Embargo.

[Spanish]

30 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

They did that. Just look at the quotes I posted on the previous page. 

the response was to the laughed at comments.  What did the LAP think of the prof?

[Wolfie]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

We also gain an advantage by selling our tickets for higher prices than other clubs and the sponsorship deals.

The club are correct that we have gained no advantage as the amortisation will just appear in another years accounts, the total amortisation however will be the same.

Riiiiight, so it's purely coincidental that the other 72 clubs do it the other way.

Believe the club spin if you like. I've made my point.

[Spanish]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Where have I shown him a lack of respect? 

I couldn't care less if he is a Professor or the king, what he said was wrong and pretty much everyone educated in the matter appeared to agree on that.

Having worked as an accountant/auditor for 23 years I would like to think I do have a bit of an idea what I am talking about and to be honest could not care less how much respect you show to either me as an individual or my opinion. 

If you think I'm wrong by all means tell me why but just saying Mr Pope is a professor does not hold much weight in the debate I'm afraid.

can't pluck up the courage to look at the Covid thread but I do think perhaps being a professor has some kudos and you may hold that view in other debates. 

We are here because the EFL decided that standard accountancy rules should prevail, I can't argue with that and I dare say it sounded perfect when they decided on that when the rules were set.  Certainly better than creating your own rules you would think.  The EFL have only one rule on P&S (it must meet accountancy standards) and they do not sign off the accounts contrary to some opinions.

However, the interpretation of the standard rules has thrown a spanner in the works.  The LAP think the professor is right and the club's auditor disagrees.  If the club and EFL do not agree in an outcome I fear it will end up in the High Court.

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Riiiiight, so it's purely coincidental that the other 72 clubs do it the other way.

Believe the club spin if you like. I've made my point.

If we gained no advantaged though why TF has this torture been endured.  It makes no sense to me at all.  We chose an alternative unique method and we gained no advantage?????

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Riiiiight, so it's purely coincidental that the other 72 clubs do it the other way.

Believe the club spin if you like. I've made my point.

Just because the other 72 clubs do it that way it makes it neither right nor the best way of doing it.

If the straight line model of amortisation gives the most reliable figures for player values then I am sure any expert would have been able to use this and provide evidence. It should be pretty easy to go through all Championship club accounts and show that clubs do not regularly post profit or losses on players that have not come through their academy or been obtained on a free transfer.

You appear to have ignored the point that no advantage is gained because the total amortisation over players contracts will still be the same? If our losses are low in 1 year then they will be higher in another year.

I doubt I would disagree with the EFL if their argument was that the valuation of our players was wrong but that is easy to do in hindsight when you know players have left the club. As previously stated amortisation is an accounting estimate and should be estimated using information available at the time. Accounts do not need to be revised where accounting estimates are subsequently found to be wrong.

[atherstoneram]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

If we gained no advantaged though why TF has this torture been endured.  It makes no sense to me at all.  We chose an alternative unique method and we gained no advantage?????

You don't have to gain an advantage,only seen to take an advantage.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Spanish said:

can't pluck up the courage to look at the Covid thread but I do think perhaps being a professor has some kudos and you may hold that view in other debates. 

We are here because the EFL decided that standard accountancy rules should prevail, I can't argue with that and I dare say it sounded perfect when they decided on that when the rules were set.  Certainly better than creating your own rules you would think.  The EFL have only one rule on P&S (it must meet accountancy standards) and they do not sign off the accounts contrary to some opinions.

However, the interpretation of the standard rules has thrown a spanner in the works.  The LAP think the professor is right and the club's auditor disagrees.  If the club and EFL do not agree in an outcome I fear it will end up in the High Court.

Of course being a Professor holds kudos but it should not mask the fact that what he said is wrong.

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

What we did wasn't specified in the rules. We asked the EFL and we were allowed to do it. 

[RoyMac5]

45 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

So you agree with me that we did gain an advantage then?. Despite the club claiming we didn't (which is the point I was making)

In which case no, I disagree with you even more. We did it because we wanted to.

Edited September 9, 2021 by RoyMac5

[Spanish]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

What we did wasn't specified in the rules. We asked the EFL and we were allowed to do it. 

sorry Roy this is wrong and you will have read it previously.

the rules are accountancy rules not EFL's, there's no point banging on about EFL rules.

when contacted the EFL believed that they had no right to challenge it because the case made by the club said it was compliant, that's all in DC1.  The EFL trusted the club.

we never got to stage where we used that as defence though which is a pity

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Of course being a Professor holds kudos but it should not mask the fact that what he said is wrong.

so I should rely upon some bloke on the internet rather than a professor?

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

You don't have to gain an advantage,only seen to take an advantage.

sorry don't understand, if we take an advantage we are not gaining one?

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

And what expertise did the LAP call upon when making this decision?

Because the IDC, that used accounting/auditing experts views concluded differently. 

I can categorically state that the method used IS in accordance with FRS.

Whether it is being applied correctly is a different matter.

Amortisation is an accounting estimate but if them estimates are not giving a true and fair view there will be indicators that show the auditors that the estimates are not reasonable. In this instance we would be making big losses every time a player was sold.

Of course many of our players ran their contacts down so it is hard ro say whether amortisation is correctly spread across their contracts.

The stumbling block to me with the Club's approach is the requirement that prices are available to the public. You don't see players advertised for sale on a public facing website.

18.18B Under the revaluation model, an intangible asset shall be carried at a revalued amount, being its fair value at the date of revaluation less any subsequent accumulated amortisation and subsequent accumulated impairment losses, provided that the fair value can be determined by reference to an active market.

“Active market” is defined in the Glossary as follows; “A market in which all the following conditions exist: (a) the items traded in the market are homogeneous; (b) willing buyers and sellers can normally be found at any time; and (c) prices are available to the public.”

And wouldn't (b) be a problem too - how many willing buyers were there for Anya, Blackman and Butterfield?

[atherstoneram]

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

What we did wasn't specified in the rules. We asked the EFL and we were allowed to do it. 

Doesn't have to be specified, that would be covered under the scope of the rules

[RadioactiveWaste]

24 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

 Section 5 of EFL rules seems to contradict that remark.

4.4 Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement). Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

Of course we were trying to manipulate things to our advantage, anyone who doesn't think we were needs to give their head a wobble.

However, IIRC the outcome of the hearings was that there wasn't any bad faith from DCFC in their actions.

 

[duncanjwitham]

24 minutes ago, Gladram said:

But they aren't 'experts'? just IDC members, so it needed countering by another expert to enable them to form this view. I think this is why the LAP found against us.

Well at least one of them was, by design. The rules say at least one of the DC members must be an accountant for matters like this.  

Although us not providing our own expert witness is ultimately the reason we lost IMO.  And it's a mistake entirely of our own making.

10 minutes ago, Spanish said:

the response was to the laughed at comments.  What did the LAP think of the prof?

It's interesting - the LAP written reasons explicitly state that the evidence of our accountants and auditors can't be classed as "expert evidence" because they were called as factual witnesses, not experts. And because of that, it did not give the DC the chance to examine their qualifications and experience and decide whether they were worthy of taking into account. But the exact same applies to Pope - they did have chance to examine his qualifications and experience and found them lacking, so disregarded him.  The LAP didn't get to speak to Pope or cross-examine him, they are entirely going by documents arising from the first hearing.  So they've taken the quotes I posted earlier and basically decided the fact he was unaware of the rules he was being an expert on, didn't actually matter ?‍♂️.

[atherstoneram]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

sorry don't understand, if we take an advantage we are not gaining one?

Should have phrased it better,you only have to be seen to seek an advantage, whether you do or not is irrelevant.

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Spanish said:

so I should rely upon some bloke on the internet rather than a professor?

Its entirely up to you who you believe.

Don't forget its not just me that disagreed with him, it was also the auditors and the IDC.

Maybe read up on the accounting standards and form your own opinion on whether you think we are complying with them or not?

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

The stumbling block to me with the Club's approach is the requirement that prices are available to the public. You don't see players advertised for sale on a public facing website.

18.18B Under the revaluation model, an intangible asset shall be carried at a revalued amount, being its fair value at the date of revaluation less any subsequent accumulated amortisation and subsequent accumulated impairment losses, provided that the fair value can be determined by reference to an active market.

“Active market” is defined in the Glossary as follows; “A market in which all the following conditions exist: (a) the items traded in the market are homogeneous; (b) willing buyers and sellers can normally be found at any time; and (c) prices are available to the public.”

And wouldn't (b) be a problem too - how many willing buyers were there for Anya, Blackman and Butterfield?

This to me gets to the root of it.  The LAP document is entirely about Cost Model vs Revaluation Model, and saying we're using the Cost Model but sneaking in features of the Revaluation Model.  I don't believe (not an expert etc) that that's what we were doing at all.  We weren't 'revaluing' the assets in the sense that we had pride Park revalued before we sold it.  We were purely trying to estimate (as reliably and systematically as possible) what percentage of a players "economic benefits" we might derive from selling them on.  So none of the arguments about active markets and public prices apply, because we weren't 'revaluing' in that sense.  I think the DC, with their accountant on board understood this and waved it through.  The LAP with no experience in the field *at all* did not grasp this and that's why we are where we are. 

Again, not an expert etc.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

37 minutes ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

This was a formal action by Companies House due to non-filing of documents.

Lack of annual confirmation statements and accounts are the two things that twist their knickers.

The outstanding confirmation statements were filed yesterday which seems to have been enough for them to discontinue the strike off proposals.

Can't really understand why these were outstanding - it only takes a few minutes to do online and costs £13 per company. If they couldn't afford £13 till now things must have been bad! 

But the fact that it's been discontinued is good news.

PS Expect Mr P on OTIB to now burn more midnight oil to come up with another conspiracy theory. Had some weird idea that Mel was getting these companies struck off to avoid FFP issues.

His last 24 hrs