Points deduction incoming?

[kevinhectoring]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

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

Recall reading that also. If he’s still the partner on the file I’m sure he’s being man marked by a couple of others 

[Spanish]

10 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

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.

don't put the bullets in attackers guns.  I don't know about you but those types of things I leave out of bios

[Woodley Ram]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

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.

A big difference between FRS 102 and the EFL. I didn't see any issues with the amortilisation as its dosnt have to be a straight line but they did.  The EFL have their own way of looking at FRS that a normal business and HMRC do not.

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

A big difference between FRS 102 and the EFL. I didn't see any issues with the amortilisation as its dosnt have to be a straight line but they did.  The EFL have their own way of looking at FRS that a normal business and HMRC do not.

But there is no difference as far as the EFL regs are concerned. It basically says you must comply with FRS102 full stop.  Like I’ve said multiple times on here already, if the EFL want a different version of FRS102 then they should write it, publish it, enforce it and so on.  You can’t have the situation where they make up unwritten extra rules whenever they feel like it.

[Gringo]

5 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

A big difference between FRS 102 and the EFL. I didn't see any issues with the amortilisation as its dosnt have to be a straight line but they did.  The EFL have their own way of looking at FRS that a normal business and HMRC do not.

You are correct about the HMRC, as anything that increases the profit through your amortisation policy would mean more tax paid to them, although in the case of the Rams, that is not the case because we still lost money.

You are also correct that Amortisation policy of an intangible asset i.e. the players contract, is up to the company concerned and is not covered by FRS 102, so the EFL's stance has no legal basis on fact. Just because the other clubs do straight line amortisation is irrelevant, we did not break any laws or regulations, so my view is "see you in court axs wipes"  

 

[strawhillram]

20 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

You are correct about the HMRC, as anything that increases the profit through your amortisation policy would mean more tax paid to them, although in the case of the Rams, that is not the case because we still lost money.

You are also correct that Amortisation policy of an intangible asset i.e. the players contract, is up to the company concerned and is not covered by FRS 102, so the EFL's stance has no legal basis on fact. Just because the other clubs do straight line amortisation is irrelevant, we did not break any laws or regulations, so my view is "see you in court axs wipes"  

 

Nice one lottie

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

You are also correct that Amortisation policy of an intangible asset i.e. the players contract, is up to the company concerned and is not covered by FRS 102, so the EFL's stance has no legal basis on fact. 

I’m not 100% sure that’s right, and I’m going from memory here… 

FRS102 basically says you have to amortise the economic benefits (both from use and disposal) of an intangible asset over the course of its useful life. And if there’s no reliable and systematic way of measuring that, you’re supposed to use a straight line model. That’s basically all it says that’s relevant here. So it’s certainly not massively prescriptive about how you do it, but it doesn’t say nothing either.

The result of the DC and LAP was that our model was ruled both systematic and reliable (and any other criteria that might be needed). The EFL appealed those ruling but the LAP found no grounds to overturn. The entire issue came down to the “disposal” element. Professor Pope decreed that you couldn’t ever factor in disposal unless you have an agreed sale in place, the DC basically laughed him out of the room because it’s clearly written in FRS102 that benefit from disposal is allowed.  The LAP decided they couldn’t do that.  It’s seems like utter gibberish to me, because you basically never have an agreed sale in place for any asset you own, so that would render that entire element of FRS102 useless.

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

Did they single you out for that ?

Stop the puns!

It just gives everyone the needle.  

That's my vinyl warning!

[Pearl Ram]

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

Didn’t the rules change in 1999 ??

I see what you did there. ?

[Gringo]

4 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I’m not 100% sure that’s right, and I’m going from memory here… 

FRS102 basically says you have to amortise the economic benefits (both from use and disposal) of an intangible asset over the course of its useful life. And if there’s no reliable and systematic way of measuring that, you’re supposed to use a straight line model. That’s basically all it says that’s relevant here. So it’s certainly not massively prescriptive about how you do it, but it doesn’t say nothing either.

The result of the DC and LAP was that our model was ruled both systematic and reliable (and any other criteria that might be needed). The EFL appealed those ruling but the LAP found no grounds to overturn. The entire issue came down to the “disposal” element. Professor Pope decreed that you couldn’t ever factor in disposal unless you have an agreed sale in place, the DC basically laughed him out of the room because it’s clearly written in FRS102 that benefit from disposal is allowed.  The LAP decided they couldn’t do that.  It’s seems like utter gibberish to me, because you basically never have an agreed sale in place for any asset you own, so that would render that entire element of FRS102 useless.

An intangible asset sits on your balance sheet, if that asset no longer exists, i.e. the player leaves then the auditors would insist on removal from the balance sheet crystallising a loss of the outstanding balance sheet figure, if you sell the players registration for more than the balance sheet figure you register the difference as a profit. Therefore I would stand up all day in court and defend the Rams policy, the EFL would fail if they went through a court of law, however I assume that  one of the rules of association of being a member of the football league is that you cannot sue in a court of law you can only be judged by a kangaroo court.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

Didn’t the rules change in 1999 ??

What "rules" are you referring to that impacts project management and business plans?

[Gringo]

Just now, Tamworthram said:

What "rules" are you referring to that impacts project management and business plans?

No rules exist that cover business plans, they are internal documents.

[hintonsboots]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

What "rules" are you referring to that impacts project management and business plans?

It’s not my area of expertise unfortunately. In fact you could be talking about Purple rain for all I know.?

[hintonsboots]

17 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

I see what you did there. ?

Someone’s on the ball at least.

[Pearl Ram]

10 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

What "rules" are you referring to that impacts project management and business plans?

                                                                

[ck-]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Recall reading that also. If he’s still the partner on the file I’m sure he’s being man marked by a couple of others 

Maybe they used zonal marking. That might explain it

[Sparkle]

17 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

An intangible asset sits on your balance sheet, if that asset no longer exists, i.e. the player leaves then the auditors would insist on removal from the balance sheet crystallising a loss of the outstanding balance sheet figure, if you sell the players registration for more than the balance sheet figure you register the difference as a profit. Therefore I would stand up all day in court and defend the Rams policy, the EFL would fail if they went through a court of law, however I assume that  one of the rules of association of being a member of the football league is that you cannot sue in a court of law you can only be judged by a kangaroo court.

I would say you could take the EFL to court if the judgement inflicted was illegal to the law of the land whilst not seeking damages other than a legal judgement.

I would consider that is the type of conversation taking place right now between the club and the the EFL because if we breached the P&S and it was because of the EFL actions or persons belonging to the EFL then we have a case that could be taken to a court, with a big ‘AND’ that the EFL know they are culpable. Hence potential negotiations otherwise sanctions would have already been imposed? 

[Sparkle]

20 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

No rules exist that cover business plans, they are internal documents.

Well the EFL charged Birmingham city for not following theirs - it’s a mad world.

[Bianoic]

1 hour ago, Charlotte Ram said:

You are correct about the HMRC, as anything that increases the profit through your amortisation policy would mean more tax paid to them, although in the case of the Rams, that is not the case because we still lost money.

You are also correct that Amortisation policy of an intangible asset i.e. the players contract, is up to the company concerned and is not covered by FRS 102, so the EFL's stance has no legal basis on fact. Just because the other clubs do straight line amortisation is irrelevant, we did not break any laws or regulations, so my view is "see you in court axs wipes"  

 

Not so sure Charlotte 

Dont HMRC exclude things like depreciation and amortisation when calculating taxable profits ?

[NottsRam77]

4 minutes ago, Bianoic said:

Not so sure Charlotte 

Dont HMRC exclude things like depreciation and amortisation when calculating taxable profits ?

I thought it was the other way round that they do include and take into account depreciation of assets 

i stand to be corrected though