Jump to content

Embargo.


Recommended Posts

On 18/09/2021 at 02:07, Woodypecker said:

Here's a photo of my season ticket from 50 seasons ago (1971-72). It cost £6.20. I think it was my 3rd or 4th S/T.

Of course, this season marks the 50th Anniversary of Brian Clough's title-winning team. Some anniversary, eh?

I haven't yet received this season's S/T card. No explanation given...

Apparently, DCFC asserted that they are being issued on 30th September. I paid for it well over a year ago, carried forward due to Covid.... I think it cost £292 (yep I'm a Senior, of course). 

Thank ---k I have the memories. Won't be holding my breath for the postman at the end of the month.

 

ST1971-72.JPG

Just seeing a ticket for the pop side made me smile this morning 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/08/2021 at 09:02, Donnyram said:

The latter is too subjective to be a reliable method for a P&S calculation in my opinion.
 

There is almost certainly sufficient data to justify a different model based on a player retaining a decent chunk of value until he is into the last year of his contract.  Clearly not enough for the EFL though

Picked up on the Mel Morris interview that they used data from over 25,000 transfers. The position taken by the EFL still seems unreasonable to me but I'd love to hear its position to put balance to the debate.  I'm no accountant but from what I've understood it seems that what we have applied is within the accountancy principles and on the face of it may be closer to reality than a straight line model.  The results of all this could be the difference come the end of the season irrespective of administration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Donnyram said:

Picked up on the Mel Morris interview that they used data from over 25,000 transfers.

Not sure they used this data at the time though.  I think they tried to justify the method after the fact.
The most sensible method was suggested by @Ghost of Cloughwho proposed an amortisation profile based largely on the age of the player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Not sure they used this data at the time though.  I think they tried to justify the method after the fact.
The most sensible method was suggested by @Ghost of Cloughwho proposed an amortisation profile based largely on the age of the player. 

I would question how reliable that method is though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Donnyram said:

Is that your view or is there some reference to indicate that? 

If the club or the auditors had in advance conducted an analysis to support their approach, I think we would have read a lot about it in the judgements. We didn’t,  in fact one of the panels (can’t remember which) did not find there was any systematic basis for our approach. Second thing is that the club was asked in the proceedings to produce all internal documents relating to the approach. None were provided. This suggests that no analysis supporting our case was done in advance; and that our accounting policy was driven by a desire to pass FFP rather than a zeal to give a true and fair view  

The fact that (as we now know) we failed on a straight line approach supports that we adopted our approach to pass the test 

not proof positive for sure but this is why I don’t think our approach was driven by detailed analysis 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

If the club or the auditors had in advance conducted an analysis to support their approach, I think we would have read a lot about it in the judgements. We didn’t,  in fact one of the panels (can’t remember which) did not find there was any systematic basis for our approach. Second thing is that the club was asked in the proceedings to produce all internal documents relating to the approach. None were provided. This suggests that no analysis supporting our case was done in advance; and that our accounting policy was driven by a desire to pass FFP rather than a zeal to give a true and fair view  

The fact that (as we now know) we failed on a straight line approach supports that we adopted our approach to pass the test 

not proof positive for sure but this is why I don’t think our approach was driven by detailed analysis 

We changed amortisation policy at the start of the 115/16 season, yet didn't fail P&S under an alternative policy until the end of  the 17/18 season.

We changed policy to allow us to spend more in a gamble for immediate promotion. 

Edited by Ghost of Clough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

If the club or the auditors had in advance conducted an analysis to support their approach, I think we would have read a lot about it in the judgements. We didn’t,  in fact one of the panels (can’t remember which) did not find there was any systematic basis for our approach. Second thing is that the club was asked in the proceedings to produce all internal documents relating to the approach. None were provided. This suggests that no analysis supporting our case was done in advance; and that our accounting policy was driven by a desire to pass FFP rather than a zeal to give a true and fair view  

The fact that (as we now know) we failed on a straight line approach supports that we adopted our approach to pass the test 

not proof positive for sure but this is why I don’t think our approach was driven by detailed analysis 

 

The method was found to be systematic by the IDC. That point was not overturned by the LAP. 

The requirement of the accounting standard was for the depreciation method to reflect the expected use of the economic benefits of the intangible assets, and the LAP found that "use of economic benefits  " did not include selling the assets even though "economic benefits" is expressly defined in the FRS accounting standard  to include the benefit of disposal. 

Derby's analysis of transfer valuations  was irrelevant as they were not allowed , according to LAP's take on FRS standard,  to take any account of the benefit of disposing of a player during the contract. 

I think the LAP's findings are arguable at best, but I agree that it is likely that Derby's choice of this method was probably influenced by a desire to kick costs down the road.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

The method was found to be systematic by the IDC. That point was not overturned by the LAP. 

The requirement of the accounting standard was for the depreciation method to reflect the expected use of the economic benefits of the intangible assets, and the LAP found that "use of economic benefits  " did not include selling the assets even though "economic benefits" is expressly defined in the FRS accounting standard  to include the benefit of disposal. 

Derby's analysis of transfer valuations  was irrelevant as they were not allowed , according to LAP's take on FRS standard,  to take any account of the benefit of disposing of a player during the contract. 

I think the LAP's findings are arguable at best, but I agree that it is likely that Derby's choice of this method was probably influenced by a desire to kick costs down the road.

 

I have absolutely no idea of accounting, but from what I've read on the various threads this can be the only reason for doing it. Although it was always looking for trouble it would have worked (Scooby Doo moment) if it hadn't been for those pesky kids. I do believe that we would have curbed our spending accordingly if our methodology had been questioned earlier. Our problem was when Gibson got involved, and the EFL decided retrospectively that our method was wrong. As @Ghost of Clough said, we failed two years after starting to apply our method. I doubt very much that allowing us to continue would have prevented Administration, but we wouldn't have extra points deductions hanging over our heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/09/2021 at 02:07, Woodypecker said:

Here's a photo of my season ticket from 50 seasons ago (1971-72). It cost £6.20. I think it was my 3rd or 4th S/T.

Of course, this season marks the 50th Anniversary of Brian Clough's title-winning team. Some anniversary, eh?

I haven't yet received this season's S/T card. No explanation given...

Apparently, DCFC asserted that they are being issued on 30th September. I paid for it well over a year ago, carried forward due to Covid.... I think it cost £292 (yep I'm a Senior, of course). 

Thank ---k I have the memories. Won't be holding my breath for the postman at the end of the month.

 

ST1971-72.JPG

Allowing for inflation athat is £78 to watch the team that won the Premier League in all 21 home games.

£3.72 per game.

Free admission to Reserve games. (Also finished as Central League Champions)

And priority purchase of cup matches.

Just saying that’s all!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, richinspain said:

I have absolutely no idea of accounting, but from what I've read on the various threads this can be the only reason for doing it. Although it was always looking for trouble it would have worked (Scooby Doo moment) if it hadn't been for those pesky kids. I do believe that we would have curbed our spending accordingly if our methodology had been questioned earlier. Our problem was when Gibson got involved, and the EFL decided retrospectively that our method was wrong. As @Ghost of Clough said, we failed two years after starting to apply our method. I doubt very much that allowing us to continue would have prevented Administration, but we wouldn't have extra points deductions hanging over our heads.

You believe we would have curbed our spending? Do you also believe in papá Noel my friend 😂

It seems like we failed FFP in the 3 years to 17/18 even with a £41m stadium revaluation/sale.

The roulette wheel was still gathering pace too. Lampard came in and we piled another load of chips on red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richinspain said:

I have absolutely no idea of accounting, but from what I've read on the various threads this can be the only reason for doing it. Although it was always looking for trouble it would have worked (Scooby Doo moment) if it hadn't been for those pesky kids. I do believe that we would have curbed our spending accordingly if our methodology had been questioned earlier. Our problem was when Gibson got involved, and the EFL decided retrospectively that our method was wrong. As @Ghost of Clough said, we failed two years after starting to apply our method. I doubt very much that allowing us to continue would have prevented Administration, but we wouldn't have extra points deductions hanging over our heads.

Gibson got involved only because of the stadium sale, which of course was perfectly legit, if maybe a bit desperate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

The method was found to be systematic by the IDC. That point was not overturned by the LAP. 

The requirement of the accounting standard was for the depreciation method to reflect the expected use of the economic benefits of the intangible assets, and the LAP found that "use of economic benefits  " did not include selling the assets even though "economic benefits" is expressly defined in the FRS accounting standard  to include the benefit of disposal. 

Derby's analysis of transfer valuations  was irrelevant as they were not allowed , according to LAP's take on FRS standard,  to take any account of the benefit of disposing of a player during the contract. 

I think the LAP's findings are arguable at best, but I agree that it is likely that Derby's choice of this method was probably influenced by a desire to kick costs down the road.

 

agree with everything you say. I did look at the decision again and I had slightly misremembered it. The LAP suggested they would have found our method to be un - systematic if they had considered it. But their rules of evidence stopped them from doing that (84, 85)  Seems completely unnecessary for them to include that as part of their decision. I think the result was driven less by the FRS102 analysis and more by a desire to avoid the accounting free for all that would have broken out had we won. Nor did it help our case that the LAP thought we were shabby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

If the club or the auditors had in advance conducted an analysis to support their approach, I think we would have read a lot about it in the judgements. We didn’t,  in fact one of the panels (can’t remember which) did not find there was any systematic basis for our approach. Second thing is that the club was asked in the proceedings to produce all internal documents relating to the approach. None were provided. This suggests that no analysis supporting our case was done in advance; and that our accounting policy was driven by a desire to pass FFP rather than a zeal to give a true and fair view  

The fact that (as we now know) we failed on a straight line approach supports that we adopted our approach to pass the test 

not proof positive for sure but this is why I don’t think our approach was driven by detailed analysis 

 

Great response, thank you.  Didn’t know all of that so certainly puts in more balance and possibly explains why the outcome was reached.  I’ve no doubt that we changed the approach to push the FFP boundaries but a bit naive if we didn’t have the new policy properly documented with supporting data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Donnyram said:

Great response, thank you.  Didn’t know all of that so certainly puts in more balance and possibly explains why the outcome was reached.  I’ve no doubt that we changed the approach to push the FFP boundaries but a bit naive if we didn’t have the new policy properly documented with supporting data.

actually the response from @PistoldPetewas far superior !!

Edited by kevinhectoring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

You believe we would have curbed our spending? Do you also believe in papá Noel my friend 😂

It seems like we failed FFP in the 3 years to 17/18 even with a £41m stadium revaluation/sale.

The roulette wheel was still gathering pace too. Lampard came in and we piled another load of chips on red.

You're telling me that Papa Noel doesn't exist 😢.

I would like to think that we would have curbed our spending, but I must admit it doesn't look that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brammie Steve said:

Allowing for inflation athat is £78 to watch the team that won the Premier League in all 21 home games.

£3.72 per game.

Free admission to Reserve games. (Also finished as Central League Champions)

And priority purchase of cup matches.

Just saying that’s all!

 

 

There’s general inflation as in the price of goods and services and then there’s football inflation in this country’s top league. I suspect that football wages alone will have increased by many more percentage points than general inflation never mind the costs of running grounds, training facilities, academies etc

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

There’s general inflation as in the price of goods and services and then there’s football inflation in this country’s top league. I suspect that football wages alone will have increased by many more percentage points than general inflation never mind the costs of running grounds, training facilities, academies etc

 

 

Exactly. Do that calculation again using players' salaries as the benchmark and I would bet that the salaries have gone up way more than admission prices percentage wise.

That's why football is in such a sorry mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, angieram said:

Exactly. Do that calculation again using players' salaries as the benchmark and I would bet that the salaries have gone up way more than admission prices percentage wise.

That's why football is in such a sorry mess.

Another take on this is how it compares to the average fan's wages. 

1970 Weekly wages £28:00 ST £6:20  i.e 1.5 days

2021 Weekly wages £585 ST £401 (say) i.e 4.8 days

So our footy thrill is three times more expensive these days for Mr Average Fan

And before a stats expert pillories me for using simple averages rather than means or medians I am just making a general point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FindernRam said:

Another take on this is how it compares to the average fan's wages. 

1970 Weekly wages £28:00 ST £6:20  i.e 1.5 days

2021 Weekly wages £585 ST £401 (say) i.e 4.8 days

So our footy thrill is three times more expensive these days for Mr Average Fan

And before a stats expert pillories me for using simple averages rather than means or medians I am just making a general point!

I think that your conclusions are very average. I get your point. Probably fairly accurate.

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
 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.