Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Crewton]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Everyone should end their links with Efl. Anyone who sponsors Efl should be boycotted. 

I'm ho ding my own prot st by boycotting th    tt rs that  orm th ir nam   or th  r st o  th  s ason.

[Mucker1884]

21 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

MIND should drop their links with The EFL - because the EFL are mindless.

For their to be no mitigation at all for the 22 months of depletion and deferred punishment suffered at Derby, is diabolical.

The DCFC squad shrinkage and 'silent' penalties suffered through the long embargoes during EFL appeals, such as the Boro legal actions, have damaged the club badly.

EFL media-feeds about the 'alternative' Wycombe-Derby fixture lists, and their 'regret' that no initial points penalty was inflicted in August 2020 shows that The EFL wanted to make an example of DCFC. 

Birch & Parry have been sleeping on the job regarding any tackling of the Prem / EFL income distribution disparities, they are inadequate and need to be replaced. 

They have dumbed-down the League because ever-increasing parachute payments make it anti-competitive without clubs breaking outdated rules - but they probably smile secretly to themselves because watching clubs like Sunderland, Ipswich, Derby in League One will allow them to brag how healthy the gates are in their third tier.

 

 

 

 

Technically, L1 is actually their second tier.  

No surprise that they aren't allowed anywhere near the real fist tier!  ?

[Mucker1884]

4 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I'm ho ding my own prot st by boycotting th    tt rs that  orm th ir nam   or th  r st o  th  s ason.

?

C*assic!  

[Woodypecker]

15 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Technically, L1 is actually their second tier.  

No surprise that they aren't allowed anywhere near the real fist tier!  ?

Thanks for the technicality. OK, THE third tier, to be forensically correct :)

A 'real fist tier' sounds pretty painful!

 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

Surely this can't be true? That would be blackmail!

I can’t imagine why Quantuma would have agreed to this unless they got something back in return. Apart from their fee of course .

[G STAR RAM]

32 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

This episode has had two effects on me. Firstly increased my loyalty and love for DCFC and the sport, and secondly cystallised my loathing of football administration, organisation and competitions.

Conflicting.

If I could renew for next season now, I would. If I could flick a switch and give the entire staff of FIFA, UEFA, FA, EPL, EFL and all foreign leagues a dose of incurable, desquamating genital herpes, I'd do that also.

We'll be suffering this for another 18 months, if we can get a buyer, by the time the ridiculous restrictions are lifted. 4 years of limbo, all told? Worthy of a banana republic.

Oh well. Up the Rams.

The reaction at the end of the first game following the announcement about administration was a thing of beauty and reminded me why I love being a football fan so much. 

Cant say I love football too much right now though. I'd say pretty much every change in the last 30 years has made the game worse and made me dislike it a little more...Premier League, Champions League, FFP, VAR, rule changes...I dont think there has been a positive change for the game since the abolition of back passes. 

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Find it a bit funny reading some of the comments about the adminstrators not doing their job properly or not having the club's best interests at heart.

Kind of overlooking the point that the adminstrators only came into the club as a certain person decided to put the club into administration otherwise they wouldn't be anywhere near us in the first place.

Weird logic. 

The administrators job is to look after the creditors, doesnt always marry with having the clubs best interests at heart. 

Nothing weird about the logic at all.

[Wolfie]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The reaction at the end of the first game following the announcement about administration was a thing of beauty and reminded me why I love being a football fan so much. 

Cant say I love football too much right now though. I'd say pretty much every change in the last 30 years has made the game worse and made me dislike it a little more...Premier League, Champions League, FFP, VAR, rule changes...I dont think there has been a positive change for the game since the abolition of back passes. 

I may be wrong but is it the 2 year business plan that’s gone away. I thought the restrictions imposed are just for this season. 
 

Been a manic day at work so may have got that wrong

Edited November 16, 2021 by Wolfie
Quoted wrong post. Been that kind of day

[StarterForTen]

26 minutes ago, rad1919 said:

What are the exact implications for future transfer windows/spending on players? I’m sure it’s all on here somewhere but a summary would be helpful if anyone would be so kind!

As far as January goes, no fees can be paid - so it's freebies only. The Business plan only covers this season; there are no restrictions after June 30th (the official end of player contracts).

However... this might not be the end of it. This Business Plan is just part of the current agreed sanctions but to exit an Administration the EFL normally require a rigid business plan in place to allow the new owners to take the 'Golden Share', so who knows what that might entail.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, Chris_D said:

Glad you agree it is opinions.  The only mention of the ICAEW i can see is related to them reviewing an audit file. There is nothing to suggest they accepted the amortisation methodology (as one of our many accounting policies) or looked at it before it was implemented/post implementation as to FRS 102 compliance, and I can't see they have ever come to say they did unless you can demonstrate their statement to that effect?  They seem to have reviewed the audit file prepared by SC for one year where the new amortisation policy was in place (I.e. reviewed whether SC had properly audited the club in that year as against it's written policies, the ICAEW have not been shown to have reviewed the club's underlying accounting policies vis FRS 102). 

Here is what I think people are getting confused by from the DC at para 50 as I can't find anything else: "The fact that Smith Cooper’s audit file for a financial year since the change in amortisation policy has occurred has been picked for review by the ICAEW and approved as compliant."

There seems to be a lot of people basing their entire opinion on the DC decision/our own opinion as a club about our own policy and that of our accountants/auditors (maybe not?), whereas the LAP decided against all of them based on further evidence, and I would suggest two QCs and Lord Dyson, who sat as a Justice on the Supreme Court, are very able to form a proper opinion and come to a sound judgment on the issue without needing to be accountants - without trying to be condescending, it's what judges do, weigh up the evidence and then apply the law.  It's how the court system in England and Wales works - judges are not accountants and hear accountancy based cases all the time (as well as everything else they hear on which they are not 'qualified' experts).

Having been subject to reviews on my audit files in the past, I can assure you that they go through everythint with a fine tooth comb.

If youre suggesting that they would have not even looked at one of the biggest figures in the accounts I would suggest that you are mistaken, although this is just my opinion. 

Can you please advise what 'further evidence' was made available to the LAP that was not available to the IDC?

[Rev]

Just now, StarterForTen said:

As far as January goes, no fees can be paid - so it's freebies only. The Business plan only covers this season; there are no restrictions after June 30th (the official end of player contracts).

However... this might not be the end of it. This Business Plan is just part of the current agreed sanctions but to exit an Administration the EFL normally require a rigid business plan in place to allow the new owners to take the 'Golden Share', so who knows what that might entail.

They've given the fans a golden shower, is that different from the golden share?

[Mucker1884]

17 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Thanks for the technicality. OK, THE third tier, to be forensically correct ?

A 'real fist tier' sounds pretty painful!

 

Bugger!

 

Ooh no... not that, either!  
Bloody hell, what a mess!  ?

[Ram-Alf]

57 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

This episode has had two effects on me. Firstly increased my loyalty and love for DCFC and the sport, and secondly cystallised my loathing of football administration, organisation and competitions.

Conflicting.

If I could renew for next season now, I would. If I could flick a switch and give the entire staff of FIFA, UEFA, FA, EPL, EFL and all foreign leagues a dose of incurable, desquamating genital herpes, I'd do that also.

We'll be suffering this for another 18 months, if we can get a buyer, by the time the ridiculous restrictions are lifted. 4 years of limbo, all told? Worthy of a banana republic.

Oh well. Up the Rams.

 

[G-Ram]

Its a bit of a kick in the balls but it was expected. Still not nice when finally announced. 

Hopefully we get taken over & we go again fresh start  

[I know nuffin]

19 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

As far as January goes, no fees can be paid - so it's freebies only. The Business plan only covers this season; there are no restrictions after June 30th (the official end of player contracts).

However... this might not be the end of it. This Business Plan is just part of the current agreed sanctions but to exit an Administration the EFL normally require a rigid business plan in place to allow the new owners to take the 'Golden Share', so who knows what that might entail.

You might just have hit what the administrator traded. Points in exchange for sanction listing one year not two

[rad1919]

27 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

As far as January goes, no fees can be paid - so it's freebies only. The Business plan only covers this season; there are no restrictions after June 30th (the official end of player contracts).

However... this might not be the end of it. This Business Plan is just part of the current agreed sanctions but to exit an Administration the EFL normally require a rigid business plan in place to allow the new owners to take the 'Golden Share', so who knows what that might entail.

Thanks for that.

So not quite the clean slate/opportunity to move on that some people (me included) assumed.

How much longer can this farce drag on?

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

 If anything it gives a truer and fairer view than the straight line method, if applied correctly.

It’s a big ‘if’, that last one

The IDC asked the club to produce all of the documents it possessed that related to the application of the amortisation policy. The club did not provide anything. 

So for that and other obvious reasons there’s a hefty suspicion that application of the policy was driven by FFP concerns, rather than to show a true and fair view. And a policy applied in that way is unlikely to result in accounts that give a true and fair view. 

We took quite a big risk and have paid a bigger price than we should have done 
 

[LeedsCityRam]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

Surely this can't be true? That would be blackmail!

It seems Quantuma have accepted what the EFL reportedly wanted all along in terms of FFP punishment, they've dropped the appeal over the administration deduction & accepted a business plan that gives us little chance of overhauling the 21 points penalty even if we get a wealthy buyer before January. We seem to have totally caved in with nothing in return.

Whereas previously Quantuma were confident enough to appeal the administration decision (and incur costs in relation to that) & pushed back on the FFP sanction proposed by the EFL.

Something doesn't add up. Look forward to hearing what Quantuma say to the supporters groups on Tuesday.

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

It seems Quantuma have accepted what the EFL reportedly wanted all along in terms of FFP punishment, they've dropped the appeal over the administration deduction & accepted a business plan that gives us little chance of overhauling the 21 points penalty even if we get a wealthy buyer before January. We seem to have totally caved in with nothing in return.

Whereas previously Quantuma were confident enough to appeal the administration decision (and incur costs in relation to that) & pushed back on the FFP sanction proposed by the EFL.

Something doesn't add up. Look forward to hearing what Quantuma say to the supporters groups on Tuesday.

They won't say anything as there is a gagging order. Shame no -one gagged the EFL when they were leaking stories to the press.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s a big ‘if’, that last one

The IDC asked the club to produce all of the documents it possessed that related to the application of the amortisation policy. The club did not provide anything. 

So for that and other obvious reasons there’s a hefty suspicion that application of the policy was driven by FFP concerns, rather than to show a true and fair view. And a policy applied in that way is unlikely to result in accounts that give a true and fair view. 

We took quite a big risk and have paid a bigger price than we should have done 
 

Well I am guessing that the auditors and ICAEW must have seen some documentation and concluded that it gave a true and fair view.

Id like to see a sample of Championship players sold over the last 10 years and see how their sale value compares to their NRV using straight line amortisation method.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by G STAR RAM