Jump to content

Please don’t blame Morris and Pearce.


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

In short, do one you knobber.

No, I don't have a problem with anyone challenging my views.

Just make sure you come armed with some proper facts if you're going to refer to me as a joker!

Think my views are reasonably balanced on the amortisation point and, believe it or not, do have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, I don't have a problem with anyone challenging my views.

Just make sure you come armed with some proper facts if you're going to refer to me as a joker!

Think my views are reasonably balanced on the amortisation point and, believe it or not, do have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the point.

If Mr P of OTIB was half as clever as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as clever as he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

If Mr P of OTIB was half as clever as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as clever as he is.

Can picture him now sat there in his mums house wearing just his Y fronts, frantically bashing away on his calculator.

Just for your information Mr P, half is 0.5 and twice equals x 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Appears I am the latest to rattle Mr P's cage over on OTIB.

It really is a shame that he doesn't sign up here so his views can be challenged.

Anyway, we I know you will be looking in again today Mr P, so for your benefit, yes I do feel after 23 years of working as an accountant and audior that I am suitably placed to challenge what the LAP decided. 

I'm also more than happy to explain to you why the accounts, other than the wording of the notes, were compliant with FRS, so feel free to drop your e-mail address on your board if you wish to discuss.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I think I know better than the IDC, as I actually agreed with their findings, on the basis that you disagree with them, and think we should have a points deduction, surely it is you that thinks you know better than the IDC and LAP, and I look forward to hearing on what basis you believe you know better.

In respect of you thinking my views are not balanced, you will note that I said I believe the residual values of our players may have been manipulated to help us with FFP and I would have no problem if the IDC or LAP had requested for them to be revised in light of information that has come to light since ie; resale values or contracts expiring. Having read your posts I am struggling to see what balance you feel you add to the matter but look forward to hearing.

Anyway, don't spend too much time worrying about the opinions of fans on another teams forum...life is much too short.

What's OTIB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, S8TY said:

When Mel took over he inherited a good squad and then supplied the funds for Mac to bring in Thorne on a permanent and a few other players …at that stage I felt we couldn’t be in a better place and we were heading in the right direction 

A few seasons on and it is a total and utter shambles and although some poor managerial appointments haven’t helped what we as fans have no insight into is how the books are being balanced are the HMRC being paid are staff wages being paid etc etc in other words running a business

The embarrassing shambolic mess of a once great football club is down to Mel and his associates I’m afraid whether anyone thinks he has good intentions or not …his side of it was to maintain the football club we love and he has failed 

I’m sick to death of hearing our club being spoke about in such low terms and Mel seemed ok on talksport boasting that he’d had one over on the efl etc but I’m sorry all we as fans asked of Mel was to run the club we adore ….properly !!! He has failed and for me I certainly will never forgive him for the mess we are in ….managers make bad decisions so do players but that’s part of the game …but crossing the tees and dotting the I’s on the business side we trusted Mr Morris and he has let us down …good intentions or not 

You hit the nail on the head there, agree with everything u said, post of the year for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/06/2021 at 10:30, David said:

For an organisation to approve and sign off on accounts for 3 seasons, to then turn round and say hold up, you know how we approved those accounts? Yeah, we don’t anymore and decided we want to retrospectively punish you by relegating you. 

Whatever your thoughts on Mel, the signings, appointments the colour of his shoes, this is just insanity, it honestly is and it’s vindictive insanity even taking club bias out.

This case should worry every single owner, manager and fan of clubs under the shambolic EFL pyramid.

Including that Championship club where the owner owns another club over in Greece, transferring players between each other to circumvent FFP restrictions without even trying to hide it and the EFL are blind to it.

Our real crime here let’s be honest is being better than Middlesbrough one season, that’s the big issue here. 

We’ve upset this little bloke up North sat in his half empty stadium so much he’s had his lawyers out to shake the EFL suits up.

Then you have that Karen Maguire over on Twitter sticking his great big spoon into the mix as it gives him a hard on and appearances on rogue radio stations and podcasts.

Absolute joke.

Nobody from the EFL will read this, but if somehow you do, fine yourself, fine yourself for being an inept organisation and if you’re serious about looking out for the best interests of the member clubs, sell up, hand the leagues over as you have shown time after time you are incapable of running them, you’re an embarrassment.

#FuckTheEFL

So the current dire status of DCFC (thread bare squad, owner wanting to bail out, no visible new investment, barely able to cover wages, etc etc)  is purely down to the EFL, some little bloke up North, and someone on Twitter. Really ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rev said:

I like the irony of people moaning about someone from another forum sticking their nose into our business, while going to another teams forum to report back on here what he's saying!

I wouldn't have a clue what he was saying otherwise.

 

Should see what he is saying about you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, managed to get a response from Mr P over on OTIB.

His words in italics, my responses in bold.

Well G Star Ram, I probably shouldn't bother but going to address a few points very quickly and likely not in enough depth.

Audit and Accounting Experience

Vast experience clearly, doesn't mean you are necessarily objective however- let's be honest you appear to think Derby are innocent so...wouldn't expect you to be.

Thing is, I agreed with the IDC findings which doesnt necessarily mean I think DCFC are innocent. 

I agree the wording was unclear and I have stated that I think residual values may have been manipulated, how is that not objective? 

I'd be very interested to hear how someone who started a thread called 'Derby Deserve Relegation' can seriously expect anyone to believe that they are objective?

LAP vs IDC

As we recall, in the initial case which ended last August exonerated Derby in respect of the First Charge- Pride Park Sale and Leaseback, valuation etc, while mostly finding Derby innocent on the 2nd Charge except in terms of Disclosure. However from that, the EFL worked their way up to get a Guilty Verdict from the LAP. Incidentally I do trust their objectivity more than I would yours, as you are a Derby fan albeit as per your post, one with 23 years of Accounting and Auditing Experience and they are objective and Independent. Doubt you can say the same on this matter. When sent back to the IDC, it was £100k fine for Wrong Accounting, a Reprimand in respect of Future Financial Conduct and then the Restatement by 18th August.

Just one thing to say here, how can you trust the objectivity of the LAP but not the IDC. Which body had more experience in the Accounting field?

Importance of Independent Witnesses

Unsure if it was ignorance or arrogance on the part of Mel Morris- but Independent Witnesses are quite important in cases such as this. Why did Derby not choose one or hire one for the matter in front of the League Arbitration Panel? It wouldn't surprise me if Professor Pope helped to tip the balance in favour of the EFL in that particular case. Justifiably so because the Auditors and Accountants on behalf of both Derby and the EFL are hardly going to be purely objective are they, in legal terms Independent Expert Witnesses are quite important- CPS explanation as to why: 

  Quote

The Duty of an Expert Witness. The duty of an expert witness is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise

Expand  

Their words can carry weight- EFL hired one, Derby didn't for whatever reason. Wouldn't surprise me if it tipped the balance- and on balance I do think I believe the LAP, as there were some quite eminent names on it! Lord Dyson the most known, but also David Phillips QC and Charles Hollander QC are not exactly just starting out!

Could Derby not find one, or was there a belief on their part that one was not needed? My suspicion is that it helped to tip the balance, that extra objective Expert opinion.

Is this correct? Were DCFC given the opportunity to have an expert witness at the LAP hearing?

Difference between Restatement for

P&S and in general

Personally speaking, though it would be interesting, is it that important to Restate in terms of the past and overdue but especially the past Accounts due at CH? Restatement to the EFL/Disciplinary Process for P&S purposes however is required and that is what needs to happen by 18th August. I don't understand why e.g. the outstanding Accounts are not out now but with Internal Restatement for P&S purposes possible. There is some debate as to whether they specifically needed to wait for the Verdict as to the format for CH. Maybe they couldn't be bothered with the extra work that it might entail which I fully get, but a Restatement if it's just about a) Amortisation Schedules and b) Profit on Disposal of Players can be simple enough.

That said, given that there was no Sale guaranteed or lined up for players by the end of their Contract, how a Residual Value can be applied is questionable, IIRC Spanish made a good post on it back in May on the EFL Verdict thread. FFP/P&S=Straight Line or Straight Line with Extensions seems reasonable, for these purposes anyway IMO.

Impermissible under FRS 102. Haven't read it for a while but only permissible IIRC if an Active Market exists to do it that way- clearly not the case in this instance.

Bottom line is that a) EFL had an Independent Witness and Derby chose not to utilise one- probably helped to swing things- b) The LAP with some quite eminent individuals on it ruled it less than compliant.

The use of residual values is very permissible. Whether the correct residual values are being used is for the auditors to conclude. Should huge losses start to arise at the end of players contracts then the auditors should conclude that DCFC are not using correct accounting estimates and either get them to amend or make reference to this in their audit report.

If the auditors did conclude this it would only require changes going forward, no retrospective amendments are required in respect of changes in accounting estimates

Auditors In General

Number of Auditing Scandals in general in recent years, lax practice in the Industry etc- just because Smith Cooper and the Delves signed it off as aok doesn't necessarily mean it was entirely accurate?

This sums up the objectivity that is being applied. We must trust the LAP because they are experts and Independent but we can't trust the auditors even though they are experts and independent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The use of residual values is very permissible. Whether the correct residual values are being used is for the auditors to conclude. Should huge losses start to arise at the end of players contracts then the auditors should conclude that DCFC are not using correct accounting estimates and either get them to amend or make reference to this in their audit report.

(I'm not an expert etc).  I read through FRS102 and I don't think residual Values are allowed for in our case (specifically the Bosman/leaving on a free issue). But it's irrelevant because we aren't using Residual Values (despite what the dubious wording in the accounts said).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

(I'm not an expert etc).  I read through FRS102 and I don't think residual Values are allowed for in our case (specifically the Bosman/leaving on a free issue). But it's irrelevant because we aren't using Residual Values (despite what the dubious wording in the accounts said).  

The contracts were given a residual value at the end of each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The contracts were given a residual value at the end of each year.

That's not the way I understood it (again, not an expert etc). For us to use Residual Values, there had to be an active market and there definitely wasn't (everyone, the EFL, club, DC and LAP all agreed on this point IIRC).  What we were supposedly doing is factoring the players potential sale value into their "future economic benefits" and amortising that away over their contract (i.e. benefits from both use and disposal of an asset).  So for someone like Jozwiak, their "future economic benefits" might be 20% actually playing for us and 80% in being sold for a profit, so we'd amortise that 20% away while he was playing for us, and tweak the 20/80 balance every 6 months as the likelihood of him being sold changed (probably a gross over-simplification etc).  I suspect the actual net results are the same as using Residual Values, but we're explicitly not allowed to use RVs but can use what we did (IMO anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's not the way I understood it (again, not an expert etc). For us to use Residual Values, there had to be an active market and there definitely wasn't (everyone, the EFL, club, DC and LAP all agreed on this point IIRC).  What we were supposedly doing is factoring the players potential sale value into their "future economic benefits" and amortising that away over their contract (i.e. benefits from both use and disposal of an asset).  So for someone like Jozwiak, their "future economic benefits" might be 20% actually playing for us and 80% in being sold for a profit, so we'd amortise that 20% away while he was playing for us, and tweak the 20/80 balance every 6 months as the likelihood of him being sold changed (probably a gross over-simplification etc).  I suspect the actual net results are the same as using Residual Values, but we're explicitly not allowed to use RVs but can use what we did (IMO anyway).

The residual value is the resale value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The residual value is the resale value.

This is from FRS102 (https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/69f7d814-c806-4ccc-b451-aba50d6e8de2/FRS-102-FRS-applicable-in-the-UK-and-Republic-of-Ireland-(March-2018).pdf) :

image.png.5590963ec384d148f8d54e1efe7a8688.png

I don't see how that can possibly apply to our case, given there's no active market.

If I remember correctly, the issue with the unclear wording in the accounts was basically that we said we were using RVs when we were actually using Estimated Recovery Values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.