Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Comrade 86]

16 minutes ago, Hordh said:

This ?

What's @Ghost of Clough done to upset you mate? ?

 

[SBW]

Apologies to the four accountants wading in there. 

 

But ultimately, the point remains, we took on a method not used by any other league club that we benefitted from.  It was absolutely done in bad faith with the intention of benefiting from it to gain an advantage.

 

I'm not the bad guy here, Morris and his team are the ones responsible, I am just angry about it, but I am able to acknowledge wrongdoings too, we can't be blinded by faith.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

25 minutes ago, Hordh said:

Making sure the club doesn't go back to the old ways. Brum had the same when they got the 9 points. 

Serious question, are you a Derby fan.?  It could be me but your posts are pretty pointed and seem to mirror the normal stuff I read on twitter from other clubs supporters, with the occasional comment about Morris to offer credence.

 

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, SBW said:

Apologies to the four accountants wading in there. 

 

But ultimately, the point remains, we took on a method not used by any other league club that we benefitted from.  It was absolutely done in bad faith with the intention of benefiting from it to gain an advantage.

 

I'm not the bad guy here, Morris and his team are the ones responsible, I am just angry about it, but I am able to acknowledge wrongdoings too, we can't be blinded by faith.

Any other league club could have used that method. It was a method that the EFL clearly thought was ok during that period as they signed off on it. It's only it retrospect they have decided that it isn't. I fail to see how that is done in bad faith from our end, and not the EFL's? 

[PistoldPete]

14 minutes ago, SBW said:

Apologies to the four accountants wading in there. 

 

But ultimately, the point remains, we took on a method not used by any other league club that we benefitted from.  It was absolutely done in bad faith with the intention of benefiting from it to gain an advantage.

 

I'm not the bad guy here, Morris and his team are the ones responsible, I am just angry about it, but I am able to acknowledge wrongdoings too, we can't be blinded by faith.

I have just given you the definition of bad faith and proved to you that it wasn't. And the IDC agreed. So why repeat your error?

No other club benefits from having Wayne Rooney. no other club benefits from playing at Pride Park. none of that makes it wrong. Or in "bad faith".    

Edited November 17, 2021 by PistoldPete

[Comrade 86]

23 minutes ago, SBW said:

Apologies to the four accountants wading in there. 

Not sure anyone's 'wading in' mate except your good self, of course! You've stated that the club has actually inflated player values across the course of their contracts. You are materially wrong. Them's the facts matey. And FWIW, you don't need to be an accountant to grasp the difference between ERV and straight line amortisation, nor to spot when someone is talking arse biscuits ?

Are you even a Rams fan? I only ask because given the EFL are not suggesting we've done what you claim we have, it seems a bit odd that you appear to joined the forum solely to make spurious claims about the club's accounting policies.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by 86 Hair Islands

[San Fran Van Rams]

12 minutes ago, SBW said:

Apologies to the four accountants wading in there. 

 

But ultimately, the point remains, we took on a method not used by any other league club that we benefitted from.  It was absolutely done in bad faith with the intention of benefiting from it to gain an advantage.

 

I'm not the bad guy here, Morris and his team are the ones responsible, I am just angry about it, but I am able to acknowledge wrongdoings too, we can't be blinded by faith.

I completely agree that Morris and his team are responsible for Derby's financial situation. Morris, as captain, walked away from a sinking ship and that should be condemned.

However, just because no other club follows the same amortization method doesn't mean its wrong and done in bad faith. From my basic understanding (and no, I'm not an accountant), the method actually more closely resembles the value of a players contract as it assigns greater value at a point in time to those players who are harder to buy (i.e. those with more time on their contract, different types of players, their age etc.). In fact, clubs who used straight line amortization but sold players early in their contract would have taken a larger book profit than Derby. 

The point also remains that the residual value of zero also means that Derby would have taken the loss at some point, and likely in the last year of the contract unless they'd been able to sell the player. The benefit gained in one year would be taken out of another. Not sure where the unjustness or bad faith of that is? At best, it made our time horizon for a P&S breach push further out (which we were trying to manage through player sales - see Bogle and Lowe). 

[duncanjwitham]

8 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Are you even a Rams fan? I only ask because given the EFL are not suggesting we've done what you claim we have, it seems a bit odd that you appear to joined the forum solely to make spurious claims about the club's accounting policies.

 

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

[Tyler Durden]

1 hour ago, SBW said:

Of course it's bad faith.

 

If you try and sneak around rules/laws you are acting in bad faith.  It wasn't an honest mistake, it was a clear attempt at circumvention.  How is a player with less time on his contract worth more money than at the start of their contract?

 

You are burying your head in the sand I am afraid.  QPR did act in bad faith, they too overspent. 

 

The difference between them and us is they got promoted.  

IF we can ignore the semantics around the phrase bad faith for a moment the question for me is why did we make an intentional decision to apply a method of amortisation of players values which was at total variance to the majority of the other clubs in our division.

And the answer isn't because the EFL said we could - taking one step back why did we seek to apply a different accounting method if it wasn't to lever some kind of advantage over our peers.

[SBW]

Does challenging the notion of a process we applied warrant not being called a fan?

I have read for a long time, a large motivation for joining was to provide a little more balance.  I don't see it how some others see it, and I people have pushed a little hard in playing the victim.

 

Ultimately, as I said before but the point was ignored; If we went up in the play-offs, people wouldn't care about the EFL pushing for punishment, because it would just be money, at a point where we'd have a lot, and we'd think it was worthwhile.  It didn't happen and we are now sadly where we are.  But I don't think it's fair to not be called a fan just because I think we haven't been treated as harshly as some are making out.

 

 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

6 points for one major breach of FFP against 3 points each for three minor breaches would be the logical conclusion.

Nothing is ever that logical though.

This is the problem: If we hadn’t gone into administration, we would still be in discussions with the EFl. So we took  another 12  points for administration because MM saw no other way to the finishing line

[Tyler Durden]

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is the problem: If we hadn’t gone into administration, we would still be in discussions with the EFl. So we took  another 12  points for administration because MM saw no other way to the finishing line

Hear what you saying but I would query the reasons behind Mel putting the club into administration but that's another debate I guess..... 

[Comrade 86]

18 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

...outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here

[Deby1966]

9 minutes ago, Oldben said:

Two efl board members who you i claim are biased in against Derby are former Leeds United chairman Peter Ridsdale and Middlesbrough chief executive Neil Bausor.

How does Peter Ridsdale hold office the man who bought Seth Johnson for 9m and sold him back to us for nothing sorry just realised it is the EFL.

[Comrade 86]

28 minutes ago, SBW said:

Does challenging the notion of a process we applied warrant not being called a fan?

You weren't you were asked 'are a Derby fan?' Can you spot the difference?

28 minutes ago, SBW said:

I don't see it how some others see it

You were wrong so it's not really a difference of opinion is it? No values were inflated, it the rate of depreciation that varied between the two policies and both are FRS 102 compliant.

28 minutes ago, SBW said:

I people have pushed a little hard in playing the victim

You mean like claiming people are wading in on you when they pull you up for talking nonsense?

A word to the wise. Right click on any poster's avatar and you can select an option that puts them on your 'ignore' list. That way, you need only engage with those who agree with you, though that rather undermines the purpose of your posts, doesn't it?

Edited November 17, 2021 by 86 Hair Islands
shed load of typos

[San Fran Van Rams]

13 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

IF we can ignore the semantics around the phrase bad faith for a moment the question for me is why did we make an intentional decision to apply a method of amortisation of players values which was at total variance to the majority of the other clubs in our division.

And the answer isn't because the EFL said we could - taking one step back why did we seek to apply a different accounting method if it wasn't to lever some kind of advantage over our peers.

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.

If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

[Crewton]

It's a fact that the EFL didn't prescribe what form of Amortisation clubs should use. It's reasonable to believe that DCFC should have had their change of Amortisation method approved officially by the EFL prior to applying it. But it's also reasonable to believe that because the method to be used was open to interpretation, the consequences for DCFC should have been more proportionate than 18 months of embargo, more than 2 years of uncertainty, denial of pandemic relief funds, loss of potential take-over transactions, and ultimately Administration and potential liquidation. 

Some posters are concerned about the lack of balance on here, fair enough, but where's the balance in the reporting of the issues outside of here? 

[I know nuffin]

22 minutes ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.

If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

What puzzles me is the second tribunal found that we did not comply with Fs102 which to everyone else we did. One side must be right and oneside wrong. Add to that our accounts were checked by the accountants ruling body who found nothing wrong. If what I post is correct a simple letter from the ruling body should have been a great lever for the administrators to use. Just because no other club did it out way means nothing because somehow we were found not to be complying with fs102

[Comrade 86]

4 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

What puzzles me is the second tribunal found that we did not comply with Fs102 which to everyone else we did.

They wee lawyers and hand picked by the EFL bud. It's been said many times already and it's a statement of fact that Derby's independent auditors, the IDC AND the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales all vetted our accounts and deemed the amortisation policy fully FRS 102 compliant. The initial punishment was levied because the way the policy was worded was deemed to be not misleading, but 'unclear', hence the paltry £100k fine. 

[ilkleyram]

11 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

They wee lawyers and hand picked by the EFL bud. It's been said many times already and it's a statement of fact that Derby's independent auditors, the IDC AND the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales all vetted our accounts and deemed the amortisation policy fully FRS 102 compliant. The initial punishment was levied because the way the policy was worded was deemed to be not misleading, but 'unclear', hence the paltry £100k fine. 

Incidentally, I wonder if that paltry fine has actually been paid or not, and, if not, whether that makes the EFL a creditor?