The Administration Thread

[Crewton]

32 minutes ago, The Baron said:

(and accept EPPP, which is dreadful for EFL clubs in my opinion).

Amen. We know all about that piece of legalised theft. 

[CBRammette]

1 hour ago, The Baron said:

Probably, they certainly did when Barcelona and Juventus swapped Arthur and Pjanic for €70m and €58m respectively for players who could best be described as ‘bang average’

Thanks for spending so much time on here today.

The last couple of years have been horrendous for our fans and particularly for those of us living away from Derby this forum has been a lifeline and means of venting/panicking/laughing/guessing/discussing amortisation and insolvency law. At times the wellbeing of some fans has been concerning.

You spending time answering questions feels as if someone has bothered to appreciate the effect on fans and given a welcome relief from arguing technical points with those who have pontificated with each other, at times very angrily (or boringly) around in circles for many months. 

I know its your specialist area but I think most Derby fans never want to discuss football finances again if this is ever over. Thanks again.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

But they did return to your interpretation didn't they. Also, as yiu state its unequivocal "to you". At the time it wasn't a rule. Do you agree? 

@The Baron? 

[jimtastic56]

2 hours ago, glyn1957 said:

Hi Baron, if DCFC were owned by a top European club and they paid 12 million for a player from  DCFC that everyone  in football knew was not worth more than a couple of million the EFL and other clubs would not be shouting foul foul from the rooftops about over inflation of the players value ??.

Florists paid £5 mill for Britt Assombolonga, he was virtually a cripple after his ACL and Boro paid £15 mill for him. Gibson must be in on the scam.And if Matty Cash was worth £16 mill - we are letting our players go far too cheap.

 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, The Baron said:

As for amortisation, you have your interpretation of FRS 102 based on your accounting knowledge and experience, and I have mine, we can agree to disagree. 

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.

I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.

I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

Nail meet head...

[PistoldPete]

46 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

It probably was either big or the club's management were not being cooperative or they wouldnt apply for winding up order

As G Star has said it was at the time of the fake sheikh so there was an understanding they would pay the bill but didn't , so Mel paid it instead. 

[G STAR RAM]

37 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

I know its your specialist area but I think most Derby fans never want to discuss football finances again if this is ever over. Thanks again.

He is no more a specialist than anyone else.

He is someone who, somehow, has his opinions listened to more than others.

The fact that the IDC disagreed with his interpretation of the amortisation issue just goes to show that he is just a person with an opinion, that goes to the trouble of analysing accounts.

I really dont see how 'football finance' is an area that anyone can be an expert in, football clubs produce the same accounts as everyone else.

[Mihangel]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

He is no more a specialist than anyone else.

He is someone who, somehow, has his opinions listened to more than others.

The fact that the IDC disagreed with his interpretation of the amortisation issue just goes to show that he is just a person with an opinion, that goes to the trouble of analysing accounts.

I really dont see how 'football finance' is an area that anyone can be an expert in, football clubs produce the same accounts as everyone else.

As the saying goes, those who can, do.....

[kevinhectoring]

52 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

I know why is that? Its not just lawyers - accountants and tax advisers too. Always everyone rushing around at the last second. I would have said that before it was a macho thing but still same now so many more women involved in transactions

I think it's because one of the most successful models for professional service organisations is:  pay a lot to get talent, employ as few as possible, and sweat the talent you have to maximum effect. So people work their nuts off to deal with a deadline, then they work to the next one etc  Then they realise it's a sad life and leave  Or they carry on, making money for their firms - then become partners and inflict it on the next generation

[CBRammette]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

He is no more a specialist than anyone else.

He is someone who, somehow, has his opinions listened to more than others.

The fact that the IDC disagreed with his interpretation of the amortisation issue just goes to show that he is just a person with an opinion, that goes to the trouble of analysing accounts.

I really dont see how 'football finance' is an area that anyone can be an expert in, football clubs produce the same accounts as everyone else.

Yes but you have specialist accountants/auditors in certain industry groups. I worked in a high end consumer goods group when I first started. Others were insurance, retail, banking etc. We sometimes go to talks by a tax specialist firm which only advises sports men and women when we have one or two

[CBRammette]

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think it's because one of the most successful models for professional service organisations is:  pay a lot to get talent, employ as few as possible, and sweat the talent you have to maximum effect. So people work their nuts off to deal with a deadline, then they work to the next one etc  Then they realise it's a sad life and leave  Or they carry on, making money for their firms - then become partners and inflict it on the next generation

That sounds about right. I escaped Big 4 but some escapees where I work still do it

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, CBRammette said:

Yes but you have specialist accountants/auditors in certain industry groups. I worked in a high end consumer goods group when I first started. Others were insurance, retail, banking etc. We sometimes go to talks by a tax specialist firm which only advises sports men and women when we have one or two

Yes fair comment. Wasnt even meant as a sleight on him. He has obviously cut himself out a decent living by concentrating on a niche area.

Can honestly say though Ive never seen anything that he has said that I've thought he only knows because he is a specialist in the area of football finance.

Its mostly just opinion pieces which people take as fact because the article starts off with 'Football finance specialist Kieran Maguire has had his say on....'

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

This was around the time of the Fake Sheikh takeover and at the same time the wages went unpaid so I'd imagine it is pretty clear what happened here.

Also there is no mention of amounts, maybe you can qualify the 'significant sums'?

Also, as shown, the winding up petition was withdrawn, so one would assume this was cleared.

In summary, stating that significant sums were owed to HMRC pre Covid (as evidence that Covid was not the primary factor in DCFC being placed in administration) in my opinion is (a) most likely incorrect and (b) completely disingenuous

The size of the debt suggests we stopped paying tax at the start of the 19/20 season. I'd so, the amount owed in Jan 2020 would be about £7-10m. Winding up order closed when government prevented it from progressing any further due to Covid?

[I know nuffin]

3 hours ago, The Baron said:

It is within the rules because owners are allowed to own more than one club. City Football Group own about a dozen, for example. You may not like the rules, but that's not the same as breaking them. Everton sold an option for naming rights for a stadium that did not have planning permission to the former business partner of the owner, it looks awful, but was not breaking the rules at the time. 

As for amortisation, you have your interpretation of FRS 102 based on your accounting knowledge and experience, and I have mine, we can agree to disagree. 

The accounts were audited. At the same time the auditors were audited themselves by their governing body. If the governing body found them to be within frs 102 isn't that a clue that it was allowed

[Day]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I really dont see how 'football finance' is an area that anyone can be an expert in, football clubs produce the same accounts as everyone else.

Wasn't ours different though....which drew the initial attention from our friend with the calculator?....

[The Baron]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

@The Baronnot sure if you missed my post.

Would you mind clarifying what the 'significant sums' were please?

Was it just PAYE or other taxes as well?

All taxes. Morris had racked up a £29m total tax creditor when he put the club into administration, over £10m higher than the next largest tax creditor in the Championship. 

 

 

[PistoldPete]

3 hours ago, The Baron said:

It is within the rules because owners are allowed to own more than one club. City Football Group own about a dozen, for example. You may not like the rules, but that's not the same as breaking them. Everton sold an option for naming rights for a stadium that did not have planning permission to the former business partner of the owner, it looks awful, but was not breaking the rules at the time. 

As for amortisation, you have your interpretation of FRS 102 based on your accounting knowledge and experience, and I have mine, we can agree to disagree. 

I have my view based on my experience of dispute resolution. The case was not proven by EFL, whereas the burden of proof was on them.  They were also using the wrong jusrisdiction.. the proper place to decide on the matter (if at all) was whether it was a breach of FRS 102 according to the relevant accounting body.  To ask a bunch of lawyers that question was ridiculous.

But worst of all, EFL allowed it and then changed their mind. As Damian Collins , Parliamentary committee chariman  has said , EFL effectively punished Derby for the EFL's own mistakes. Either EFL were wrong to allow the amortisation or they were wrong to charge Derby for using it. There is no way that EFL were not guilty as hell either way.

[The Baron]

2 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

The accounts were audited. At the same time the auditors were audited themselves by their governing body. If the governing body found them to be within frs 102 isn't that a clue that it was allowed

You're assuming that the accounting policy, described as 'at best confusing, at worst seriously misleading' was picked up by the inspection. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Not sure why @The Baronis the baddie in this in some people's view to be honest.