Points deduction incoming?

[atherstoneram]

15 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Be interesting to know whether this 'business plan' thingy is something other clubs have been forced to submit, or whether this is another entirely new precedent the EFL are 'trialling' with Derby.

Bamfords...

People have been critical of the EFL for allowing clubs to go to the wall so the business plan could be a safeguard that the club doesn't go under Seems the EFL can't win.

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, Needlesh said:

Why are we accepting a points reduction? What have we done wrong?

Mel Morris  accusing the EFL of amateur negotiations when accepting Skys offer for the TV rights.

[i-Ram]

53 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

So the EFL telling somebody how to spend his money - if it was me get stuffed would be the answer 

Not really telling him how to spend his money. More of a case of insisting that he settles the liabilities he has racked up. There would seem to be quite a few people in that queue.

[Pearl Ram]

5 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Mel Morris  accusing the EFL of amateur negotiations when accepting Skys offer for the TV rights.

Don’t forget having the temerity to pip Gibson’s Middlesbrough (on the final day of the season ?) to sixth place and subsequently deny them a place in the play offs in 2019. Boy, did he not like that.

[kevinhectoring]

5 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Mel Morris  accusing the EFL of amateur negotiations when accepting Skys offer for the TV rights.

Yes that’s probably a factor, as well as Gibson trying to hit Mel where it hurts, in the pocket . If the EFl IS overplaying its hand there must be a point where Mel says: oK I won’t sell, I won’t agree a deal with you, I’ll take you on again in a disciplinary process and in the meantime hope Rooney can work wonders on the pitch. 

[Mostyn6]

A business plan is just that, a PLAN. It’s not a legally binding contract. How many businesses have plans that fail? It’s just an outline of projected actions and results. Get a project manager to knock one up, submit it, never look at it again! 

[Arsene Titman]

1 hour ago, Needlesh said:

Why are we accepting a points reduction? What have we done wrong?

It’s clear that the EFL want what they call justice and we call their pound of flesh. I believe the basic problem is that we did not amortise player values in accordance with EFL regulations. We would only do that if we were to gain from it- the gain being that it improved our financial situation- why else would we do it? The consequence of that may well be that the revised accounts , using the EFL’s player amortisation method, push us above allowable losses. The stadium sale was not against EFL rules although it was not playing fair in the eyes of the EFL and many clubs. I don’t care for the EFL but I understand why they are looking for blood. Mel will settle- he doesn’t want to endanger a takeover with a long and expensive legal battle whilst keeping the club afloat , knowing that he may lose in court anyway, whilst in the meantime the club are relegated. Personally, I could live with a 6 points penalty. If it’s 9 or 12 then we are in serious bother.

[Bob The Badger]

35 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

A business plan is just that, a PLAN. It’s not a legally binding contract. How many businesses have plans that fail? It’s just an outline of projected actions and results. Get a project manager to knock one up, submit it, never look at it again! 

I can remember having to submit one to my bank when I started my record shop. I just made everything up and it was fine.

I doubt they can get away with that, but...

[hintonsboots]

3 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I can remember having to submit one to my bank when I started my record shop. I just made everything up and it was fine.

I doubt they can get away with that, but...

Did they single you out for that ?

[May Contain Nuts]

21 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

I believe the basic problem is that we did not amortise player values in accordance with EFL regulations.

Regulations that didn't exist, and as far as I'm aware still don't. A preference isn't a regulation.

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Regulations that didn't exist, and as far as I'm aware still don't. A preference isn't a regulation.

for the upteenth time, the rules are standard accountancy ones, the dispute is whether the professor is right (LAP think so) or not (DC1).  It would seem sensible for the EFL not to set their own rules but rely on industry standards but it hasn't turned out that way

[duncanjwitham]

30 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

I believe the basic problem is that we did not amortise player values in accordance with EFL regulations. We would only do that if we were to gain from it- the gain being that it improved our financial situation- why else would we do it? 

The issue is there aren't any "EFL regulations" about amortization.  There are accounting standards (FRS102) that the EFL regs say we must abide by, that's it.  We believed were abiding by them, our accountants did, the auditors of our accounts did, the accountant on the disciplinary commission thought we did too.  But here we are anyway...

In terms of why we did it, it may well be that we thought it would give us an edge by deferring some of the amortization until we were already promoted (Ahem...), but if you look at it from a purely football perspective, the model we tried to use does match real-life values a lot better.  Does anyone actually believe Ivan Toney is now 'worth' a fifth less than he was a year ago?  Or is it the case that he's got a bit of wear and tear after a year in the championship, but is basically worth pretty much what Brentford paid for him a year ago (or more...)?

There are obviously questions about how accurately you can model/calculate player values, and whether that lack of accuracy means you ultimately shouldn't bother.  But the basic facts are, we were at least trying to use a model that better reflects how we consume those assets.  It's not like we were doing some super-crazy accountancy nonsense that bears no relation to real life.

[Woodley Ram]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The issue is there aren't any "EFL regulations" about amortization.  There are accounting standards (FRS102) that the EFL regs say we must abide by, that's it.  We believed were abiding by them, our accountants did, the auditors of our accounts did, the accountant on the disciplinary commission thought we did too.  But here we are anyway...

In terms of why we did it, it may well be that we thought it would give us an edge by deferring some of the amortization until we were already promoted (Ahem...), but if you look at it from a purely football perspective, the model we tried to use does match real-life values a lot better.  Does anyone actually believe Ivan Toney is now 'worth' a fifth less than he was a year ago?  Or is it the case that he's got a bit of wear and tear after a year in the championship, but is basically worth pretty much what Brentford paid for him a year ago (or more...)?

There are obviously questions about how accurately you can model/calculate player values, and whether that lack of accuracy means you ultimately shouldn't bother.  But the basic facts are, we were at least trying to use a model that better reflects how we consume those assets.  It's not like we were doing some super-crazy accountancy nonsense that bears no relation to real life.

its not about the value of a player its about the value of his contract. Toney at the end of his contract will be worth nothing to Brentford.

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, Woodley Ram said:

its not about the value of a player its about the value of his contract. Toney at the end of his contract will be worth nothing to Brentford.

It's about how much of a players "economic benefit" to the club has been consumed at any given point over his contract. Yes he's worth nothing at the end, but FRS102 is crystal clear that you can derive economic benefits from the disposal of an asset as well as it's use, and the ability to sell him is only worth zero when he's actually left on a free.

[MuespachRam]

2 hours ago, TheSlate said:

Er... we did start the Football League

Not really, we were in the first league, we helped start It, just like everyone else did 

[May Contain Nuts]

58 minutes ago, Spanish said:

for the upteenth time, the rules are standard accountancy ones, the dispute is whether the professor is right (LAP think so) or not (DC1).  It would seem sensible for the EFL not to set their own rules but rely on industry standards but it hasn't turned out that way

Yes, I know.

But if they're placing their trust in the opinion of professional accountancy firms, don't want to go to the length of auditing things themselves, their only rule is that the club's accounts meet industry standards and a club uses a professional accountancy firm who sign off the accounts as compliant with industry standards then they shouldn't then be able to go an pick and choose who's opinion they take as fact later on.

If they've washed their hands of the responsibility themselves it's rather taking the piss to expect to be able to refute the findings of the very people they've ceded responsibility to, not once but twice, until they find someone to agree with them, but such is their biased and ridiculous system that here we are...

If a club has used a recognised accountancy firm and there's no evidence of influence or illegal practices that should be the end of it as far as the EFL is concerned.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Tamworthram]

2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

A business plan is just that, a PLAN. It’s not a legally binding contract. How many businesses have plans that fail? It’s just an outline of projected actions and results. Get a project manager to knock one up, submit it, never look at it again! 

Absolutely. Often, not worth the paper they're written on. A bit like cash flow forecasts.

One minor point of order, as a Prince2 qualified project manager, a Project Manager wouldn't normally write a business plan. 

[Spanish]

27 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Yes, I know.

But if they're placing their trust in the opinion of professional accountancy firms, don't want to go to the length of auditing things themselves, their only rule is that the club's accounts meet industry standards and a club uses a professional accountancy firm who sign off the accounts as compliant with industry standards then they shouldn't then be able to go an pick and choose who's opinion they take as fact later on.

If they've washed their hands of the responsibility themselves it's rather taking the piss to expect to be able to refute the findings of the very people they've ceded responsibility to, not once but twice, until they find someone to agree with them, but such is their biased and ridiculous system that here we are...

If a club has used a recognised accountancy firm and there's no evidence of influence or illegal practices that should be the end of it as far as the EFL is concerned.

I read on here that the auditor’s bio stated he was a fan, am I wrong?

[hintonsboots]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

One minor point of order, as a Prince2 qualified project manager, a Project Manager wouldn't normally write a business pl

Didn’t the rules change in 1999 ??

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

I read on here that the auditor’s bio stated he was a fan, am I wrong?

No professional accountant (or professional anything) is going to risk their reputation, and potentially even career, by doing a favour for a football club he likes and signing off on something he shouldn’t have.