The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

34 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

well that may have been the club's version  of events. The findings of fact by the LAP (not that it is their job to find facts) was different - see below. The DC found that both parties shared some blame for the confusion. The LAP found it was the club's fault. The fact that our accounts misdescribed the policy does not help our case 

 

extract from LAP decision:

At the outset of these proceedings, EFL’s understanding of the treatment which the Club say they adopted was incorrect. The DC was critical of EFL in this regard, although it thought there was some blame on both sides: see DC decision [227-228]. This was because a meeting took place on 13 May 2019 at which Mr Pearce and Mr Delve on behalf of the Club explained to Mr Karran and Mr Detko of EFL the treatment which in fact had been adopted by the Club. However, the note of the meeting records that the policy was said by the Club to be “in line with that disclosed in the Club’s accounts” (which was quite wrong) and records the explanation that “the Club used residual values when assessing each Player’s amortisation charge” (which was also quite wrong). Given the confusion, which was at least largely the fault of the Club, the criticism of EFL by DC seems remarkably harsh, but the consequence was that until the Club served witness statements on 29 June 2020, 9 working days before the commencement of the oral hearing before the DC, EFL did not correctly understand the treatment which had in fact been adopted by the Club.

But the LAP had no accountants on it so they couldn't make that judgement properly. The IDC with an accountant on it understood perfectly well... their criticism of the EFL if anything was quite mild.  And  the EFL under Detko as FD understood it too..  he it was who reportedly  described the EFL charge as "a load of rubbish". Funnily enough he wasn't called by the EFL as a witness even though he was FD of the EFL at the time. 

[Ram-Alf]

5 minutes ago, Bobby said:

Ah, but the “professional foul” isn’t cheating as it’s covered by the laws of the game, cheating is trying to deceive or get away with something underhand,

when I watched the game again when I got home from Wembley I thought Joe Jordan was going to kill Hughes at half time.

my original comment about the cheating was tongue in cheek and obviously no way comparable to a 40 + million overspend.

I don't quite think you understand the game, A professional foul as it's called is gaining an advantage is "cheating", Un sportsman like conduct, Gamesmanship...as it's "gaining an unfair advantage" the punishment is then metered out by the official.

In your analogy of us "cheating" then that is also covered by the EFLs Governance and we were punished.

When you have time, Read this link, All about football...or soccer as you southerners like to call it.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

Not long now ⚽️⚽️

[GboroRam]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

 It’s clearer to say audited accounts have to be delivered but if those accounts don’t reflect EFL rules then the EFl can challenge them. Makes perfect sense not least because an audit is far from a guarantee that accounts show a true and fair view etc 
 

Which EFL rule did they breach? 

What do the EFL rules say about amortisation? 

[Day]

13 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I seriously believe that if the accounts had literally just said recoverable instead of residual (with no other changes), the notes would probably have been fine.  And while those 2 terms are theoretically different, the actual practical implications for our accounting policy were very similar (with the only real difference being how it deals with going to zero in the final year or not).  The conversations with the EFL definitely show that, even if they didn't fully understand the actual policy, they definitely understood the practical implications of it. They knew it could shunt amortization into the future, and could risk a large pile up in certain years, and they were basically fine with it.  It's not like we told them we were doing one thing, then did something completely different.

I seriously believe that you have missed the point here, the EFL are victims of a malicious targeted attack from Derby fans that are jeopardising the clubs future by antagonising them.

You can twist it how you like, but how would they know what was in the accounts we submitted, they can't be expected to read them, 72 clubs worth of accounts. 

What we did was dirty and underhand, we've been caught out and now must accept the punishment coming our way.

[Ram-Alf]

1 minute ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said:

Not long now ⚽️⚽️

Is that comment aimed at the poster...12incher?

[Indy]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

 It’s clearer to say audited accounts have to be delivered but if those accounts don’t reflect EFL rules then the EFl can challenge them. Makes perfect sense not least because an audit is far from a guarantee that accounts show a true and fair view etc 
 

But that was my whole point - sorry if I wasn’t clear. The accounts did reflect EFL rules, because the rules themselves only asked for audit compliant accounts. If the rules had said “straight-line amortisation of player value over the period of the contract/a fixed period” then they could challenge them even if they were audit-compliant. 
 

The fundamental problem is their own rules didn’t say what they wanted them to say, and it was entirely in their power to clarify and change. To interpret them “against statute” and say other forms of amortisation aren’t audit-compliant is untrue and unfair, and to apply this incorrect interpretation retrospectively to gerrymander a points deduction is even worse. 

[Ghost of Clough]

57 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

well that may have been the club's version  of events. The findings of fact by the LAP (not that it is their job to find facts) was different - see below. The DC found that both parties shared some blame for the confusion. The LAP found it was the club's fault. The fact that our accounts misdescribed the policy does not help our case 

 

extract from LAP decision:

At the outset of these proceedings, EFL’s understanding of the treatment which the Club say they adopted was incorrect. The DC was critical of EFL in this regard, although it thought there was some blame on both sides: see DC decision [227-228]. This was because a meeting took place on 13 May 2019 at which Mr Pearce and Mr Delve on behalf of the Club explained to Mr Karran and Mr Detko of EFL the treatment which in fact had been adopted by the Club. However, the note of the meeting records that the policy was said by the Club to be “in line with that disclosed in the Club’s accounts” (which was quite wrong) and records the explanation that “the Club used residual values when assessing each Player’s amortisation charge” (which was also quite wrong). Given the confusion, which was at least largely the fault of the Club, the criticism of EFL by DC seems remarkably harsh, but the consequence was that until the Club served witness statements on 29 June 2020, 9 working days before the commencement of the oral hearing before the DC, EFL did not correctly understand the treatment which had in fact been adopted by the Club.

People who said the amortisation policy was compliant/acceptable:

• Stephen Pearce - DCFC CEO, Chartered Accountant
• Andrew Delve - Smith Cooper (auditors) , Chartered Accountant
• James Karran - EFL CFO
• Graeme McPherson QC - Sports Lawyer
• Robert Englehart QC - Sports Lawyer
• James Stanbury - Foresnic Accountant

 

People who said it wasn't:

• Rick Parry - EFL Chairman
• Charles Hollander QC - Sports Lawyer
• Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson - Sports Lawyer (among other fields)
• David Phillips QC - Sports Lawyer
• Professor Peter Pope - Professor of Accounting

 

I know which side of the fence I would sit on regarding an accounting matter. The issue is it's the other side of the fence who have the final say

Edited January 25, 2022 by Ghost of Clough

[Ghost of Clough]

Just to add, the LAP made their decision on the technicality of DCFC not having an expert witness to argue our side of the argument. The LAP essentially said the opinion of accountants who weren't witnesses should be ignored.

[MACKWORTHRAM]

14 minutes ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said:

Not long now ⚽️⚽️

Stop it you

[Gritstone Ram]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

People who said the amortisation policy was compliant/acceptable:

• Stephen Pearce - DCFC CEO, Chartered Accountant
• Andrew Delve - Smith Cooper (auditors) , Chartered Accountant
• James Karran - EFL CFO
• Graeme McPherson QC - Sports Lawyer
• Robert Englehart QC - Sports Lawyer
• James Stanbury - Foresnic Accountant

 

People who said it wasn't:

• Rick Parry - EFL Chairman
• Charles Hollander QC - Sports Lawyer
• Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson - Sports Lawyer (among other fields)
• David Phillips QC - Sports Lawyer
• Professor Peter Pope - Professor of Accounting
• Steve Knob-ed Gibson - rick.

 

I know which side of the fence I would sit on regarding an accounting matter. The issue is it's the other side of the fence who have the final say

Ftfy

[StaffsRam]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

People who said the amortisation policy was compliant/acceptable:

• Stephen Pearce - DCFC CEO, Chartered Accountant
• Andrew Delve - Smith Cooper (auditors) , Chartered Accountant
• James Karran - EFL CFO
• Graeme McPherson QC - Sports Lawyer
• Robert Englehart QC - Sports Lawyer
• James Stanbury - Foresnic Accountant

 

People who said it wasn't:

• Rick Parry - EFL Chairman
• Charles Hollander QC - Sports Lawyer
• Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson - Sports Lawyer (among other fields)
• David Phillips QC - Sports Lawyer
• Professor Peter Pope - Professor of Accounting

 

I know which side of the fence I would sit on regarding an accounting matter. The issue is it's the other side of the fence who have the final say

To me, that says that the rules aren’t clear enough. If you can have people of eminent reputation falling on both sides of the fence in equal(ish) measure then it’s a problem.

[Eddie]

39 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Thank you Eddie.

There's a politically correct term for you. In the old days, we just called them 'ducking crackers'.

I've been called worse.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

Ftfy

In all fairness, Gibson never said the amortisation policy wasn't acceptable. Up until the LAP decision, he was still saying the stadium sale meant we could spend more than we should have. He then used the LAP decision as justification for Derby spending more than we should have.

[PistoldPete]

22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

People who said the amortisation policy was compliant/acceptable:

• Stephen Pearce - DCFC CEO, Chartered Accountant
• Andrew Delve - Smith Cooper (auditors) , Chartered Accountant
• James Karran - EFL CFO
• Graeme McPherson QC - Sports Lawyer
• Robert Englehart QC - Sports Lawyer
• James Stanbury - Foresnic Accountant

 

People who said it wasn't:

• Rick Parry - EFL Chairman
• Charles Hollander QC - Sports Lawyer
• Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson - Sports Lawyer (among other fields)
• David Phillips QC - Sports Lawyer
• Professor Peter Pope - Professor of Accounting

 

I know which side of the fence I would sit on regarding an accounting matter. The issue is it's the other side of the fence who have the final say

Add mr Detko FD of the eFl to the compliant side.. and also the Icaew audit team. So if Detko and Karran of the Efl were wrong how come Derby are not suing Efl like Boro were suing Efl for not picking up on this earlier? 

Edited January 25, 2022 by PistoldPete

[Eddie]

35 minutes ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said:

Not long now ⚽️⚽️

Bloody well hope so.

My F5 key is wearing out.

[duncanjwitham]

8 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

To me, that says that the rules aren’t clear enough. If you can have people of eminent reputation falling on both sides of the fence in equal(ish) measure then it’s a problem.

The rules are deliberately quite vague, because they have to apply to every kind of business that exists.  The requirements for accounting for football player amortization are very different to those for a factory making widgets, or a call-centre company, or a hairdressing salon.

[R@M]

8 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The rules are deliberately quite vague, because they have to apply to every kind of business that exists.  The requirements for accounting for football player amortization are very different to those for a factory making widgets, or a call-centre company, or a hairdressing salon.

You are confusing law with regulations. The law is vague to allow for the businesses you mention, the EFL did not specify that a particular line of accounting should be used under their rules, until 3 years later. 

[Day]

32 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

To me, that says that the rules aren’t clear enough. If you can have people of eminent reputation falling on both sides of the fence in equal(ish) measure then it’s a problem.

Exactly. Apologise to all 72 clubs, amend the rules to make them clearer with what amortisation method they wish clubs to use going forward. That's it.

It's ok putting out a 10pm statement saying they have no vendetta, but when they are forcing the club to rewrite its accounts for previous seasons, is it any wonder we feel a little aggrieved by.

What really gets my goat is, Gibson initially kicked off about the stadium sale, meanwhile the Forest owner down the road is moving players/money between his 2 clubs, season after season and no other owner has questioned who sets the valuations?

The fans of that club have the balls to laugh and call us cheats. For what exactly? I bet not one of them can clearly state what it is Derby have done wrong, they will mumble their way through a stadium how much, dodgy accounts line.

They belong down Hooters where all the other tits are on show.

Oh, back to Gibson, the guy who sold the clubs tax losses, how he can even think about even lifting his finger to point at other clubs is beyond me.

Anyway, sorry I quoted you in all this, every so often I just have to write it all down in the hope that someone, just one person looks at this and says, you know what, that's a bit dodgy what they are doing to Derby.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Doesn't law have a requirement that the accounts offer an accurate reflection of the financial state of the business? Yes there's a wide scope of how the bean counters count the beans and what piles the beans get put into, but the accounts have to reflect the beans you actually have.