The Administration Thread

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

I think there is something in that.. we should look at an independent valuation of a player on transfermarkt website rather than use what we paid for the player as the base figure. But EFL don’t know the meaning of the word independent. 

I dont even think you need to look at individual players.

A general rule, as long as backed up by supporting evidence, should be enough. 

ie: players under the age of 30 are likely to recoup x percentage of their fee if sold with over x years remaining on their contract.

There are enough transfers out there to be able to produce a reasonable estimate 

[ollycutts1982]

30 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I dont even think you need to look at individual players.

A general rule, as long as backed up by supporting evidence, should be enough. 

ie: players under the age of 30 are likely to recoup x percentage of their fee if sold with over x years remaining on their contract.

There are enough transfers out there to be able to produce a reasonable estimate 

That's demonstrating far too much common sense to be considered by the EFL.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, ollycutts1982 said:

That's demonstrating far too much common sense to be considered by the EFL.

I don't think we covered ourselves in glory by being unable to display any real methodology to our approach.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't think we covered ourselves in glory by being unable to display any real methodology to our approach.

 

That's one aspect where the whole "we really thought it was a better way of accounting" fell down whilst the "it's been done to manipulate the accounting losses into different periods" accusation does seem to fit.

[duncanjwitham]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't think we covered ourselves in glory by being unable to display any real methodology to our approach.

 

We didn't lose the appeal because of that though. They were clear that our method for calculating values was good enough (or at least they couldn't find a reason to argue against it).  We lost because they decided you simply can't ever use player values at all, even if they're very accurately estimated, because there's no absolute 100% guarantee that you can sell a player for that value.

[RadioactiveWaste]

11 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

We didn't lose the appeal because of that though. They were clear that our method for calculating values was good enough (or at least they couldn't find a reason to argue against it).  We lost because they decided you simply can't ever use player values at all, even if they're very accurately estimated, because there's no absolute 100% guarantee that you can sell a player for that value.

I thought the key point was that it was an "error in law" to have given equal regard to the expert witness as the other witnesses, and that the original panal were duty bound to go with the expert witness's opinion.

Seem to remember a catty comment about the lack of accountant on the appeal panel.

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I thought the key point was that it was an "error in law" to have given equal regard to the expert witness as the other witnesses, and that the original panal were duty bound to go with the expert witness's opinion.

Seem to remember a catty comment about the lack of accountant on the appeal panel.

Yeah that's right, but the actual disagreement between witnesses was over whether you can use residual values at all.  Their expert witness said something that didn't appear to have any correlation with that was written in the rules, so the panel disregarded him (based on the knowledge of the accountant on the panel and the evidence of our accountants).  The appeals panel decided it didn't matter what was written in the rules, it wasn't up to the practicing accountants on the panel to try and interpret them, they had to rely on the opinion of the non-practicing-accountant instead.

[G STAR RAM]

23 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

We didn't lose the appeal because of that though. They were clear that our method for calculating values was good enough (or at least they couldn't find a reason to argue against it).  We lost because they decided you simply can't ever use player values at all, even if they're very accurately estimated, because there's no absolute 100% guarantee that you can sell a player for that value.

Yes true.

Based on that approach no asset should ever carry any value as there is no guarantee of selling or generating income from it.

 

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes true.

Based on that approach no asset should ever carry any value as there is no guarantee of selling or generating income from it.

 

Yes, absolutely. Which is ironic, since they spent the other half of the disciplinary process quite happily talking about the correct way to value the stadium asset ?‍♂️

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

50 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

We didn't lose the appeal because of that though. They were clear that our method for calculating values was good enough (or at least they couldn't find a reason to argue against it).  We lost because they decided you simply can't ever use player values at all, even if they're very accurately estimated, because there's no absolute 100% guarantee that you can sell a player for that value.

But, but..... That's the whole Bristol City business model.  They could deffo have sold 30 million quid's worth of players every season till the end of time if not for a pandemic. Well, that and losing 2 million quid a month and converting into shares worth tuppence.  Surely when they present it to the EFL they won't be told to jog on. 

[Indy]

13 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

But, but..... That's the whole Bristol City business model.  They could deffo have sold 30 million quid's worth of players every season till the end of time if not for a pandemic. Well, that and losing 2 million quid a month and converting into shares worth tuppence.  Surely when they present it to the EFL they won't be told to jog on. 

And Stoke have already written off losses due to Covid reducing their player sales income, I think. Which is odd as we were told that Covid is not a force majeure event that clubs couldn’t have planned for (so we couldn’t appeal administration) and notional player values can’t be used to determine current book value of assets (for our amortisation).
 

Much as I know Mel is the root cause of our situation, I find it odd that anyone thinks the EFL haven’t deliberately used any discretion they have to disadvantage us at every turn. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 minutes ago, Indy said:

And Stoke have already written off losses due to Covid reducing their player sales income, I think. Which is odd as we were told that Covid is not a force majeure event that clubs couldn’t have planned for (so we couldn’t appeal administration) and notional player values can’t be used to determine current book value of assets (for our amortisation).
 

Much as I know Mel is the root cause of our situation, I find it odd that anyone thinks the EFL haven’t deliberately used any discretion they have to disadvantage us at every turn. 

Ah Stoke who just sold their stadium  to Bet 365 for a fortune. Bet 365 have also taken 70 million in losses and cleared them by taking shares in Stoke.  Who owns Bet 365 they must be insane .  It appears to be the Coates who also conveniently own .......Stoke. On top of the 40 million covid losses .  Fair this game innit.

[rsmini]

4 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Or buy a Greek club and sell the player to them and book a terrific profit instead of a write off each year of their contract, has this been thought of by any other East Midlands club?

Or sell/buy your ground and convert over £100m of debt to shares, like another midlands club has recently done.

[jono]

On 24/04/2022 at 14:30, Elwood P Dowd said:

If there is one thing that really rankles me about, our soon to be former owner, is the none payment of income tax that his company, Derby County, collected from the players but did not pass on to HMRC.

I understand about limited liability and would have had some sympathy if he had been broke and had used the “tax money” to try to save the company however, this wasn't the case.

I do feel that perhaps a change in the law would be appropriate to ensure that in the future a Director/owner would be personally responsible for the repayment of tax money  which has been collected but not passed onto HMRC.

HMRC don’t come out of this situation very well either, why did they allow Derby to avoid passing on the collected tax for so long. Yes, you could say it this situation occurred during Covid but I feel Derby’s non payment of Tax was going on some time before Covid stuck.

 

 

 

Yes ! I am still perplexed as to how that debt was allowed to get so big. I suspect it was “gentle touch” instructions relating to Covid but it really is huge in relative terms, one wonders how that came to pass. Mel stretching a situation to his hoped for advantage or dereliction of duty by HMRC ? .. 30 days, 60 days, 90 days  ? It sounds like a lot more to me. If it’s 40% of wages then it has a feel of no PAYE paid for the entire COVID period 

[jono]

1 minute ago, jono said:

Yes ! I am still perplexed as to how that debt was allowed to get so big. I suspect it was “gentle touch” instructions relating to Covid but it really is huge in relative terms, one wonders how that came to pass. Mel stretching a situation to his hoped for advantage or dereliction of duty by HMRC ? .. 30 days, 60 days, 90 days  ? It sounds like a lot more to me. If it’s 40% of wages then it has a feel of no PAYE paid for the entire COVID period 

A bit of a thought …. Football was in a bizarre situation ..  the controls vis a vis Covid meant they could continue do their job so wouldn’t be eligible for furlough but unlike a shop / shop worker the company didn’t close down and take a hand out from the government. Let’s face it hundreds of companies closed their doors but their staff got 80% of their wages from HMG … didn’t happen in footy with its huge wage related costs .. hummmm. 

[CBRammette]

1 minute ago, jono said:

A bit of a thought …. Football was in a bizarre situation ..  the controls vis a vis Covid meant they could continue do their job so wouldn’t be eligible for furlough but unlike a shop / shop worker the company didn’t close down and take a hand out from the government. Let’s face it hundreds of companies closed their doors but their staff got 80% of their wages from HMG … didn’t happen in footy with its huge wage related costs .. hummmm. 

Companies didnt have to close down to claim furlough. The furlough paid to staff still attracted all PAYE, NICs, etc. if these werent paid to HMRC furlough claims were stopped very quickly.

[S8TY]

Morris couldn't run a tap let alone a business if we are anything to go by....I've said this many times but not paying HMRC was only going to end in tears ...no sympathy for the clown......hope he does right thing with our stadium and bogs right off for good 

[Tyler Durden]

34 minutes ago, jono said:

A bit of a thought …. Football was in a bizarre situation ..  the controls vis a vis Covid meant they could continue do their job so wouldn’t be eligible for furlough but unlike a shop / shop worker the company didn’t close down and take a hand out from the government. Let’s face it hundreds of companies closed their doors but their staff got 80% of their wages from HMG … didn’t happen in footy with its huge wage related costs .. hummmm. 

The amount of money lost due to furlough fraud or error is put at around £5.5 billion....let that figure sink in for a moment.

Especially if you were one of the people Sunak decided wasn't eligible for furlough payments. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, jono said:

A bit of a thought …. Football was in a bizarre situation ..  the controls vis a vis Covid meant they could continue do their job so wouldn’t be eligible for furlough but unlike a shop / shop worker the company didn’t close down and take a hand out from the government. Let’s face it hundreds of companies closed their doors but their staff got 80% of their wages from HMG … didn’t happen in footy with its huge wage related costs .. hummmm. 

From memory, furlough payments were capped at £2500 per month, so even being eligible for that scheme would not have helped that much. 

And of course we had the £8m loan from the EFL to help cover PAYE debts, oh no wait a minute...

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, S8TY said:

Morris couldn't run a tap let alone a business if we are anything to go by....I've said this many times but not paying HMRC was only going to end in tears ...no sympathy for the clown......hope he does right thing with our stadium and bogs right off for good 

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Id say his net worth of £500m, prior to buying Derby, would suggest he has something about him.