Jump to content

Please don’t blame Morris and Pearce.


Curtains

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

None of us knows the price. You’ve got a pandemic on, possible future lockdowns, and a club that could still be dragged into the third tier by the EFL. Or that could be top 6 this season with crowds approaching capacity. So you have a debt free valuation that stretches from, dunno, £150m to £40m.
He’s pumped endless money into the club and you’re saying he should now sell at any price ? 

Being able to read on your part would help! Do you think no business's have been sold during this pandemic, that's what you have professional advisors for.

I don't know why MM has not found a buyer yet, however the most usual reason is usually the most obvious. Price!

The responsibilities are endless in owning and appointing people to run any business, but he wasn't forced into it.

He needs to face facts and sell asap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/06/2021 at 08:38, Gaspode said:

The crucial part to remember is that the accounting method we used is not cheating - it’s an acceptable way of depreciating assets and was signed off by both our accountants and the EFLs. It only became an issue when McGuire highlighted it and the EFL decided we were trying to pull a fast one….FFP has backed ambitious owners into a corner where they either get creative in the hope they can gain a small advantage out else think ‘to hell with it’ and chuck the kitchen sink at getting promoted by completely ignoring FFP. We won’t be the last team to suffer at the hands of the EFL and FFP…..

It may be worthy of noting that the accountant we used is a huge DCFC Fan, nothing wrong in his accounting methods which are compliant within UK accounting regulations, but, assigning residual values to players at the ends of their contracts was against FFP P&S rules.  How many players have walked away with no transfer fee at the ends of their contracts?  Lots and therefore we do not know if they have any residual value so its a fair of the EFL to expect us not to do this.

Where I do have some sympathy is it has been reported that this method was agreed by the EFL, even if it wasn't why on earth did it take 3 years worth of accounts for the EFL to change their minds or point out the error?

Lets not lay this all at the EFLs door though, my understanding is we were the only club to do this, which is why we could afford to splash the cash as much as we did.  Sadly though failure to get to the promised land has lead to us realising losses now that we ignored by kicking the can down the road!

We are where we are though and the sooner this sorry mess gets resolve the better, I still believe that the 4 years of accounts are going to make for very grim reading......  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

It may be worthy of noting that the accountant we used is a huge DCFC Fan, nothing wrong in his accounting methods which are compliant within UK accounting regulations, but, assigning residual values to players at the ends of their contracts was against FFP P&S rules.  How many players have walked away with no transfer fee at the ends of their contracts?  Lots and therefore we do not know if they have any residual value so its a fair of the EFL to expect us not to do this.

I don't think we did do that. I thought that was a misunderstanding the EFL had and that we actually accounted for players having a residual value of 0 at the end of their contracts.  It was just the non straight line depreciation which was found in non compliance?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

It may be worthy of noting that the accountant we used is a huge DCFC Fan, nothing wrong in his accounting methods which are compliant within UK accounting regulations, but, assigning residual values to players at the ends of their contracts was against FFP P&S rules.....

Not according to the judgement of the panel that looked into the charges - they initially stated the approach was fine but we should have made it clearer what we were doing and after appeal we were fined because the 2nd panel decided we'd done it to circumvent (or at least bend) the rules to give us a bigger budget.

I'm not sure even now (way after the event) that the EFL have managed to update their rules to outlaw this method of depreciation. It's one of the key problems - they didn't set out how depreciation needed to be done yet objected when we took an alternative approach to he rest of the league clubs - a tin pot organisation that's unfit to run a bath.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

I don't think we did do that. I thought that was a misunderstanding the EFL had and that we actually accounted for players having a residual value of 0 at the end of their contracts.  It was just the non straight line depreciation which was found in non compliance?

 

Example 5 year contract play worth £1m deprecates at £200K a year at the end of the 5 year contract has a zero value.

My understanding is we were not doing that I think we were perhaps depreciating at say £100k a year leaving a value of £500k at the end of the contract, that has to be considered as a residual value and that's where we differed from other clubs.

I could be wrong but that's the way I understand it, anyone help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Not according to the judgement of the panel that looked into the charges - they initially stated the approach was fine but we should have made it clearer what we were doing and after appeal we were fined because the 2nd panel decided we'd done it to circumvent (or at least bend) the rules to give us a bigger budget.

I'm not sure even now (way after the event) that the EFL have managed to update their rules to outlaw this method of depreciation. It's one of the key problems - they didn't set out how depreciation needed to be done yet objected when we took an alternative approach to he rest of the league clubs - a tin pot organisation that's unfit to run a bath.....

If you think about it though we could by£39M worth of players at the start of 5 year contracts then decide to not depreciate them until 2 - 3 years into their contracts to stay within P&S Limits.  My understanding is some players had their contracts extended by a year to help spread salary payments too by dropping their wages rather than them retire a year earlier.

However we look at it, the accountancy methods used have kicked the can down the road in terms of finances, it was always going to catch up with us, unless we got to the promised land.  

It was reckless, but, as some have said nobody would have been complaining had it worked, what i do take exception too, is pushing it so far that we no longer own our biggest asset the ground....   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

Example 5 year contract play worth £1m deprecates at £200K a year at the end of the 5 year contract has a zero value.

My understanding is we were not doing that I think we were perhaps depreciating at say £100k a year leaving a value of £500k at the end of the contract, that has to be considered as a residual value and that's where we differed from other clubs.

I could be wrong but that's the way I understand it, anyone help?

We were doing things like £50k for 4 years, then £800k in year 5.  With the exact amounts depending on the player (age, usage, form, injuries etc). But they always ended up at £0 when they left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Not according to the judgement of the panel that looked into the charges - they initially stated the approach was fine but we should have made it clearer what we were doing and after appeal we were fined because the 2nd panel decided we'd done it to circumvent (or at least bend) the rules to give us a bigger budget.

I'm not sure even now (way after the event) that the EFL have managed to update their rules to outlaw this method of depreciation. It's one of the key problems - they didn't set out how depreciation needed to be done yet objected when we took an alternative approach to he rest of the league clubs - a tin pot organisation that's unfit to run a bath.....

they had no rules only the need to be compliant with standard accountancy rules.  That should have been sufficient if you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

Example 5 year contract play worth £1m deprecates at £200K a year at the end of the 5 year contract has a zero value.

My understanding is we were not doing that I think we were perhaps depreciating at say £100k a year leaving a value of £500k at the end of the contract, that has to be considered as a residual value and that's where we differed from other clubs.

I could be wrong but that's the way I understand it, anyone help?

no they were carrying an estimated value at year 4 but wrote the rest off in year 5 down to zero

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

no they were carrying an estimated value at year 4 but wrote the rest off in year 5 down to zero

Okay, I have got that wrong then, that may explain why some poor players got extended contracts so they did not have to realise the debt that particular FY.  However it was done, it was clever, but, was it in the spirit of FFP?   

I feel the EFL should of told Gibson that we've found a loop hole and exploited it, then closed it.  For me there is only one way to clean the game up which is all existing loans and debts to be paid off and only allow for mortgages on new grounds and training facilities, all other expenditure has to be physical cash from revenue or sugar daddy owners.........  That way clubs will not get into the both that we find ourselves in now with owning a ground then no longer owning it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Hathersage Ram said:

Being able to read on your part would help! Do you think no business's have been sold during this pandemic, that's what you have professional advisors for.

I don't know why MM has not found a buyer yet, however the most usual reason is usually the most obvious. Price!

The responsibilities are endless in owning and appointing people to run any business, but he wasn't forced into it.

He needs to face facts and sell asap

bit harsh, the bit about reading 

Many businesses have sold during the pandemic, usually because the seller HAD to sell or because the value was not massively sensitive to the pandemic. Mel does not have to sell, tho he wants to. But he’s not willing to give the club away. On the other hand, why should a buyer take a risk on the EFL and of future lockdowns ?  So valuations of the club could vary by £100m. More. Last time it was this difficult to sell a club, we were under attack by the Luftwaffe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

If you think about it though we could by£39M worth of players at the start of 5 year contracts then decide to not depreciate them until 2 - 3 years into their contracts to stay within P&S Limits.  My understanding is some players had their contracts extended by a year to help spread salary payments too by dropping their wages rather than them retire a year earlier.

However we look at it, the accountancy methods used have kicked the can down the road in terms of finances, it was always going to catch up with us, unless we got to the promised land.  

It was reckless, but, as some have said nobody would have been complaining had it worked, what i do take exception too, is pushing it so far that we no longer own our biggest asset the ground....   

It was done with the hope that we'd get promoted - missing out (and our crap recruitment team buying over-priced and in a lot of cases, utterly useless players with minimal resale value) has meant it's come back to bite us on the bum.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

I think deluded is a bit strong. I have my eyes wide open to reality. I’m happy we got 2 centre halves in and a goal keeper.  The other trialists are being greedy.   I said i can’t support Mel anymore on another thread but that was out of frustration and from reports coming out the meeting with fan groups. 
 

I still have Mels back to be honest. 

I'm lost as have been on Nights and just woken up, does this mean there has been an official club statement or is the inference that we didn't sign all of the trialists as Morris said he couldn't or wouldn't pay for all of them or is this just an insinuation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

I'm lost as have been on Nights and just woken up, does this mean there has been an official club statement or is the inference that we didn't sign all of the trialists as Morris said he couldn't or wouldn't pay for all of them or is this just an insinuation?

Who would want Aluko. Morrison or Baldock anyway.  Jags is the only one but wasn’t sure about him either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accounting policy used is just a technicality to meet FFP rules. No suggestion as far as I'm aware we've misled HMRC with regards to profitability for the periods in question. From a business standpoint not paying the players or the taxman for the contributions on wages implies we have no cash in the club to do so. Even if we were profitable which I doubt we are but we havent seen last 2 yrs accounts to comment, cash is key in business. 

Edited by DCFCJim87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

Who would want Aluko. Morrison or Baldock anyway.  Jags is the only one but wasn’t sure about him either

Am trying to understand the kerfuffle though without scrolling through pages and pages to ascertain if a statement has been released by Dave and if not have we not signed all of the trialists as Morris has said he won't pay for them or he's skint?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tyler Durden said:

Am trying to understand the kerfuffle though without scrolling through pages and pages to ascertain if a statement has been released by Dave and if not have we not signed all of the trialists as Morris has said he won't pay for them or he's skint?

No idea but they were offered contracts.   Clearly not enough money for some 

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...