The Administration Thread

[Rich84]

Feels today is going to be a pivotal day, after starting to lose the youngsters that would have been 1st team squad next season for no real financial benefit, with the rumoured Bundesliga interest in Festy.... we have to get it sorted.

Ridiculous situation that the governing body has restricted us being able to retain our assets, or get market value due to them not being on longer contracts or even sign professional contracts is farcical, a member in financial difficulties being hit in the pocket, fair enough, stop us bringing more players in, but these are already ours. That's why points deductions were brought in in the 1st place. 

Lose Festy and 1 or 2 more of our future starlets for peanuts and surely the club is devalued, increasing the likelihood of potential buyers re-evaluating.

I've been optimistic throughout that we will get sorted, but it has to be now, no more tooing and froing with the EFL, we need a resolution today.

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

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. 

They didn’t seek to override accounting regs. They said, the accounts don’t comply with them and our rules require them to 

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

Ridiculous situation that the governing body has restricted us being able to retain our assets, or get market value due to them not being on longer contracts or even sign professional contracts is farcical, a member in financial difficulties being hit in the pocket, fair enough, stop us bringing more players in, but these are already ours. That's why points deductions were brought in in the 1st place. 

No-one is even interested but us, the EFL makes up it's own regulations as it goes along, the list of 'punishments' we continue to endure goes on!

[CBRammette]

Please can someone start a new thread on accounting policies or resurrect one of the old ones for ongoing discussions on it today?
I know its really important to how we got here but for those trying (and failing) to work as well as read through new stuff there is a lot of it.  Also whilst being tetchy please could fans of other clubs (however nice and friendly) realise that commenting lots on this thread is like dancing at a funeral. There is "view from the outside" 

sorry everyone tense day and I have a big meeting not on zoom - how can I look at news? Any ideas welcome

[G STAR RAM]

38 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The lack of clarity was that we were suggesting according to Maguire that players had residual values .. which is a reserved term n the accounting standard to only refer to values at the end of contracts. 

 

taken literally that means as Maguire says we were giving them non zero values at the end of the contracts.

 

so the lack of clarity on that front doesn’t help Efl either. It only can have misled them to thinking we were more non compliant than we actually were.

this was a point picked up by the IDc as we obviously didn’t mislead deliberately as the note taken literally actually made it look worse than it was.

but what IDc didn’t pick up on was that if the note suggested we were obviously non compliant why wasn’t that challenged by Efl  in 2016?

If memory serves, not only did they not challenge it, they give it the green light and pointed out the risk of large amortisation charges further down the line.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

19 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Thanks for not mentioning it. ? 

I'm sure most of us can't even remember this incident, and I think it's pathetic of you to raise it as some kind of equivalence with QPR overspending by over £40M, but we can remember O'Neill's professional foul that stopped a potential one-on-one and epitomised a cynical display by a club which, at the time, was itself the epitome of arrogance and entitlement. I also have to say that your supporters behaved without a scrap of humility that day, and for a long time afterwards. 

No-one would argue that QPR haven't been on a long, hard journey since, and appear to be doing it the right way now. But, after some reasonable contributions, you're falling into the same mindset that I see in most QPR fans on Social Media : that you are the only victims of your behaviour.

You were lucky you got promoted, you were lucky that PDs weren't a punishment then, you were lucky Mel Morris decided not to sue you for compensation, and you were even more lucky that it wasn't Middlesbrough you beat in that final. 

The annoying thing is, the Morris years made us that club and those fans for a while.

 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

The annoying thing is, the Morris years made us that club and those fans for a while.

 

Rooney is changing that perception of our Club back again, hope he sees us as a 'long term' plan. #COYR

Edited January 25, 2022 by RoyMac5

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Please can someone start a new thread on accounting policies or resurrect one of the old ones for ongoing discussions on it today?
I know its really important to how we got here but for those trying (and failing) to work as well as read through new stuff there is a lot of it.  Also whilst being tetchy please could fans of other clubs (however nice and friendly) realise that commenting lots on this thread is like dancing at a funeral. There is "view from the outside" 

sorry everyone tense day and I have a big meeting not on zoom - how can I look at news? Any ideas welcome

Sorry CBRammette. There's nothing else happening today is there? 

[Crewton]

7 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

The annoying thing is, the Morris years made us that club and those fans for a while.

 

Yes, apart from the promotion part ? 

I think the fact that, in 2013/14 & 2014/15, when we operated comfortably within FFP yet saw FFP cheats like QPR, Leicester, Watford and Bournemouth promoted ahead of us to no great outcry and zero recompense, with accompanying gloating and self-justification from fans of the miscreants, made allot of us turn a blind eye to the overspending in the belief that MM would always cover his commitments. 

[kevinhectoring]

8 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

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.

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.

[RoyMac5]

16 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Yes, apart from the promotion part ? 

I think the fact that, in 2013/14 & 2014/15, when we operated comfortably within FFP yet saw FFP cheats like QPR, Leicester, Watford and Bournemouth promoted ahead of us to no great outcry and zero recompense, with accompanying gloating and self-justification from fans of the miscreants, made allot of us turn a blind eye to the overspending in the belief that MM would always cover his commitments. 

I didn't see any large scale protests being organised over the amount we were spending, just what was going on with us fans? It's like we didn't care! ? 

[Sparkle]

59 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

No matter what the outcome of our situation I would of thought there must be an independent in depth review of the EFL's role in all this. 

I would hope that there was a full independent inquiry into how the EFL has conducted itself and Middlesbrough involvement not to mention ourselves Derby county - we can’t be harmed by it can we ? I am sure neither of them would be wanting that to happen but why not ?

[ilkleyram]

7 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.

Was this the LAP without any accountants on it?

[Sparkle]

42 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Please can someone start a new thread on accounting policies or resurrect one of the old ones for ongoing discussions on it today?
I know its really important to how we got here but for those trying (and failing) to work as well as read through new stuff there is a lot of it.  Also whilst being tetchy please could fans of other clubs (however nice and friendly) realise that commenting lots on this thread is like dancing at a funeral. There is "view from the outside" 

sorry everyone tense day and I have a big meeting not on zoom - how can I look at news? Any ideas welcome

Do your work then go home and check ceefax and you will know everything ?

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Were you googling Bumdungeon again?

 

Yes, but he'd disabled cookies.

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

[i-Ram]

55 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Please can someone start a new thread on accounting policies or resurrect one of the old ones for ongoing discussions on it today?
I know its really important to how we got here but for those trying (and failing) to work as well as read through new stuff there is a lot of it.  Also whilst being tetchy please could fans of other clubs (however nice and friendly) realise that commenting lots on this thread is like dancing at a funeral. There is "view from the outside" 

sorry everyone tense day and I have a big meeting not on zoom - how can I look at news? Any ideas welcome

 

[duncanjwitham]

23 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.

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.

[Bobby]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

Thanks for not mentioning it. ? 

I'm sure most of us can't even remember this incident, and I think it's pathetic of you to raise it as some kind of equivalence with QPR overspending by over £40M, but we can remember O'Neill's professional foul that stopped a potential one-on-one and epitomised a cynical display by a club which, at the time, was itself the epitome of arrogance and entitlement. I also have to say that your supporters behaved without a scrap of humility that day, and for a long time afterwards. 

No-one would argue that QPR haven't been on a long, hard journey since, and appear to be doing it the right way now. But, after some reasonable contributions, you're falling into the same mindset that I see in most QPR fans on Social Media : that you are the only victims of your behaviour.

You were lucky you got promoted, you were lucky that PDs weren't a punishment then, you were lucky Mel Morris decided not to sue you for compensation, and you were even more lucky that it wasn't Middlesbrough you beat in that final. 

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.

[RoyMac5]

3 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.

Yeah right we get it, thanks so much.

[i-Ram]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Yes, but he'd disabled cookies.

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

Thank you Eddie.

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