The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

11 hours ago, Curtains said:

I’ve never understood this and I’m sure if they had rejected them thing would be so much different now .

It’s a critical point 

It’s often said on here that the EFL ‘accepted’ the accounts - but on what basis? I don’t think they understood what we were doing until Maguire the bozo highlighted it. Failing to challenge isn’t ‘accepting’ them surely - not if you don’t know what’s going on 

Edited January 24, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[Van der MoodHoover]

4 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s often said on here that the EFL ‘accepted’ the accounts - but on what basis? I don’t think they understood what we were doing until Maguire the bozo highlighted it. Failing to challenge isn’t ‘accepting’ them surely - not if you don’t know what’s going on 

I thought it was that they had met the required standards in that they were "audited" and that audit would confirm among other things that the accounts had been prepared in accordance with frs102. 

Clearly, in common with general lack of understanding, the EFL do not know the purpose of an audit, nor of the room for varying interpretations within the boundaries of frs102. 

Utterly incompetent rule setting. 

[Jimbo Ram]

8 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s often said on here that the EFL ‘accepted’ the accounts - but on what basis? I don’t think they understood what we were doing until Maguire the bozo highlighted it. Failing to challenge isn’t ‘accepting’ them surely - not if you don’t know what’s going on 

So they didn’t understand their own rules ? Need to get Sue Gray in to investigate ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I thought it was that they had met the required standards in that they were "audited" and that audit would confirm among other things that the accounts had been prepared in accordance with frs102. 

Clearly, in common with general lack of understanding, the EFL do not know the purpose of an audit, nor of the room for varying interpretations within the boundaries of frs102. 

Utterly incompetent rule setting. 

I thought it was "P&S Submissions" they accepted, rather than accounts. Audited accounts not being in order are the province of higher powers than the EFL.

Unless you're upset you finished 7th one year.

[Bobby]

1 hour ago, Foreveram said:

I was thinking more about when you “ Cheated us “ in the playoffs with debts of £171 million, and then getting relegated, receiving a £42 million fine and then “ negotiating “ it down to £17 million payable over 10 years 

But you finished above us that season so our overspending didn’t cost you anything, and to be fair in the final you should have really won, and I won’t mention Will Hughes cheating to try and win a penalty.

as for negotiating the fee down you can thank Nic de Marco for that!

we told the EFl we would appeal the original fine which would have delayed the season, they threatened to withdraw our golden ticket which we again threatened legal action and the compromise was reached, this was the reason the rules were changed to points deductions rather than fines. 
lt did seem rather daft that teams in huge debt are then put further in debt.

Had we received a points deduction instead of a fine we would have been relegated the following season which would have hurt our owners ( and us fans) much more than the fine did.

[Foreveram]

11 minutes ago, Bobby said:

But you finished above us that season so our overspending didn’t cost you anything, and to be fair in the final you should have really won, and I won’t mention Will Hughes cheating to try and win a penalty.

as for negotiating the fee down you can thank Nic de Marco for that!

we told the EFl we would appeal the original fine which would have delayed the season, they threatened to withdraw our golden ticket which we again threatened legal action and the compromise was reached, this was the reason the rules were changed to points deductions rather than fines. 
lt did seem rather daft that teams in huge debt are then put further in debt.

Had we received a points deduction instead of a fine we would have been relegated the following season which would have hurt our owners ( and us fans) much more than the fine did.

But it could be argued that if you hadn’t overspent you wouldn’t have been in the playoffs anyway.

[Foreveram]

We have seen the consequences of a club threatening the EFL with legal action.

[kevinhectoring]

47 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I thought it was that they had met the required standards in that they were "audited" and that audit would confirm among other things that the accounts had been prepared in accordance with frs102. 

Clearly, in common with general lack of understanding, the EFL do not know the purpose of an audit, nor of the room for varying interpretations within the boundaries of frs102. 

Utterly incompetent rule setting. 

Completely accept that the LAP may have got the amortisation ruling wrong. But to suggest the EFL can’t challenge accounts because they have been audited definitely seems wrong - Enron (more recently Tesco) show why that’s the case 

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Completely accept that the LAP may have got the amortisation ruling wrong. But to suggest the EFL can’t challenge accounts because they have been audited definitely seems wrong - Enron (more recently Tesco) show why that’s the case 

Although I never knew it was the EFL that exposed Enron and Tesco.

[Comrade 86]

26 minutes ago, Bobby said:

But you finished above us that season so our overspending didn’t cost you anything, and to be fair in the final you should have really won, and I won’t mention Will Hughes cheating to try and win a penalty.

as for negotiating the fee down you can thank Nic de Marco for that!

we told the EFl we would appeal the original fine which would have delayed the season, they threatened to withdraw our golden ticket which we again threatened legal action and the compromise was reached, this was the reason the rules were changed to points deductions rather than fines. 
lt did seem rather daft that teams in huge debt are then put further in debt.

Had we received a points deduction instead of a fine we would have been relegated the following season which would have hurt our owners ( and us fans) much more than the fine did.

[Bobby]

9 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

But it could be argued that if you hadn’t overspent you wouldn’t have been in the playoffs anyway.

The majority of the overspend could have been avoided if Tony Fernandes hadn’t got star struck and listened to first Mark “I interviewed QPR” Hughes who used his agent for all of his signings including Stephan Mbia who thought he was signing for the Glasgow version of Rangers,all on big contracts with no relegation clause in them, then allowing Harry the spiv Redknapp to overload the squad again with his favourites who follow him everywhere.

All we had to do when we first went up in 2011 was to stick with the squad who got us there and use the money to improve the infrastructure.

it’s taken 6 years to get to be living within our means, our current squad cost about 9.5 million and considering Fulham’s and Bournemouth are about 150 million we are doing far better than we should. 
If we don’t go up this year then I would expect Willock , Chair l, Dickie and Dieng to all be sold for biggish money and we will start the cycle again, basically the Brentford model.

The fact Mel never paid the tax on your players wages probably shows that you have also been living beyond your means, hopefully when you come out of Admin ( I reckon you will) the new owner will run your club properly going forward.

The hardest part is getting some of the fans  onboard especially those vocal on Twitter etc who despite what you’ve been through will still be demanding a twenty goal a season striker no matter what it costs.

get it right over a couple of seasons and it will allow the odd luxury like Charlie Austin to have a serious crack of at least the play offs.

[duncanjwitham]

11 minutes ago, Bobby said:

it’s taken 6 years to get to be living within our means, our current squad cost about 9.5 million and considering Fulham’s and Bournemouth are about 150 million we are doing far better than we should. 
If we don’t go up this year then I would expect Willock , Chair l, Dickie and Dieng to all be sold for biggish money and we will start the cycle again, basically the Brentford model.

Unfortunately for you, *if* the EFL decide that overspending requires paying compensation to the teams you displace, then you owe us about £90m I reckon, and if you don’t pay up, you’ll get kicked out of the league.  And rinse and repeat for dozens and dozens of other cases across the league.  Obviously we’re all hoping it doesn’t come down to that, because it would be absolutely insane. But that’s what’s at stake here.

[Indy]

31 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Completely accept that the LAP may have got the amortisation ruling wrong. But to suggest the EFL can’t challenge accounts because they have been audited definitely seems wrong - Enron (more recently Tesco) show why that’s the case 

But when their own regs define “EFL-compliant” accounts as passing audit standards, then what basis would they challenge on - unless to say that the auditors had been at fault for clearing? There was nothing in their regs that should’ve prompted challenging an amortisation method that had passed audit. Again - the problem is their rules didn’t say what they actually wanted. It’s so inept, it’s untrue. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

25 minutes ago, Bobby said:

The majority of the overspend could have been avoided if Tony Fernandes hadn’t got star struck and listened to first Mark “I interviewed QPR” Hughes who used his agent for all of his signings including Stephan Mbia who thought he was signing for the Glasgow version of Rangers,all on big contracts with no relegation clause in them, then allowing Harry the spiv Redknapp to overload the squad again with his favourites who follow him everywhere.

All we had to do when we first went up in 2011 was to stick with the squad who got us there and use the money to improve the infrastructure.

it’s taken 6 years to get to be living within our means, our current squad cost about 9.5 million and considering Fulham’s and Bournemouth are about 150 million we are doing far better than we should. 
If we don’t go up this year then I would expect Willock , Chair l, Dickie and Dieng to all be sold for biggish money and we will start the cycle again, basically the Brentford model.

The fact Mel never paid the tax on your players wages probably shows that you have also been living beyond your means, hopefully when you come out of Admin ( I reckon you will) the new owner will run your club properly going forward.

The hardest part is getting some of the fans  onboard especially those vocal on Twitter etc who despite what you’ve been through will still be demanding a twenty goal a season striker no matter what it costs.

get it right over a couple of seasons and it will allow the odd luxury like Charlie Austin to have a serious crack of at least the play offs.

I know QPR are far more rational now an I'm mostly over it. Mostly.

You're right though, it can be hard to get fans on board with the long dull hard road of sensibly rebuilding.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s often said on here that the EFL ‘accepted’ the accounts - but on what basis? I don’t think they understood what we were doing until Maguire the bozo highlighted it. Failing to challenge isn’t ‘accepting’ them surely - not if you don’t know what’s going on 

Reviewed our submissions and confirmed were were on target to be within/outside of limits.

Revised submissions due to EFL spotting errors based on exclusions within FFP (used from 2012 to 2016) and P&S (2016-present).

Confirmation that the final P&S submissions were within acceptable limits.

Discussion and later a meeting with EFL (notably EFL Finance Executive) to discuss the amortisation policy. Executive then stated “it is an acceptable accounting policy” woth DCFC accepting the risk of using such a policy.

[Bobby]

27 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Unfortunately for you, *if* the EFL decide that overspending requires paying compensation to the teams you displace, then you owe us about £90m I reckon, and if you don’t pay up, you’ll get kicked out of the league.  And rinse and repeat for dozens and dozens of other cases across the league.  Obviously we’re all hoping it doesn’t come down to that, because it would be absolutely insane. But that’s what’s at stake here.

I can’t believe there’s any credence in either claim, WW only ended up in the championship in a raffle in the first place, I still don’t know what Steve Gibsons grievance is, as you say it has potential for a huge domino effect.

I know for sure that if Villa hadn’t beaten you in the PO final then they would probably be in your position right now.

[Bubbles]

Late night thought:

Today I’ve felt the most optimistic about our future as a club as I have in a long while.

Will be over the moon with whoever takes us over (I really do hope it is Ashley though - I know that might be controversial)

Hope, and believe deep down that there will continue to be Derby County, and I can’t wait for this all to be over with.

The game against Brum should be brilliant, really looking forward to it.

 

COYR??

[Van der MoodHoover]

5 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Completely accept that the LAP may have got the amortisation ruling wrong. But to suggest the EFL can’t challenge accounts because they have been audited definitely seems wrong - Enron (more recently Tesco) show why that’s the case 

Of course they can be challenged. But through proper channels (financial reporting Council and ultimately statute). 

What you cannot do is what the EFL have done, which is to seek to override accounting regulations in order to make things "fit" into rules they do have jurisdiction over. Ie the P&S calcs. 

[Anag Ram]

Items on both Wake up to money on Radio 5 and the BBC news today. Let’s hope today is indeed the pivotal day in which agreement can be reached.

[Sparkle]

This is one for the conspiracy theorists - Middlesbrough right back is currently on loan at notts forest and is doing extremely well - Middlesbrough can recall the right back in this window or just sell him to other interested clubs, they choose to do neither and let him stay on loan at notts forest - Notts forest are a direct competitor for a play off place so it make little sense letting him stay there. Unless both the chief executive of Middlesbrough and notts forest sit on the EFL board together and the owner of Middlesbrough wants to keep notts forest on his side? 
I would have thought the other play off contenders may well have noticed this as well