Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[My Dad’s A Derby Fan]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think someone should tell his Dad he is stirring up things on the Rams forum.

I think you need a bit better knowledge of accountancy law

[My Dad’s A Derby Fan]

5 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Now we're in administration the requirement to file the overdue accounts is superseded by the "statement of affairs" that will be filed at Companies House shortly. 

Thanks.

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I could be mis-remembering (we've had so many contradictory things come out etc), but I'm sure at one stage we were told that companies house had been informed that there was an ongoing dispute about the form of our accounts, and were at least aware of (if possibly not ok with) us withholding them until that had all been agreed.

Ok . But Companies house has accepted the accounts up to 2018. They could have rejected them if they were not happy.

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Should be at school anarl.

Well apparently he’s an expert in accountancy law. Quite a school swot then.

[rammieib]

How do you get to minus 44 Million in the 19/20 season - this wasn't Covid hit year, signings were not that significant (even if you take amortised amount or none amortised) and were offset by sales (Vydra?). Our income would have been circa £25-£30m so you're saying we had £70 Million of outgoing on the books?

No way.

[Gaspode]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Ok . But Companies house has accepted the accounts up to 2018. They could have rejected them if they were not happy.

Why would they be unhappy? the accounts were aligned with accepted accounting practice - only the EFL were unhappy with them because they didn't meet their unwritten requirements to be in the same format as everyone eles's.....

[duncanjwitham]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Ok . But Companies house has accepted the accounts up to 2018. They could have rejected them if they were not happy.

Oh yeah, there's no suggestion that Companies House was ever unhappy with the accounts. But AFAIK they were made aware of the situation with the EFL and why we weren't submitting yet. It's not like we just didn't bother submitting them without telling CH why.

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, rammieib said:

How do you get to minus 44 Million in the 19/20 season - this wasn't Covid hit year, signings were not that significant (even if you take amortised amount or none amortised) and were offset by sales (Vydra?). Our income would have been circa £25-£30m so you're saying we had £70 Million of outgoing on the books?

No way.

I think that's the year that Johnson, Butterfield, Shackell etc finally left the club with the remainder of their book value being written down.  It doesn't mean we lost £44m in cash terms or anything. 

[Reggie Greenwood]

19 minutes ago, My Dad’s A Derby Fan said:

I think you need a bit better knowledge of accountancy law

What are your accountancy credentials ? 

[hintonsboots]

1 minute ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

What are your accountancy credentials ? 

He works for the EFL.

[Tamworthram]

52 minutes ago, My Dad’s A Derby Fan said:

Which is the attitude which got the club in the mess it is now

I don't know if it's correct (I don't know enough about administration and the filing of accounts) but @PistoldPete's comment sounded like a statement of fact not an attitude to me. 

New posters are always welcome so, I hope you're not put off but, your comments were bound to generate the responses you've seen.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Tamworthram

[Ram-Alf]

1 minute ago, hintonsboots said:

He works for the EFL.

School of Economics and Finance...I never did get the hang of initialism.

[RoyMac5]

55 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No

Failure in only 2020 - 12 points (possibly extra added on for aggravating factors - rapidly increasing losses)

So is the discovery of (I can't remember the accounting term used) the £30m down the back of the sofa being ignored, or did it never exist?

[PistoldPete]

28 minutes ago, rammieib said:

How do you get to minus 44 Million in the 19/20 season - this wasn't Covid hit year, signings were not that significant (even if you take amortised amount or none amortised) and were offset by sales (Vydra?). Our income would have been circa £25-£30m so you're saying we had £70 Million of outgoing on the books?

No way.

I guess problem is with amortising is you are taking a hit for past signings. But I agree £44 million is very excessive for that year given Johnson butterfield and co were off the books by then.

[Reggie Greenwood]

5 minutes ago, My Dad’s A Derby Fan said:

Which is still more than most, as is evident 

Obviously not , a new poster giving it the bigun with only your opinion that you “know” more than most with no actual credentials to back it up. 
I leave it there. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, i-Ram said:

With respect, our 'manipulation' of financial figures is different to selling a player or having bigger gates. The latter two are accepted as being part and parcel of being a football club in a competitive league. As for amortising differently, Morris and Pearce should have been more upfront and trasparent as to their policy. If they had been clear in 2015/2016 (or whatever the time was when they first introduced their policy) I am pretty sure they would have been guided by the EFL then that their policy might not be construed as fair compared to, or by, the other member clubs. They were trying to be cute, creative, and it came back to bite them. Unfortunately it has caused huge repercussion for the Club you and I support.

Or maybe the regulator should have done their job properly at the time, rather than 3 years later when there is no chance of doing anything about the overspend?

As an avid reader of the accounts, I was fully aware of the change of policy and my concern was that inflated residual values were being used (I did not understand the method being used).

If I as a Derby County fan had concerns, why was the regulator not having the same concerns and investigating the method being used?

Had they done so, our overspend may have been limited to one year and we would be looking at a 4 point deduction only.

Dont take this as an insult, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems as though you are unable to see any wrongdoing by the EFL because it aids your view that MM and Pearce are to blame for literally everything. 

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Or maybe the regulator should have done their job properly at the time, rather than 3 years later when there is no chance of doing anything about the overspend?

As an avid reader of the accounts, I was fully aware of the change of policy and my concern was that inflated residual values were being used (I did not understand the method being used).

If I as a Derby County fan had concerns, why was the regulator not having the same concerns and investigating the method being used?

Had they done so, our overspend may have been limited to one year and we would be looking at a 4 point deduction only.

Dont take this as an insult, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems as though you are unable to see any wrongdoing by the EFL because it aids your view that MM and Pearce are to blame for literally everything. 

This is the thing .

Mel Morris ate my hamster ? with some 

[My Dad’s A Derby Fan]

3 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Obviously not , a new poster giving it the bigun with only your opinion that you “know” more than most with no actual credentials to back it up. 
I leave it there. 

Have a good evening.

[Dan_Ram]

Is there much of an argument that, had we been made aware of our amortisation policy ‘non-compliance’ earlier, we could have adjusted transfer spending so as not to exceed acceptable losses? I would assume if that logic was valid then it would form part of Nick de Marco’s mitigation argument?

[Ghost of Clough]

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

So is the discovery of (I can't remember the accounting term used) the £30m down the back of the sofa being ignored, or did it never exist?

I doubt we could have ever used it tbh

41 minutes ago, rammieib said:

How do you get to minus 44 Million in the 19/20 season - this wasn't Covid hit year, signings were not that significant (even if you take amortised amount or none amortised) and were offset by sales (Vydra?). Our income would have been circa £25-£30m so you're saying we had £70 Million of outgoing on the books?

No way.

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I guess problem is with amortising is you are taking a hit for past signings. But I agree £44 million is very excessive for that year given Johnson butterfield and co were off the books by then.

Vydra was 18/19 (Lampard season). Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman let go at the start of 19/20 so a big amortisation hit is from them.

It might seem excessive but that's what the numbers available suggest.
17/18 was £7.2m P&S profit, the last year of confirmed figures. Minus £40m stadium profit, a £19m increase in amortisation costs (confirmed in IDC hearing), approx £10m reduction in wage wage, slight variances in sponsorship and profit on player sales...

£44m could be an underestimation in all seriousness.