The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, SaffyRam said:

Exactly. Especially as they reckon they hadn’t seen the original claim because it was confidential between the two clubs!

I think the amount paid by MM to Gibbo will be kept very close and may not even be written anywhere except on a bank transfer. The EFl may for certainty of funding purposes need to see a piece of paper signed by Gibbo confirming his vile claim has been dropped but there’s no reason that needs to refer to the amount he has extorted 

[Yani P]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Pete, you need to read what people write and not simply launch strawmen around just for the sake of argument ?‍♀️

 

[Woodypecker]

Couldn't you apply a straight-line amortisation yet still arrive at an end-of-contract value? Must the contract always arrive at £0.00? It doesn't work like that for business assets like plant, buildings, fixtures....

Buy a player for £3 million over a three-year contract, amortise him for £750k each year = £2,250 'depreciation'; £750 ERV

Out of all this, I still cannot see why a player's registration should be valueless at the end of a contract with his club. 

But then, this is football, sometimes 'beyond statute'.

 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Derby’s amortisation policy was disclosed in 2017 in the notes and Efl were aware of how it worked. Maguire further drew their attention to it in 2018. 
 

So you didn’t read that bit from the decision I sent you earlier ?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, Steve How Hard? said:

Keep digging Rick lad. You'll reach Middlesbrough eventually. 

Is that some fella from OTIB trying to find the start of their Derby County thread.

[curb]

13 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Couldn't you apply a straight-line amortisation yet still arrive at an end-of-contract value? Must the contract always arrive at £0.00? It doesn't work like that for business assets like plant, buildings, fixtures....

Buy a player for £3 million over a three-year contract, amortise him for £750k each year = £2,250 'depreciation'; £750 ERV

Out of all this, I still cannot see why a player's registration should be valueless at the end of a contract with his club. 

But then, this is football, sometimes 'beyond statute'.

 

If the player doesn’t re-sign for you then his contract is worthless, but if he re-signs for another two years then he has no value for those two years in the accounts. So you could argue that his amortisation should be spread over 6 years, but then up until the point of him re-signing you wouldn’t know that. However we were tagging on an extra years option to players like Darren Bent, which meant that at the end of the actual contract we knew that we could still have him for another year, in effect we always gave them the extra year because of the amortisation, not because he was any use to us on the pitch.

[RoyMac5]

I've been without power most of the day and have missed all the kerfuffle over our P&S 9 points deduction. I can't see owt but crap from Borowilly in the Admin thread, so sorry if this has been gone over:

Like with Reading's penalty the suggestion is we've accepted the penalty and so that's that.

But from the BAWT/RT supporters notes from their meeting with the EFL there is a para about are the accounts still to be submitted:

"Can you confirm the status of the outstanding accounts which were due to be filed on 31st January? The administrators told us you had agreed an extension – can you confirm the new date? Could any further charges be brought based on the submission of those accounts?

*They are working with the Administrators and are not concerned over the submission of the accounts.

They have indicative figures which were the basis for the agreed penalties which were applied to DCFC. The administrators have assured them the figures in the restated accounts are consistent, and these are now being reviewed, if this is the case there will be no further penalties."

So if they were prepared to alter the penalty award depending on the restated accounts, are they are the ones that can have the 'covid allowance'  and if so why can't they give us 'less'?

[Steve How Hard?]

6 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Is that some fella from OTIB trying to find the start of their Derby County thread.

They should bury Mr Poopy Pants in there with all the trash he spouts. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

5 hours ago, SaffyRam said:

Perhaps we should just refer to him as Saint Steve.

Perhaps the ********* should realise that anything good related to their shitty club revolves around Derby County .  Rioch and Todd as managers saving their arse in the 80's.  Mcclaren taking them to two cup finals.  Riggott scoring in the 89th minute in the UEFA cup semi final.   Christ, we even let them have Steve Bloomer for a couple of years till he came back home because it was poo.  We own Middlesbrough's history.  They should be on their knees in devotion to the Mighty Rams for giving them a reason to exist. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

The EFL just need Middlesbrough FC to confirm in writing they withdraw their claim. The do need any further information on the subject.

The EFL do not need to know any details of what was agreed between MM and SG.

Ditto Wycombe assuming Saul Goodman gets told to bog off / given some money to bog off.

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Perhaps the ********* should realise that anything good related to their shitty club revolves around Derby County .  Rioch and Todd as managers saving their arse in the 80's.  Mcclaren taking them to two cup finals.  Riggott scoring in the 89th minute in the UEFA cup semi final.   Christ, we even let them have Steve Bloomer for a couple of years till he came back home because it was poo.  We own Middlesbrough's history.  They should be on their knees in devotion to the Mighty Rams for giving them a reason to exist. 

Boro of course being the club Brian Clough left as a player because the other players were letting goals in on ourpose because they were betting against the team or not wanting to be promoted to the 1st division because they knew they'd be let go as not good enough.

[kevinhectoring]

40 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Couldn't you apply a straight-line amortisation yet still arrive at an end-of-contract value? Must the contract always arrive at £0.00? It doesn't work like that for business assets like plant, buildings, fixtures....

 

 

Yes. People are saying Bosman means it must be zero at end of contact. But the effect of Bosman is that most players are extended or sold before contract expiry. So in most cases zero is clearly wrong 

[jimtastic56]

Mel recons he has lost £200 mill . When did that happen?

[alexxxxx]

51 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Couldn't you apply a straight-line amortisation yet still arrive at an end-of-contract value? Must the contract always arrive at £0.00? It doesn't work like that for business assets like plant, buildings, fixtures....

Buy a player for £3 million over a three-year contract, amortise him for £750k each year = £2,250 'depreciation'; £750 ERV

Out of all this, I still cannot see why a player's registration should be valueless at the end of a contract with his club. 

But then, this is football, sometimes 'beyond statute'.

 

At the end of a players contract they leave the club therefore they are no longer an asset as the club can't realise any benefit. 

Whether or not by extending contracts you can amortise over a longer period.. That appears at first glance to be OK. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by alexxxxx

[Ghost of Clough]

50 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Couldn't you apply a straight-line amortisation yet still arrive at an end-of-contract value? Must the contract always arrive at £0.00? It doesn't work like that for business assets like plant, buildings, fixtures....

Buy a player for £3 million over a three-year contract, amortise him for £750k each year = £2,250 'depreciation'; £750 ERV

Out of all this, I still cannot see why a player's registration should be valueless at the end of a contract with his club. 

But then, this is football, sometimes 'beyond statute'.

 

It's because a player has no value when his contract expires. However, straight-line does allow for the option to readjust the straight-line upon contract extension. There was another amortisation type pre-bosman which amortised towards the average retirement age. I'll try to dig up a post I made about it some time ago.

[Ghost of Clough]

On 23/08/2021 at 14:57, Ghost of Clough said:

We want to hold the book value of players high until the final year.
What I would do is amortise on a straight line towards zero at the average retirement age (let's say 35), but the remaining amount written off in the final year.

In this example, we sign a 23 year old for £5m on a 5 year deal.
12 years until he's 35 so just over £400k amortisation a year. If he signs extensions keeping him at the club until 35, then it will be the same every year (shown by the blue line).
If he doesn't sign an extension and leaves at the end of his 5 years, then £3.3m will be amortised in the final year (shown by the year line)

@Woodypecker

[jono]

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Had a similar response to my email to which I have responded as follows, with Margaret Beckett again CC'd:

Dear Mr Parry,

You infer that bar Derby County, every club in the country adheres to straight line amortisation policies – this is simply not true and it’s staggering that you would suggest as much. In 2015/16 Aston Villa were relegated from the Premier League, which allows a P & S loss of £105 million over three years, which then tapers down to £39 million over three years in the EFL Championship. It was therefore in Villa’s interests to put as many costs into their 2015/16 accounts to be absorbed by their Premier League P & S limit. Villa achieved this by charging an extra £79.6 million as a cost in the expense for impairment of the stadium and players (labelled ‘intangible assets’ in their accounts). No investigation was deemed necessary and no sanctions applied. There are too many other instances to list so I simply offer this particular one to illustrate that where the juggling of player values is concerned, there is one rule for Derby and another for everyone else.

If, as you claim, this amendment has been introduced ‘so there is no room for doubt’, does this not clearly infer there was doubt at the time the policy was in use? And given this has now been highlighted as a rather grey area, do you still maintain the sanctions applied are fair and fitting? Might I also ask what the EFL stance is on club’s selling their debts? Likewise, the pricing of players moving between clubs under the same ownership? The fact is that the EFL has spent over 2 years and no small amount of member club funds bringing Derby to task when a simple amendment, akin to that applied this week, could have been made as early as 2018 along with a request that Derby adopt a straight-line amortisation policy from thereon out.

It is also worth pointing out that the EFL, who claim to have ‘several accounts monitoring practices in place’ was made aware of the fact Derby County were using the ERV amortisation policy in 2018, yet chose not to bring this up with the club itself until 2020 by which time the relevant P & S period had closed. Had you not delayed the process until the 3-year period had elapsed, Derby would have been in a position to address the P & S threshold breaches through player sales or other means. Waiting until 2020, when the EFL was itself under threat of litigation from Middlesbrough FC, meant that Derby were not afforded any opportunity to bring either their accounting practices or their FFP overspend into line. With these facts in mind, I ask you again, do you still maintain the sanctions applied to Derby are fair and fitting?

Frankly, if the EFL is to retain even a shred of credibility, the sanctions applied to Derby County need to be reviewed immediately as the punishments far outweigh the ‘crime’. Failure to do so would result in the not unfair assumption that the current EFL board has brought the League into disrepute and that as such, those in question ought to be considering whether or not their positions remain tenable.

=====================================================================
The way I see it, this is absolutely NOT the time to be easing up on these clowns. Their actions this week yet again compromise the club's chances of survival in the Championship and as long as they continue to act in this fashion, we must keep boots firmly on their throats.

We fight to the end!

 

 

First class and beautifully put. You may get the usual evasive response but maybe some might start to think or exercise their conscience 

[Chester40]

3 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Had a similar response to my email to which I have responded as follows, with Margaret Beckett again CC'd:

Dear Mr Parry,

You infer that bar Derby County, every club in the country adheres to straight line amortisation policies – this is simply not true and it’s staggering that you would suggest as much. In 2015/16 Aston Villa were relegated from the Premier League, which allows a P & S loss of £105 million over three years, which then tapers down to £39 million over three years in the EFL Championship. It was therefore in Villa’s interests to put as many costs into their 2015/16 accounts to be absorbed by their Premier League P & S limit. Villa achieved this by charging an extra £79.6 million as a cost in the expense for impairment of the stadium and players (labelled ‘intangible assets’ in their accounts). No investigation was deemed necessary and no sanctions applied. There are too many other instances to list so I simply offer this particular one to illustrate that where the juggling of player values is concerned, there is one rule for Derby and another for everyone else.

If, as you claim, this amendment has been introduced ‘so there is no room for doubt’, does this not clearly infer there was doubt at the time the policy was in use? And given this has now been highlighted as a rather grey area, do you still maintain the sanctions applied are fair and fitting? Might I also ask what the EFL stance is on club’s selling their debts? Likewise, the pricing of players moving between clubs under the same ownership? The fact is that the EFL has spent over 2 years and no small amount of member club funds bringing Derby to task when a simple amendment, akin to that applied this week, could have been made as early as 2018 along with a request that Derby adopt a straight-line amortisation policy from thereon out.

It is also worth pointing out that the EFL, who claim to have ‘several accounts monitoring practices in place’ was made aware of the fact Derby County were using the ERV amortisation policy in 2018, yet chose not to bring this up with the club itself until 2020 by which time the relevant P & S period had closed. Had you not delayed the process until the 3-year period had elapsed, Derby would have been in a position to address the P & S threshold breaches through player sales or other means. Waiting until 2020, when the EFL was itself under threat of litigation from Middlesbrough FC, meant that Derby were not afforded any opportunity to bring either their accounting practices or their FFP overspend into line. With these facts in mind, I ask you again, do you still maintain the sanctions applied to Derby are fair and fitting?

Frankly, if the EFL is to retain even a shred of credibility, the sanctions applied to Derby County need to be reviewed immediately as the punishments far outweigh the ‘crime’. Failure to do so would result in the not unfair assumption that the current EFL board has brought the League into disrepute and that as such, those in question ought to be considering whether or not their positions remain tenable.

=====================================================================
The way I see it, this is absolutely NOT the time to be easing up on these clowns. Their actions this week yet again compromise the club's chances of survival in the Championship and as long as they continue to act in this fashion, we must keep boots firmly on their throats.

We fight to the end!

 

 

Shameful. 

The reader infers....the writer implies.

Mr Parry will be laughing his head off at your illiterate schoolboy error...

Didn't read the rest of it. Probably OK though.

Dont thank me, it was my pleasure. 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

So you didn’t read that bit from the decision I sent you earlier ?

Did LAp hear evidence from the EFL's Finance Director at the time.. not according to this note from the IDC:

" By way of example, the Club complained that the EFL did not call evidence from Tad Detko, the EFL’s Finance Director at
the material times. It contended that ‘it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the EFL has not called Mr Detko because Mr
Detko thinks, as he informed Mr Pearce, that the charges are “a load of rubbish”’. However, Mr Detko’s views on the merits or
otherwise of the Charges – whatever they might be - are neither here nor there; it is for us to determine the merits or otherwise
of the Charges on the basis of the factual and expert evidence before us".

So how could the LAP decide whether the EFL were misled if they didn't even have the opportunity to ask the EFL's Finance Dircetor at the time of the 2017 accounts submission?  He  knew and  understood, like I understood, that the notes to the accounts couldn't possibly mean literally that we were assigning non zero values at the end of contracts...  because he had common sense, unlike the lawyers and academics the EFL called in later.     
 

[Comrade 86]

19 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Shameful. 

The reader infers....the writer implies.

Mr Parry will be laughing his head off at your illiterate schoolboy error...

Didn't read the rest of it. Probably OK though.

Dont thank me, it was my pleasure. 

Meh. You're just a poundshop @Tyler Durden