Steve Gibson trying to liquidate Derby

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, nottingram said:

I know Middlesbrough is the armpit of the UK and everyone else knows that too, but surely it cannot be that much of a surprise that a club with player book values of almost zero, no stadium and £50m of debt, headed for League 1 and the associated £Xm drop in revenue, is valued less than a club currently in the play offs to compete for an annual 9 figure windfall?

Oh and the club that's in distress also has a liability risk related to actions by Middlesbrough FC, further reducing its value to any potential buyers...

As for his moralistic patter about cheating, we're not the first and won't be the last to think there's a loophole in ffp here we can exploit, and we've had points deducted for it.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

Oh and the club that's in distress also has a liability risk related to actions by Middlesbrough FC, further reducing its value to any potential buyers...

As for his moralistic patter about cheating, we're not the first and won't be the last to think there's a loophole in ffp here we can exploit, and we've had points deducted for it.

You mean liking transferring 5 million quid of liability a year to your haulage company.  Who would do such a thing. ?

[falconram]

Next thing you know Gibson will sue Blackburn because a manager he sacked got another team promoted (potentially) 

[Ram-Alf]

Someone posts a conversation concerning the Boro chairman and it must be true, There's people out there who want to be ITK when in reality...they're just sad, Did this conversation happen I very much doubt it, Gibson opens up so someone who then has some titbits...my my my

[RadioactiveWaste]

It does seem clear he just can't accept he pissed his parachute payments up the wall and Boro weren't very good even considering the budgets they had.

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Oh and the club that's in distress also has a liability risk related to actions by Middlesbrough FC, further reducing its value to any potential buyers...

As for his moralistic patter about cheating, we're not the first and won't be the last to think there's a loophole in ffp here we can exploit, and we've had points deducted for it.

We didn’t cheat anyway. The IDC said we had nothing substantially wrong. The fine was £100k, less than Leeds got for spygate.

[PistoldPete]

13 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Someone posts a conversation concerning the Boro chairman and it must be true, There's people out there who want to be ITK when in reality...they're just sad, Did this conversation happen I very much doubt it, Gibson opens up so someone who then has some titbits...my my my

I think the conversation is between the administrator of the Boro forum and Gibson so seems to be genuine. I agree though that it sounds like a spoof . You wouldnt think a responsible businessman would go off on insane rants like that. 

[nottingram]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

I think the conversation is between the administrator of the Boro forum and Gibson so seems to be genuine. I agree though that it sounds like a spoof . You wouldnt think a responsible businessman would go off on insane rants like that. 

If he has then I am sure Quantuma will be interested in the insinuation that they are involved in dodgy practice.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

We didn’t cheat anyway. The IDC said we had nothing substantially wrong. The fine was £100k, less than Leeds got for spygate.

I can't really buy the "did nothing wrong" line, had we done nothing wrong we wouldn't be less 9 points.

I do totally reject the moralising, intentionally cheating, beyond the pail, uniquely awful behaviour stuff.

I also reject that Middlesbrough have any claim as a result of this - DCFC have been tried by the EFL under the EFL ruels for such matters. If Gibson doesn't like that, he should (and I'm sure has) lobby the EFL to change the rules.

 

[Leeds Ram]

You've got to love the logic that Gibson is deploying. Bookies odds and a dodgy accounting method as the foundation of a law suit. It helps when something this mad crops up as it allows me to validate that I'm not as idiotic or mad as at least one other person out there in the world. The most they'd be entitled to is gate money from the playoff semi finals and the administrators shouldn't be entertaining this nonsense for more than a second if the post is remotely accurate.  

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

43 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

"Cheating" means intentionally breaking rules. Derby used a different, but HMRC compatible, amortisation policy to other clubs. At the time no rules were being broken and any advantage was simply smart business practice. The rules it seems have since been changed and astonishingly we have been penalised for breaking rules before they were in existence.

But it wasn’t consistent with industry standards which made it questionable. 

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, nottingram said:

If he has then I am sure Quantuma will be interested in the insinuation that they are involved in dodgy practice.

Exactly. The more Gibson loses the plot the more it’s time someone reined him in .

[Gaspode]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

We didn’t cheat anyway. The IDC said we had nothing substantially wrong. The fine was £100k, less than Leeds got for spygate.

In addition, I've not seen any mention of us being formally charged relating with breaking FFP - just that the EFL had reviewed the re-submitted accounts and considered that we would be in breach - the administrators agreed to a points deduction to allow the sale to move forward, but are unlikely to have admitted any guilt as part of the deal.

There's a huge legal difference to us being thought to have broken FFP rules and actually being charged with the breach (which we could have defended and appealed) - therefore any suggestion of 'cheating' is purely subjective and wouldn't stand up in court.....

[Leeds Ram]

1 hour ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

"Cheating" means intentionally breaking rules. Derby used a different, but HMRC compatible, amortisation policy to other clubs. At the time no rules were being broken and any advantage was simply smart business practice. The rules it seems have since been changed and astonishingly we have been penalised for breaking rules before they were in existence.

It was an accounting 'practice' that allowed us to circumvent intended FFP rules that would unless we had managed to come up with either A) a lot of cashflow or b) a lot of assets to stop us getting screwed over after a few years. I'm half convinced Mel's latter focus on the academy was a result of this practice in an attempt to raise the asset value on the books so we wouldn't be caught out and end up in precisely the mess we have done. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

But it wasn’t consistent with industry standards which made it questionable. 

different clubs use different amortisation methods , which they are allowed to do. There is no standard specific to football clubs.

[Gaspode]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

different clubs use different amortisation methods , which they are allowed to do. There is no standard specific to football clubs.

I've not read anywhere that the EFL have (yet) closed the loophole - so in theory, any acceptable accounting practice should still be acceptable as long as it's all set out clearly and there's no suggestion of it being done to gain an unfair advantage (though why else would anyone want to do it in a creative way?)

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

different clubs use different amortisation methods , which they are allowed to do. There is no standard specific to football clubs.

I thought the issue was they don’t and Derby used a different method to the majority in football. A standard is set by the majority of clubs using it - doesn’t have to be written. 

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

It was an accounting 'practice' that allowed us to circumvent intended FFP rules that would unless we had managed to come up with either A) a lot of cashflow or b) a lot of assets screw us over after a few years. I'm half convinced Mel's latter focus on the academy was a result of this practice in an attempt to raise the asset value on the books so we wouldn't be caught out and end up in precisely the mess we have done. 

I think part of the problem with judging how 'successful' the accounting policy is, is that we never got to see either version actually play out (Morris version vs the standard model).  At worst, out policy merely moved debts around, it never removed or hid them (in the long term anyway).  All we know is that we've 'overspent' compared to the standard model for a few seasons, but we never go the chance to balance that in later years (by selling players, using the 'missing' stadium sale £20m etc). And we never got the chance to deal with those overspends as they happened (by selling players during the last 5 years etc) because we never believed we had to.  So we're in the position where we got stuck between 2 policies, and missed both of our chances to deal with the overspend.

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

I thought the issue was they don’t and Derby used a different method to the majority in football. A standard is set by the majority of clubs using it - doesn’t have to be written. 

But it’s  Not that everyone else  uses the same method. 

[I am Ram]

Isn't throwing surplus debt at your company, gaining an advantage/loophole for FFP. We're all trying to game the system, to compete with premier league money. It's not the points deduction that kills you, it's being in an embargo for 2 years, terribly irresponsible from the EFL during a pandemic. They should be ashamed.