20, 2021 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[G STAR RAM]

34 minutes ago, ck- said:

I agree with the vast majority of what you’ve written, but there is perhaps an element of us not quite being blameless. 
While non-linear amortisation is clearly sensible given that many players hold or even increase their value, where we let ourselves down is by not being able to show even the minutes of a meeting where we set the valuations. Even a simple record of “We compared x to the recent transfer of y and deemed that because of the following similarities [a list ….] x has a current market value of £n” would have put us in a much better position to argue the validity of our approach.

It seems that the arguments were not so much “Is this FRS compliant” per se and more about did we show sufficient rigour in our process that it isn’t simply a book-cooking exercise with the numbers adjusted to meet the desired year end figures.

Any scheme where you’re going against the norm is one where you should make sure you’ve got your defence well lined up.

Notwithstanding all that, the EFL is IMHO overstepping its role of setting and maintaining the rules and has strayed uncomfortably into the territory of aggrieved party who can’t see beyond perceived slights to their character. 

Agree with you 100% here.

I'm very suspicious that the residual values we may have used were manipulated to help our financial situation.

However, the mechanism is there for the auditors to comment on whether we are choosing the correct accounting policies. 

However, I dont believe that this is what the EFL have argued.

If they had questioned our residual values and asked us to re-state them given evidence which has come to light since I would not have a problem with that 

[Van der MoodHoover]

8 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Covid has contributed definitely. He gambled and would’ve got away with it if not for Covid, he didn’t bargain on the pandemic. But if we weren’t living beyond our means in the first place we wouldn’t have these issues. Im now expecting him to sort it, we will see. This is only a slight defence of Mel. The buck definitely stops with him but he can still rectify some of it.

Absolutely. No excuse for owing the taxman. 

[Tamworthram]

27 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Anyone thought the EFL and Derby are actually working together now. Pearce’s intent was clear. 
 

Let’s hope this announcement today is the first of some better news for this club. When we sign these 5 players, it gives us a “chance” to finish 21st. We need more, which means the HMRC issue and accounts resubmission being sorted pretty damn quick.

I think first half of the season is about staying in touch with the league, and then Bielik staying fit, and then (hopefully) a takeover to enable us to build again sustainably around the young players who should’ve further progressed.

I’m not convinced yet. I think even the bar stewards at the EFL recognised that it wouldn’t really have been fair to effectively penalise us for having to play the academy due to circumstances beyond our control.

[Tyler Durden]

4 hours ago, Ambitious said:

I have a lot of time for Mel Morris, but it doesn't stop him from being one of the worst, possibly most careless (dangerous) owners this club has ever had in its 137 year history. 

Every decision he has made has led up to this point. He had ample opportunity and money to correct mistakes along the way, but he didn't. We've effectively had the same recruiting staff since he walked through the door and the evidence is there to show they're one of the worst in the country - if not the worst in the country. 

We can blame the EFL as much as we like, ultimately Mel's decision making and processes in place have left us in a *almost* unsurmountable hole and on our way to division 3 for only the third time in our history, bogged down with 10s of millions worth of debt. I don't know how much influence Pearce had on our amortisation policy, but he's another one that's possibly led Mel up the garden path and still making decisions for him now. He simply trusts the wrong characters and believes he's the smartest man in the room. He's painted himself into this corner. 

This. I don't know how anyone can even try and defend the indefensible.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

40 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

This. I don't know how anyone can even try and defend the indefensible.

So, if we had beaten Villa at Wembley would he still be diabolical or are we being Captain Hindsight? 

[bimmerman]

5 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Come on Agent Paterson was one of our better deals. He left after 6 months. Paterson’s agent must be a complete ****** that he didn’t get his man a £10k per week salary uplift and a loan contract extension with further salary uplift after playing 10 games, and a one-off, one year scouting contract of £750k for his Mrs.

I'm telling you...he was here for 6 months and the clubs been rotten since...now I'm not saying it's a coincidence or anything.....?

[Jimbo Ram]

3 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

 

 

Ignore!

We normally do Scarlet ?

[Angry Ram]

So in essence we blame Morris and Pearce.. Jobs  a goodun.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Angry Ram

[Tyler Durden]

22 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

So, if we had beaten Villa at Wembley would he still be diabolical or are we being Captain Hindsight? 

I can't answer that as it didn't happen.