|
Post by thehoof on Aug 11, 2021 21:01:36 GMT
How do you know what the Coates family may want if they sold the club. Not as they would, but what if they simply said enough is enough, no more investing in the club? Under your thinking they could quite easily cut their losses that way. We should be grateful for the Coates’ involvement, but we shouldn’t think that it’s a given that when Peter leaves, Denise will have the same view with regard to funding. I am talking in practical terms of what happens when a company is taken over, I have never known loans to be repaid in the way you suggest as its largely pointless, the selling company records a gain or loss on its investment (share capital and loans) against the sales price, for Stoke under almost any circumstances this will be a loss. Yes the family could decide to stop funding the club the outcome of that unless they get very likely is a reduced sales price. Peter's leaving is irrelevant its bet 365 that is funding the club not him, the increased involvement of Jon suggests this will continue as I said a greater risk is bet 365 floating and the club no longer being funded by them and then being reliant on the personal fortunes of the family. Irrelevant? Denise is the majority shareholder in Bet 365( 50.2%) while Peter and Jon own 42%. When Peter goes I’d assume his holding would be split equally between Denise and Jon- it’s well known that Denise has minimal interest in Stoke City, and in fact advised Peter not to return to Stoke following the treatment he received after the 7-0 thrashing by Brum. So if Bet 365 decide via Denise’s majority shareholding to pull out of further investment, we still need to be an attractive option to be bought. Usually in any purchase agreement, the buyer takes on the Company’s liabilities-£180m is a large liability; you need to have a very laissez faire attitude to money if you are only interested in recovering the value of your shares, and not your loan investment. Hopefully it will not come to the Coates’ leaving, but I don’t think you should count on Denise being committed to Stoke City.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Aug 11, 2021 23:27:53 GMT
On the contrary, the EFL know that they cannot hand Derby a points deduction as Derby would appeal and win. I keep saying in a court of law the case against them would be thrown out and the EFL know it. Derby were underhand and annoyed a lot of clubs by trying to circumvent the rules by finding loopholes in the rules, but it was all legit and as I keep saying the EFL approved everything they did. It was only when clubs like Middlesborough started to threaten legal action that the EFL tried to save face by giving a nominal punishment to Derby to prevent it all coming out. Now the EFL are watching them like a hawk and from what I've been told would love to ruin Derby. For example every other club don't count u23's as players of professional standing even when they play regularly (For example neither Bursik nor Wilmot will be listed in Stoke's squad of 25). However the EFL are counting Derby's youth team who played against Salford last season when the first team squad were isolating because of covid. The EFL are saying that because those players have all played one match they have to count towards the quota they have given Derby of 18 players of professional standing. Reason number 245 then that the EFL should have it's own ass kicked. If it was so legit then why did the EFL back off when Middlesborough threatened legal action? Legit would mean no case. So are we saying that the EFL approved something that was NOT legit in the first place? (Preferential treatment) But making them count the U23 players because they filled in during the middle of a pandemic is ridiculous. Derby are the ones that took the loophole risk, they are the ones that hired Rooney and they are the ones that entertained "buyers" we all chuckled at from the very beginning. You have to understand the difference between legal in a court of law and accepted practice in the EFL. There was no rule about how players should be amortised but clubs all did it in the same way except for Derby who amortised their players by devaluing them I think, as soon as they bought them. Forgive me but I am no accountant and am trying to remember what I was told but may be wrong in the details. It is common practice in business to amortise in the way Derby were doing it and there is nothing illegal or dodgy about it. Their accounts were signed off by the EFL for several seasons when they were using this method and the EFL knew they were doing it but it did give them an advantage initially (but I think not eventually but Derby hoped to be promoted by then). Middlesborough and others complained quite rightly that this was against the spirit of the competition. The EFL agreed but could hardly punish Derby for something which they had known about and approved. The general feeling of EFL clubs is that Derby have tried to gain an unfair advantage which is definitely true but the problem is that as has already happened once Derby take the case to a court of law they will win because they have done nothing illegal. This is the reason why EFL clubs are desperate to hurt Derby as much as possible. The players of professional standing ruling is ridiculous as the only way Derby could fulfill that fixture was to play their youth team so to now say to Derby all those players have played for you so count towards your squad (which is restricted to 18 instead of 25 for Derby as part of their punishment for not paying wages on time or submitting accounts on time) just shows how much the EFL are out to hurt Derby. It is also worth noting that several other clubs have circumvented EFL regulations but gone unpunished because they have got promoted (Leeds, Villa and Wolves are prime suspects and definitely Leicester) and the feeling in Derby is that they are being made an example of because of this.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Aug 11, 2021 23:33:21 GMT
Reason number 245 then that the EFL should have it's own ass kicked. If it was so legit then why did the EFL back off when Middlesborough threatened legal action? Legit would mean no case. So are we saying that the EFL approved something that was NOT legit in the first place? (Preferential treatment) But making them count the U23 players because they filled in during the middle of a pandemic is ridiculous. Derby are the ones that took the loophole risk, they are the ones that hired Rooney and they are the ones that entertained "buyers" we all chuckled at from the very beginning. You have to understand the difference between legal in a court of law and accepted practice in the EFL. There was no rule about for the way players were amortised but clubs all did it in the same way except for Derby who amortised their players by devaluing them I think, as soon as they bought them. Forgive me but I am no accountant and am trying to remember what I was told but may be wrong in the details. It is common practice in business to amortise in the way Derby were doing it and there is nothing illegal or dodgy about it. There accounts were signed off by the EFL for several seasons when they were using this method and the EFL knew they were doing it but it did give them an advantage initially (but I think not eventually but Derby hoped to be promoted by then). Middlesborough and others complained quite rightly that this was against the spirit of the competition. The EFL agreed but could hardly punish Derby for something which they had known about and approved of. The general feeling of EFL clubs is that Derby have tried to gain an unfair advantage which is definitely true but the problem is that as has already happened once Derby take the case to a court of law they will win because they have done nothing illegal. This is the reason why EFL clubs are desperate to hurt Derby as much as possible. The players of professional standing ruling is ridiculous as the only way Derby could fulfill that fixture was to play their youth team so to now say to Derby all those players have played for you so count towards your squad (which is restricted to 18 instead of 25 for Derby as part of their punishment for not paying wages on time or submitting accounts on time) just shows how much the EFL are out to hurt Derby. Appreciate the explanation Notts and it does make sense. So basically, they were depreciating their player-values year over year just like many other businesses do with their assets? Yeah that's not dodgy and certainly not illegal. And now, because the EFL can't take them to court and win, they've "got it in" for Derby. I can see it now. Wow...
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Aug 12, 2021 10:24:25 GMT
You have to understand the difference between legal in a court of law and accepted practice in the EFL. There was no rule about for the way players were amortised but clubs all did it in the same way except for Derby who amortised their players by devaluing them I think, as soon as they bought them. Forgive me but I am no accountant and am trying to remember what I was told but may be wrong in the details. It is common practice in business to amortise in the way Derby were doing it and there is nothing illegal or dodgy about it. There accounts were signed off by the EFL for several seasons when they were using this method and the EFL knew they were doing it but it did give them an advantage initially (but I think not eventually but Derby hoped to be promoted by then). Middlesborough and others complained quite rightly that this was against the spirit of the competition. The EFL agreed but could hardly punish Derby for something which they had known about and approved of. The general feeling of EFL clubs is that Derby have tried to gain an unfair advantage which is definitely true but the problem is that as has already happened once Derby take the case to a court of law they will win because they have done nothing illegal. This is the reason why EFL clubs are desperate to hurt Derby as much as possible. The players of professional standing ruling is ridiculous as the only way Derby could fulfill that fixture was to play their youth team so to now say to Derby all those players have played for you so count towards your squad (which is restricted to 18 instead of 25 for Derby as part of their punishment for not paying wages on time or submitting accounts on time) just shows how much the EFL are out to hurt Derby. Appreciate the explanation Notts and it does make sense. So basically, they were depreciating their player-values year over year just like many other businesses do with their assets? Yeah that's not dodgy and certainly not illegal. And now, because the EFL can't take them to court and win, they've "got it in" for Derby. I can see it now. Wow... Sounds like you understand it better than me! I wasn't sure when I was writing that whether I'd got it right but yes they have been doing what businesses do with their assets. I think now they've been told to do it the same way as every other club. Also they've had their player quota increased to 23 which is why they could sign those 3 free agents over the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 12, 2021 10:28:31 GMT
I am talking in practical terms of what happens when a company is taken over, I have never known loans to be repaid in the way you suggest as its largely pointless, the selling company records a gain or loss on its investment (share capital and loans) against the sales price, for Stoke under almost any circumstances this will be a loss. Yes the family could decide to stop funding the club the outcome of that unless they get very likely is a reduced sales price. Peter's leaving is irrelevant its bet 365 that is funding the club not him, the increased involvement of Jon suggests this will continue as I said a greater risk is bet 365 floating and the club no longer being funded by them and then being reliant on the personal fortunes of the family. Irrelevant? Denise is the majority shareholder in Bet 365( 50.2%) while Peter and Jon own 42%. When Peter goes I’d assume his holding would be split equally between Denise and Jon- it’s well known that Denise has minimal interest in Stoke City, and in fact advised Peter not to return to Stoke following the treatment he received after the 7-0 thrashing by Brum. So if Bet 365 decide via Denise’s majority shareholding to pull out of further investment, we still need to be an attractive option to be bought. Usually in any purchase agreement, the buyer takes on the Company’s liabilities-£180m is a large liability; you need to have a very laissez faire attitude to money if you are only interested in recovering the value of your shares, and not your loan investment. Hopefully it will not come to the Coates’ leaving, but I don’t think you should count on Denise being committed to Stoke City. Yes irrelevant as you point out Denise already holds a majority shareholding, its Denise who receives the £400m+ or whatever dividend, the charity is called the Denise Coates foundation it's almost like there are some cryptic clues there as too who is calling the shots now..... Correct that a buyer usually takes on the liabilities and assets of the company it acquired what the £180m liabilities does is reduce the sale price by £180m so if the price is agreed at £50m you would get £50m and the £180m repaid but guess what if exclude the £180m you have £180m less liabilities so the £50m sale price becomes £230m so its not a laissez faire attitude to recovering the total investment its just an understanding of how it works and the greater problem for bet 365 is I would say as a championship club out valuation is probably £50mish in the premiership it might be be £100mish either way if the club is ever sold it will likely be at a big loss.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 12, 2021 10:54:25 GMT
Reason number 245 then that the EFL should have it's own ass kicked. If it was so legit then why did the EFL back off when Middlesborough threatened legal action? Legit would mean no case. So are we saying that the EFL approved something that was NOT legit in the first place? (Preferential treatment) But making them count the U23 players because they filled in during the middle of a pandemic is ridiculous. Derby are the ones that took the loophole risk, they are the ones that hired Rooney and they are the ones that entertained "buyers" we all chuckled at from the very beginning. You have to understand the difference between legal in a court of law and accepted practice in the EFL. There was no rule about how players should be amortised but clubs all did it in the same way except for Derby who amortised their players by devaluing them I think, as soon as they bought them. Forgive me but I am no accountant and am trying to remember what I was told but may be wrong in the details. It is common practice in business to amortise in the way Derby were doing it and there is nothing illegal or dodgy about it. Their accounts were signed off by the EFL for several seasons when they were using this method and the EFL knew they were doing it but it did give them an advantage initially (but I think not eventually but Derby hoped to be promoted by then). Middlesborough and others complained quite rightly that this was against the spirit of the competition. The EFL agreed but could hardly punish Derby for something which they had known about and approved. The general feeling of EFL clubs is that Derby have tried to gain an unfair advantage which is definitely true but the problem is that as has already happened once Derby take the case to a court of law they will win because they have done nothing illegal. This is the reason why EFL clubs are desperate to hurt Derby as much as possible. The players of professional standing ruling is ridiculous as the only way Derby could fulfill that fixture was to play their youth team so to now say to Derby all those players have played for you so count towards your squad (which is restricted to 18 instead of 25 for Derby as part of their punishment for not paying wages on time or submitting accounts on time) just shows how muc h the EFL are out to hurt Derby. It is also worth noting that several other clubs have circumvented EFL regulations but gone unpunished because they have got promoted (Leeds, Villa and Wolves are prime suspects and definitely Leicester) and the feeling in Derby is that they are being made an example of because of this. www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/financial-reporting/arbitrator-red-cards-derbys-amortisation-policyIt goes into detail here, I am an accountant and there are most definitely accounting rules not followed and the amortisation practice is not common place in business either. If you sign a player for £5m on a 5 year contract you amortise it equally (£1m a year) until the end of contract or they are sold, what Derby did was place an arbitary value on a player and say they would sell them at the end of the 4th so in the example if they said £2m they amortise £600k a year (5m-2m over 5 years) and the £2m when the player leaves the club, the only thing that companies do remotely close to this is assign a scrap value for some machinery which will literally be based on the value of metal if scrapped. There is no way Derby win in a court of law as the article notes they did not comply with the relevant accounting standard failed to disclose the impact of the change of policy in their accounts submitted, not for me to speculate but I believe there was a sentinel article about this that the person who approved the accounts or was in charge of the accounting firm stated on their website he was a massive derby fan.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Aug 12, 2021 11:45:08 GMT
You have to understand the difference between legal in a court of law and accepted practice in the EFL. There was no rule about how players should be amortised but clubs all did it in the same way except for Derby who amortised their players by devaluing them I think, as soon as they bought them. Forgive me but I am no accountant and am trying to remember what I was told but may be wrong in the details. It is common practice in business to amortise in the way Derby were doing it and there is nothing illegal or dodgy about it. Their accounts were signed off by the EFL for several seasons when they were using this method and the EFL knew they were doing it but it did give them an advantage initially (but I think not eventually but Derby hoped to be promoted by then). Middlesborough and others complained quite rightly that this was against the spirit of the competition. The EFL agreed but could hardly punish Derby for something which they had known about and approved. The general feeling of EFL clubs is that Derby have tried to gain an unfair advantage which is definitely true but the problem is that as has already happened once Derby take the case to a court of law they will win because they have done nothing illegal. This is the reason why EFL clubs are desperate to hurt Derby as much as possible. The players of professional standing ruling is ridiculous as the only way Derby could fulfill that fixture was to play their youth team so to now say to Derby all those players have played for you so count towards your squad (which is restricted to 18 instead of 25 for Derby as part of their punishment for not paying wages on time or submitting accounts on time) just shows how muc h the EFL are out to hurt Derby. It is also worth noting that several other clubs have circumvented EFL regulations but gone unpunished because they have got promoted (Leeds, Villa and Wolves are prime suspects and definitely Leicester) and the feeling in Derby is that they are being made an example of because of this. www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/financial-reporting/arbitrator-red-cards-derbys-amortisation-policyIt goes into detail here, I am an accountant and there are most definitely accounting rules not followed and the amortisation practice is not common place in business either. If you sign a player for £5m on a 5 year contract you amortise it equally (£1m a year) until the end of contract or they are sold, what Derby did was place an arbitary value on a player and say they would sell them at the end of the 4th so in the example if they said £2m they amortise £600k a year (5m-2m over 5 years) and the £2m when the player leaves the club, the only thing that companies do remotely close to this is assign a scrap value for some machinery which will literally be based on the value of metal if scrapped. There is no way Derby win in a court of law as the article notes they did not comply with the relevant accounting standard failed to disclose the impact of the change of policy in their accounts submitted, not for me to speculate but I believe there was a sentinel article about this that the person who approved the accounts or was in charge of the accounting firm stated on their website he was a massive derby fan. I can assure you that the accountant who told me what I know said that the method of amortisation was common practice in business but not used in football and as such Derby were being underhand but were not breaking the law and therefore would win in a court of law - we are not talking here of a FL arbitration panel. He is a senior partner who specialises in sports clubs and knows what he is talking about. He told me that if the FL deducted points from Derby he would expect Derby to take them to a court of law. The tribunal considered the case and decided as you say in favour of the FL on one small point and told Derby to resubmit their accounts using the standard amortisation process for football clubs. (I believe they have now made that a rule which will stop clubs using the method in future. Don't ask me why the FL chaired by Rick Parry himself an accountant did not think of this when Derby started doing it about 4 years ago but approved their accounts each year.) I have no idea whether Derby have re-submitted their accounts but I suspect they will be shown to have broken FFP when they do. In the meantime they are under the embargo I talk about - only free agents can be signed on 12 month contracts, loan signings for 6 months and they are only allowed 23 now but originally 18 professional players including u23's who have played one match. There is no doubt that the EFL are making a scape goat out of Derby for all those clubs starting with QPR and Leicester who have got promotion whilst circumventing FFP rules. There are very obviously others like the 3 I mentioned above but my friend tells me that there isn't a club who have been promoted in recent years who have stuck to FFP rules but the EFL can't punish them once they are in the Premier. They also shot themselves in the foot by accepting a measly compensation fine from Leicester and QPR which is now paid by all promoted clubs as punishment preventing them from being punished should they be relegated. As the article you quote says, once one club gets away with it so will others and Derby are not alone in trying to get round FFP just the high profile case at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 12, 2021 15:32:04 GMT
www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/financial-reporting/arbitrator-red-cards-derbys-amortisation-policyIt goes into detail here, I am an accountant and there are most definitely accounting rules not followed and the amortisation practice is not common place in business either. If you sign a player for £5m on a 5 year contract you amortise it equally (£1m a year) until the end of contract or they are sold, what Derby did was place an arbitary value on a player and say they would sell them at the end of the 4th so in the example if they said £2m they amortise £600k a year (5m-2m over 5 years) and the £2m when the player leaves the club, the only thing that companies do remotely close to this is assign a scrap value for some machinery which will literally be based on the value of metal if scrapped. There is no way Derby win in a court of law as the article notes they did not comply with the relevant accounting standard failed to disclose the impact of the change of policy in their accounts submitted, not for me to speculate but I believe there was a sentinel article about this that the person who approved the accounts or was in charge of the accounting firm stated on their website he was a massive derby fan. I can assure you that the accountant who told me what I know said that the method of amortisation was common practice in business but not used in football and as such Derby were being underhand but were not breaking the law and therefore would win in a court of law - we are not talking here of a FL arbitration panel. He is a senior partner who specialises in sports clubs and knows what he is talking about. He told me that if the FL deducted points from Derby he would expect Derby to take them to a court of law. The tribunal considered the case and decided as you say in favour of the FL on one small point and told Derby to resubmit their accounts using the standard amortisation process for football clubs. (I believe they have now made that a rule which will stop clubs using the method in future. Don't ask me why the FL chaired by Rick Parry himself an accountant did not think of this when Derby started doing it about 4 years ago but approved their accounts each year.) I have no idea whether Derby have re-submitted their accounts but I suspect they will be shown to have broken FFP when they do. In the meantime they are under the embargo I talk about - only free agents can be signed on 12 month contracts, loan signings for 6 months and they are only allowed 23 now but originally 18 professional players including u23's who have played one match. There is no doubt that the EFL are making a scape goat out of Derby for all those clubs starting with QPR and Leicester who have got promotion whilst circumventing FFP rules. There are very obviously others like the 3 I mentioned above but my friend tells me that there isn't a club who have been promoted in recent years who have stuck to FFP rules but the EFL can't punish them once they are in the Premier. They also shot themselves in the foot by accepting a measly compensation fine from Leicester and QPR which is now paid by all promoted clubs as punishment preventing them from being punished should they be relegated. As the article you quote says, once one club gets away with it so will others and Derby are not alone in trying to get round FFP just the high profile case at the moment. It is absolutely not common place to quote from a BBC report "This policy is not in accordance with UK GAAP under FRS [Financial Reporting Standards] 102 (s)18.23 which specifically states that a residual value should be assumed to be zero unless there is a third party commitment to purchase the asset at the end of its useful life or there is an active market for the asset. "A player at the end of his useful life would be allowed to leave the club on a Bosman deal at zero financial benefit to Derby, and an active market only exists for homogeneous assets such as taxi or airport landing licences. This is not about breaking the law there is no law on producing inaccurate accounts unless it is for fradulent purposes, Derby have not complied with accounting rules for this there is a fine if the resubmitted accounts fail to meet FFP then there is a points deduction not sure what redress you think Derby would have in a court of law when they have not followed the accounting rules and may be found to have broken ffp rules they signed upto. They can go to court it will cost Morris money and delay further any sale of the club. Like I say I dont wish them any harm but I have absolutely zero sympathy for the position they have got themselves into.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Aug 12, 2021 16:19:20 GMT
Derby isn't as "marketable" as they think they are and never have been - now it's worse. I think they are headed towards administration, they've already sold the stadium and there's no "savior" out there looking to bail them out. (Even if they could with FFP)
Any buyer seriously looking at them right now? Unless they are idiots, they will take a pass. The last thing Derby needs right now is an idiot owner. With this FFP issue pending, them looking like relegation and the fact that a total player-rebuild (And I say that includes sacking the manager too) is going to have to occur before they are seriously competitive again. What a cesspit. I know that few clubs actually make money, but this one isn't even close and with Rooney at the helm, they've shown that there are no ethics at the club level either.
Rooney also has never shown anything to prove he's a great manager and he's had time to prove it. He does do a great job of bitching at press conferences so there's the entertainment value. But the guy is a ticking time bomb for PR and a high risk for being named in a lawsuit or outright thrown in jail. Rooney is a blackmail target for any unscrupulous pimp looking to turn a buck now. Whether he's being framed or not (which I don't believe for one second) this behavior keeps repeating. That's a huge liability to take on and I would imagine that he's expensive to boot. He was a great player, but that doesn't make him a great manager. He's really lucky his wife hasn't shot him between the eyes by now too.
He needs to turn his own life around first THEN worry about "leading" others. One common theme amongst this whole deal - No ethics at the club, no ethics in the manager and entitled attitudes by both. The closer you look at Derby, the uglier things get.
|
|
|
Post by markby on Aug 12, 2021 16:52:57 GMT
my friend tells me that there isn't a club who have been promoted in recent years who have stuck to FFP rules (Markby) Dunno about the rest of what your friend told you, but Brentford certainly always kept within FFP.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 12, 2021 18:25:26 GMT
Derby isn't as "marketable" as they think they are and never have been - now it's worse. I think they are headed towards administration, they've already sold the stadium and there's no "savior" out there looking to bail them out. (Even if they could with FFP) Any buyer seriously looking at them right now? Unless they are idiots, they will take a pass. The last thing Derby needs right now is an idiot owner. With this FFP issue pending, them looking like relegation and the fact that a total player-rebuild (And I say that includes sacking the manager too) is going to have to occur before they are seriously competitive again. What a cesspit. I know that few clubs actually make money, but this one isn't even close and with Rooney at the helm, they've shown that there are no ethics at the club level either. Rooney also has never shown anything to prove he's a great manager and he's had time to prove it. He does do a great job of bitching at press conferences so there's the entertainment value. But the guy is a ticking time bomb for PR and a high risk for being named in a lawsuit or outright thrown in jail. Rooney is a blackmail target for any unscrupulous pimp looking to turn a buck now. Whether he's being framed or not (which I don't believe for one second) this behavior keeps repeating. That's a huge liability to take on and I would imagine that he's expensive to boot. He was a great player, but that doesn't make him a great manager. He's really lucky his wife hasn't shot him between the eyes by now too. He needs to turn his own life around first THEN worry about "leading" others. One common theme amongst this whole deal - No ethics at the club, no ethics in the manager and entitled attitudes by both. The closer you look at Derby, the uglier things get. Have to agree dont see how this doesn't end up with Derby in league 1 one way or the other, has the smell of Bolton when their owner died and the funding dried up and they then sold to a bunch of chancers. They will find a buyer at the right price for them it needs to be the right buyer.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Aug 12, 2021 18:30:04 GMT
my friend tells me that there isn't a club who have been promoted in recent years who have stuck to FFP rules (Markby) Dunno about the rest of what your friend told you, but Brentford certainly always kept within FFP. He did say this before the end of the season so Brentford had not been promoted then.
|
|
|
Post by gogogadget on Aug 12, 2021 18:32:23 GMT
Derby isn't as "marketable" as they think they are and never have been - now it's worse. I think they are headed towards administration, they've already sold the stadium and there's no "savior" out there looking to bail them out. (Even if they could with FFP) Any buyer seriously looking at them right now? Unless they are idiots, they will take a pass. The last thing Derby needs right now is an idiot owner. With this FFP issue pending, them looking like relegation and the fact that a total player-rebuild (And I say that includes sacking the manager too) is going to have to occur before they are seriously competitive again. What a cesspit. I know that few clubs actually make money, but this one isn't even close and with Rooney at the helm, they've shown that there are no ethics at the club level either. Rooney also has never shown anything to prove he's a great manager and he's had time to prove it. He does do a great job of bitching at press conferences so there's the entertainment value. But the guy is a ticking time bomb for PR and a high risk for being named in a lawsuit or outright thrown in jail. Rooney is a blackmail target for any unscrupulous pimp looking to turn a buck now. Whether he's being framed or not (which I don't believe for one second) this behavior keeps repeating. That's a huge liability to take on and I would imagine that he's expensive to boot. He was a great player, but that doesn't make him a great manager. He's really lucky his wife hasn't shot him between the eyes by now too. He needs to turn his own life around first THEN worry about "leading" others. One common theme amongst this whole deal - No ethics at the club, no ethics in the manager and entitled attitudes by both. The closer you look at Derby, the uglier things get. Leicester we’re ducked and went into administration Look at them now
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Aug 12, 2021 18:37:30 GMT
Derby isn't as "marketable" as they think they are and never have been - now it's worse. I think they are headed towards administration, they've already sold the stadium and there's no "savior" out there looking to bail them out. (Even if they could with FFP) Any buyer seriously looking at them right now? Unless they are idiots, they will take a pass. The last thing Derby needs right now is an idiot owner. With this FFP issue pending, them looking like relegation and the fact that a total player-rebuild (And I say that includes sacking the manager too) is going to have to occur before they are seriously competitive again. What a cesspit. I know that few clubs actually make money, but this one isn't even close and with Rooney at the helm, they've shown that there are no ethics at the club level either. Rooney also has never shown anything to prove he's a great manager and he's had time to prove it. He does do a great job of bitching at press conferences so there's the entertainment value. But the guy is a ticking time bomb for PR and a high risk for being named in a lawsuit or outright thrown in jail. Rooney is a blackmail target for any unscrupulous pimp looking to turn a buck now. Whether he's being framed or not (which I don't believe for one second) this behavior keeps repeating. That's a huge liability to take on and I would imagine that he's expensive to boot. He was a great player, but that doesn't make him a great manager. He's really lucky his wife hasn't shot him between the eyes by now too. He needs to turn his own life around first THEN worry about "leading" others. One common theme amongst this whole deal - No ethics at the club, no ethics in the manager and entitled attitudes by both. The closer you look at Derby, the uglier things get. Leicester we’re ducked and went into administration Look at them now All the rules we have in place now means that no one will be able to cheat the system like Leicester did, again.
|
|
|
Post by gogogadget on Aug 12, 2021 18:44:33 GMT
Leicester we’re ducked and went into administration Look at them now All the rules we have in place now means that no one will be able to cheat the system like Leicester did, again. You would hope, But if derby go down with punishment, There is nothing to stop someone with wealth of the Leicester owners, buying them, then taking 5 years to progress into the top flight. On the other hand, the Coates family can not donate £ 50 million to the club, because they want to, because they can afford to. Which is total bollocks. Man City, Barcelona, Real, Man Utd, PSG, and many more have overspent for years, The communist control is only designed to stop a Stoke from coming from the championship to Challenge the top 6. It’s almost like people want a European Super League or something
|
|
|
Post by chad on Aug 12, 2021 19:03:23 GMT
I can assure you that the accountant who told me what I know said that the method of amortisation was common practice in business but not used in football and as such Derby were being underhand but were not breaking the law and therefore would win in a court of law - we are not talking here of a FL arbitration panel. He is a senior partner who specialises in sports clubs and knows what he is talking about. He told me that if the FL deducted points from Derby he would expect Derby to take them to a court of law. The tribunal considered the case and decided as you say in favour of the FL on one small point and told Derby to resubmit their accounts using the standard amortisation process for football clubs. (I believe they have now made that a rule which will stop clubs using the method in future. Don't ask me why the FL chaired by Rick Parry himself an accountant did not think of this when Derby started doing it about 4 years ago but approved their accounts each year.) I have no idea whether Derby have re-submitted their accounts but I suspect they will be shown to have broken FFP when they do. In the meantime they are under the embargo I talk about - only free agents can be signed on 12 month contracts, loan signings for 6 months and they are only allowed 23 now but originally 18 professional players including u23's who have played one match. There is no doubt that the EFL are making a scape goat out of Derby for all those clubs starting with QPR and Leicester who have got promotion whilst circumventing FFP rules. There are very obviously others like the 3 I mentioned above but my friend tells me that there isn't a club who have been promoted in recent years who have stuck to FFP rules but the EFL can't punish them once they are in the Premier. They also shot themselves in the foot by accepting a measly compensation fine from Leicester and QPR which is now paid by all promoted clubs as punishment preventing them from being punished should they be relegated. As the article you quote says, once one club gets away with it so will others and Derby are not alone in trying to get round FFP just the high profile case at the moment. It is absolutely not common place to quote from a BBC report "This policy is not in accordance with UK GAAP under FRS [Financial Reporting Standards] 102 (s)18.23 which specifically states that a residual value should be assumed to be zero unless there is a third party commitment to purchase the asset at the end of its useful life or there is an active market for the asset. "A player at the end of his useful life would be allowed to leave the club on a Bosman deal at zero financial benefit to Derby, and an active market only exists for homogeneous assets such as taxi or airport landing licences. This is not about breaking the law there is no law on producing inaccurate accounts unless it is for fradulent purposes, Derby have not complied with accounting rules for this there is a fine if the resubmitted accounts fail to meet FFP then there is a points deduction not sure what redress you think Derby would have in a court of law when they have not followed the accounting rules and may be found to have broken ffp rules they signed upto. They can go to court it will cost Morris money and delay further any sale of the club. Like I say I dont wish them any harm but I have absolutely zero sympathy for the position they have got themselves into. I’m also a qualified accountant and I don’t believe that to be common practice Certainly not in any industry I’ve worked in
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Aug 14, 2021 16:34:22 GMT
Derby winning today v Peterborough then conceded 2 goals in extra time, one of which 10 minutes into injury time 😎
|
|
|
Post by holdmedelilah on Aug 14, 2021 17:12:06 GMT
Derby winning today v Peterborough then conceded 2 goals in extra time, one of which 10 minutes into injury time 😎 Fergie time
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 14, 2021 17:14:52 GMT
They’ve lost Kazim Richards today also who’s going to be out for a long period,only striker on the books now 19 year old Jack Stretton,oh dear never mind
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2021 20:23:13 GMT
They’ve lost Kazim Richards today also who’s going to be out for a long period,only striker on the books now 19 year old Jack Stretton,oh dear never mind You just love to see it.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 16, 2021 15:08:37 GMT
They’ve applied to the EFL to replace Kazim Richards because of his bad injury🤔 Also 2 players that were training with them have signed for Ipswich,Aluko last week and now Tom Carroll
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 16, 2021 15:29:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 16, 2021 15:36:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 16, 2021 15:41:51 GMT
Theyve got to file their accounts by this Wednesday the 18th and have them scrutinised again Proper shit show of a club.
|
|
|
Post by apb1979 on Aug 16, 2021 17:00:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Aug 16, 2021 18:04:51 GMT
He’s only 38… (39 tomorrow - many happy returns Phil)
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 17, 2021 16:08:07 GMT
02STEVE NICHOLSON EFL statement EFL STATEMENT: DERBY COUNTY
On 2 July 2021, the EFL published the written reasons relating to an Independent Disciplinary Commission’s sanction verdict in respect of earlier proceedings between the EFL and Derby County.
Alongside a financial penalty of £100,000, the Club received a reprimand as to its future conduct and was ordered to submit revised and restated accounts for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017, and 30 June 2018 to the EFL by Wednesday 18 August 2021.
Following constructive discussions between the Club and the EFL it has now been agreed to extend this deadline, with the necessary filings now required by Tuesday 24 August 2021.
The EFL will be making no further comment on this matter at the current time.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 17, 2021 16:09:35 GMT
02STEVE NICHOLSON EFL statement EFL STATEMENT: DERBY COUNTY On 2 July 2021, the EFL published the written reasons relating to an Independent Disciplinary Commission’s sanction verdict in respect of earlier proceedings between the EFL and Derby County. Alongside a financial penalty of £100,000, the Club received a reprimand as to its future conduct and was ordered to submit revised and restated accounts for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017, and 30 June 2018 to the EFL by Wednesday 18 August 2021. Following constructive discussions between the Club and the EFL it has now been agreed to extend this deadline, with the necessary filings now required by Tuesday 24 August 2021. The EFL will be making no further comment on this matter at the current time. It's like an endless soap opera........
|
|
|
Post by paulstoke1 on Aug 17, 2021 16:14:08 GMT
Derby does dallas
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Aug 19, 2021 9:08:56 GMT
02STEVE NICHOLSON EFL statement EFL STATEMENT: DERBY COUNTY On 2 July 2021, the EFL published the written reasons relating to an Independent Disciplinary Commission’s sanction verdict in respect of earlier proceedings between the EFL and Derby County. Alongside a financial penalty of £100,000, the Club received a reprimand as to its future conduct and was ordered to submit revised and restated accounts for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017, and 30 June 2018 to the EFL by Wednesday 18 August 2021. Following constructive discussions between the Club and the EFL it has now been agreed to extend this deadline, with the necessary filings now required by Tuesday 24 August 2021. The EFL will be making no further comment on this matter at the current time. And I'm sure they'll be posted by next Tuesday. To those who know more than I on this, will Derby have posted accounts to HMRC and theses are simply additional accounts designed for HMRC? Or are these additional requirements for the industry?
|
|