The Administration Thread

[i-Ram]

5 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Looks like he deleted the tweet because of an incorrect @. 

Thanks for this ?  My only issue with Jonathan's reply is that he seems to link the 9 point deduction with our amortisation policy. That isn't correct, and confuses the issues.  The 9 point deduction relates to our overspend. An overspend which would have happened whichever amortisation policy had been adopted, because Morris had lost control (in particular, the Bent one year contract extension is an example of the fact he, and others, at the top of the club had entered into multiple player contract arrangements which were unsustainable for a Championship club).  This is not to defend the EFL - their stance throught the amortisation review has been vindictive, principally it seems to protect themselves from a Boro counter claim against themselves.  There is a reasonable argument I think to seek a reduction or removal of the £100k fine we received, but that would only be a pyrrhic victory. I doubt there is much of a case to greatly reduce the 9 point penalty for P&S overspend, not that I would be unhappy if Ashley or any new owner wanted to give it a very real go when they get hold of the steering wheel.  

[PistoldPete]

15 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I'm not so sure - the EFL yesterday publicly admitted that their was no rule to set out how we had to calculate our accounts - hence the reason they've now brought in one to insist on a straight line method. There was therefore nothting behind their demand that we resubmit our accounts in a different format other than an unspoken understanding that doing so would hurt us.....

In addition, did we lose the case? - were we formally charged with breaching aafter we resubmitted the accounts or were the admins simply told that we would be in breach and that thery would therefore be better off negotiating an agreement? If the latter, we have a pretty good case to tell he EFL that the agreement is invalid as it was based on falsehoods and lies and therefore they need to (in light of yesterday's decisions on P&S and Covid) review the punishment and come up with something more acceptable....

We lost the case that our amortisation method was compliant . And we were ordered to redo our accounts on a compliant basis. 
 

in the end I suspect we just agreed to do them on a straight line basis just for a quiet life, and given yesterday’s news that was probably sensible. 

[Ram-Alf]

Could someone please clarify this situation, Governments, Courts and businesses will "close loopholes" that give the defendant in future cases less chance of winning their case.

Now that the EFL has closed a "loophole" that DCFC had used and put in place what appears a "better balanced" law for others to use halfway through a season.

My distain for the EFL can not get any lower ATM, But can someone explain the vitriol that's heading their way...from a confused old timer

[Sparkle]

15 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Well yes, but the term we used in the accounts does suggest that we were giving values to players beyond the end of their contracts.  So it's probably unfair to criticise the EFL for coming to that conclusion.

Can’t the value be zero ? 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

We lost the case that our amortisation method was compliant . And we were ordered to redo our accounts on a compliant basis. 
 

in the end I suspect we just agreed to do them on a straight line basis just for a quiet life, and given yesterday’s news that was probably sensible. 

I think Pearce "tried it on" by presenting redone accounts in ways that minimised any overspending - all those discussions we had last summer, before the eventual 1 week extension which I believe was at the crunch point DCFC said ok, you win, straight line, we'll need a week

[DavesaRam]

On 16/02/2022 at 13:30, Eddie said:

My uncle John was Santa there for years.

So they didn’t let him go home on Christmas Eve, then?

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Thanks for this ?  My only issue with Jonathan's reply is that he seems to link the 9 point deduction with our amortisation policy. That isn't correct, and confuses the issues.  The 9 point deduction relates to our overspend. An overspend which would have happened whichever amortisation policy had been adopted, because Morris had lost control (in particular, the Bent one year contract extension is an example of the fact he, and others, at the top of the club had entered into multiple player contract arrangements which were unsustainable for a Championship club).  This is not to defend the EFL - their stance throught the amortisation review has been vindictive, principally it seems to protect themselves from a Boro counter claim against themselves.  There is a reasonable argument I think to seek a reduction or removal of the £100k fine we received, but that would only be a pyrrhic victory. I doubt there is much of a case to greatly reduce the 9 point penalty for P&S overspend, not that I would be unhappy if Ashley or any new owner wanted to give it a very real go when they get hold of the steering wheel.  

We are not going to get the 9 points back. 
 

But Your assumption that we would have overspent anyway even without the amortisation issue assumes that Morris wouldn’t have been able to sell the club if neither Efl nor Gibson were on his back. A £45 million claim from Boro and a threat of 20 point deduction for stadium sale and amortisation can’t have helped his prospects of selling the club. 

[Day]

Amortisation methods aside. 

This P&S change, the can of worms this has now opened is ridiculous. Would love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting.

Let's say Boro were to breach this season by £2.5m prior to this rule change, next season they avoid points deduction due to the rule change and beat Forest to the play offs.

Forest could argue that not only in January 22 they could have gone out and spent a further £2.5 on Bowler from Blackpool who would have strengthened their promotion bid this season, but next season as well who should not have finished behind Boro who should have had points deducted.

Even Reading, if they were to go down, they could argue had they known they could have spent a further £2.5m on Andy Carroll's wages to keep him at the club, that would have allowed them to stay up.

Above are purely hypothetical situations used to show what could happen when changing the rules mid way through the season.

What is the protocol for these votes to take place, is this something Rick Parry the chairman would propose a vote to take place, or can individual clubs propose rule changes at any time?

Find it astonishing that the financial rules can be changed with immediate effect, and not made in the summer prior to the transfer window open, when there were question marks over possible restrictions.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

22 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Thanks for this ?  My only issue with Jonathan's reply is that he seems to link the 9 point deduction with our amortisation policy. That isn't correct, and confuses the issues.  The 9 point deduction relates to our overspend. An overspend which would have happened whichever amortisation policy had been adopted, because Morris had lost control (in particular, the Bent one year contract extension is an example of the fact he, and others, at the top of the club had entered into multiple player contract arrangements which were unsustainable for a Championship club).  This is not to defend the EFL - their stance throught the amortisation review has been vindictive, principally it seems to protect themselves from a Boro counter claim against themselves.  There is a reasonable argument I think to seek a reduction or removal of the £100k fine we received, but that would only be a pyrrhic victory. I doubt there is much of a case to greatly reduce the 9 point penalty for P&S overspend, not that I would be unhappy if Ashley or any new owner wanted to give it a very real go when they get hold of the steering wheel.  

Still my favourite.  Some geezer turning up with his boots and asking for 1.5 million quid in wages you hadn't accounted for 

[duncanjwitham]

10 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Can’t the value be zero ? 

Not really, otherwise it's not a residual value.  The whole point of residual values is for things that will still have some kind of value, even after they've reached the end of their useful life e.g. a vehicle is still worth something, even if it's just £50 to a scrap merchant.

[BoroWill]

1 hour ago, S8TY said:

After reading some of Parry's replies from a very well written message from David it's even more apparent now that Gibbon is a stain on the game we love!

Taking everyone to court, Suing everyone it seems , he really is no good to football whatsoever and to make it worse manipulates the so called governing body .....Its all about court hearings etc etc...This man should not be involved in the game we love....he is without doubt one of the most loathsome characters I've ever seen in football....and the game would be better off without him involved in it !!

Almost universally regarded as one of the best owners in the game, but I'm sure he will be devastated to hear that DCFCFans have decided he is a stain on football.

[Gaspode]

25 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

We lost the case that our amortisation method was compliant . And we were ordered to redo our accounts on a compliant basis. 
 

in the end I suspect we just agreed to do them on a straight line basis just for a quiet life, and given yesterday’s news that was probably sensible. 

I thought we were fined for not making it obviuous that we were using a non-straightline method - not for using a non-compliant method (which yesterday's announcement clarifies - there was no rule so we couldn't have been non-compliant - now there is....)

Edited February 18, 2022 by Gaspode

[Ram-Alf]

7 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

Almost universally regarded as one of the best owners in the game, but I'm sure he will be devastated to hear that DCFCFans have decided he is a stain on football.

Wow that's some statement, Have you any documentation to back this up, I'd wager the majority of Boros fans even his ex Chauffeur would agree with you when he won his case against unfare dismissal, But almost Universally ?

Edited February 18, 2022 by Unlucky Alf

[i-Ram]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

We are not going to get the 9 points back. 

But Your assumption that we would have overspent anyway even without the amortisation issue assumes that Morris wouldn’t have been able to sell the club if neither Efl nor Gibson were on his back. A £45 million claim from Boro and a threat of 20 point deduction for stadium sale and amortisation can’t have helped his prospects of selling the club. 

I think the point you make to a degree is a fair one in regard to making it very difficult for Morris to sell. How much you apportion that to the EFl is moot.  However, in terms of overspending it doesn't seem to me that Morris stuck the car into reverse gear until around January 2020 (around the same time the EFL charged us).  He had splurged quite a bit with Lampard, and he followed up with big moves for Bielik and Rooney. Yes he was clearly trying to sell the Club from mid-2019, but he was still as far as I can tell not really reigning the spending in until we moved in to 2020, and of course Covid then came to create a huge problem for him.  So I think his overspending was the problem well before the EFL really got into him.  

You also seem to remain of the view that him selling in say late 2019/early 2020 would have had some miraculous affect on P&S calculations pre-sale. My understanding, not great, is that any P&S benefits that might arise from the transaction that Morris was trying to peddle would have only benefitted a new owner in terms of future spend. 

[Day]

14 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Could someone please clarify this situation, Governments, Courts and businesses will "close loopholes" that give the defendant in future cases less chance of winning their case.

Now that the EFL has closed a "loophole" that DCFC had used and put in place what appears a "better balanced" law for others to use halfway through a season.

My distain for the EFL can not get any lower ATM, But can someone explain the vitriol that's heading their way...from a confused old timer

The retrospective punishment, having previously signed off on our accounts.

1) Had they simply said from next season all clubs must use this amortisation method, not a problem. It's purely the fact they have punished us retrospectively which is grossly unfair given that the regulations at the time did not state that all clubs must use a straight line method. 

Had they said from the following season, only straight line amortisation methods could be used, we couldn't argue that, we would have to fall in line. Not a problem.

It's not just the amortisation method, they tried to pull us up on our stadium valuation, independent valuations which were cleared. The EFL chose to use someone that tried to compare our stadium to that of Fleetwood Town.

There has been an aggressive pursuit of the club to stop Steve Gibson bringing legal action against the EFL for not taking action against us.

2) A vote has also now been passed where clubs can write off an extra £2.5m down as covid losses for this season, with immediate effect. Changing the financial rules midway through the season to help clubs that are in danger of breaching.

It's worth noting that when saying the "EFL", it can be either the board or clubs, in point 1 this is on the board. Point 2 is on the clubs for voting it through and why some are asking for an Independent regulator as you can't have clubs with this much power to change the rules to suit.

Even in the Premier League, after the Super League plans were scrapped, the top 6 refused to vote in favour on a rule that states entry to the Champions League must be awarded on merit (results). Which suggests the plans are not scrapped, just put on hold.

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

6 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

Almost universally regarded in Middlesbrough as one of the best owners in the game, but I'm sure he will be devastated to hear that DCFCFans have decided he is a stain on football.

FTFY

[Curtains]

20 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Thanks for this ?  My only issue with Jonathan's reply is that he seems to link the 9 point deduction with our amortisation policy. That isn't correct, and confuses the issues.  The 9 point deduction relates to our overspend. An overspend which would have happened whichever amortisation policy had been adopted, because Morris had lost control (in particular, the Bent one year contract extension is an example of the fact he, and others, at the top of the club had entered into multiple player contract arrangements which were unsustainable for a Championship club).  This is not to defend the EFL - their stance throught the amortisation review has been vindictive, principally it seems to protect themselves from a Boro counter claim against themselves.  There is a reasonable argument I think to seek a reduction or removal of the £100k fine we received, but that would only be a pyrrhic victory. I doubt there is much of a case to greatly reduce the 9 point penalty for P&S overspend, not that I would be unhappy if Ashley or any new owner wanted to give it a very real go when they get hold of the steering wheel.  

 

Derby must never get in this situation again but we should be afforded some sympathy IMO .

The  club used an amortisation policy which wasn’t against the rules  to try to counteract overspending and it nearly worked .

It was signed off .

Other clubs are overspending at the moment but rule changes mid season by the  EFL backed by a two thirds majority  of in house clubs will probably save them.

Talk about ruling yourselves to suit yourselves.

Thats immorally wrong 

 

From Wiki why FFP was introduced in the first place 

 

“The problem of debt was not confined to the top division, with a number of clubs in the second tier of English football, the Championship seemingly gambling their futures in an effort to gain promotion into the Premier League. The 2010–2012 parliamentary report into English football noted that, "Much of the overspending [by non Premier league clubs] is as a result of the desire to get into the 'promised land' of the Premier League or indeed to simply stay there... the prevailing reasoning amongst Football League sides seems to be that excessive levels of spending can be sustained for a few years within which time promotion must be achieved. After that, Premier League revenues can be used to pay off all the debts accrued."

 

 

[Foreveram]

7 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

Almost universally regarded as one of the best owners in the game, but I'm sure he will be devastated to hear that DCFCFans have decided he is a stain on football.

Maybe people should read more and dig a little deeper, Jimmy Saville was once regarded as a national treasure.

[DCFC27]

4 hours ago, David said:

 

Since Rick Parry “chairman of the EFL” can be drawn into an argument with a fan at one club via email (no offence intended @David) it really does show the level of professionalism at the EFL and how it is run. Absolute circus. 

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I think the point you make to a degree is a fair one in regard to making it very difficult for Morris to sell. How much you apportion that to the EFl is moot.  However, in terms of overspending it doesn't seem to me that Morris stuck the car into reverse gear until around January 2020 (around the same time the EFL charged us).  He had splurged quite a bit with Lampard, and he followed up with big moves for Bielik and Rooney. Yes he was clearly trying to sell the Club from mid-2019, but he was still as far as I can tell not really reigning the spending in until we moved in to 2020, and of course Covid then came to create a huge problem for him.  So I think his overspending was the problem well before the EFL really got into him.  

You also seem to remain of the view that him selling in say late 2019/early 2020 would have had some miraculous affect on P&S calculations pre-sale. My understanding, not great, is that any P&S benefits that might arise from the transaction that Morris was trying to peddle would have only benefitted a new owner in terms of future spend. 

My understanding on it isn’t great either Iram which is why I defer to the oracle on this Ghost of Clough.

who Iirc has said using our amortisation method had been allowed we would have only failed ffp in 2019/20. So if Morris had sold that year he could have got away with it albeit with a lot of smoke and mirror tricks.