Coppello

48 minutes ago, James54De said:

 

How does this this work then? Anyone care to explain? 

What is the source of this information? It's completely wrong as clubs are allowed to make deductions for certain expenditure such as on the youth academy and women's football. It's definitely incorrect!

1 minute ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Indeed, hence my suspicion that Steve Davies may be off at the end of the season.

Incidentally, are you able to obtain a live stream anywhere - apart from clips on Facebook?

That's a good shout. He has been a bit disappointing in all honesty and rarely grabs any headlines. 

Sadly not, @TomF broke the bad news above. 

Tom Banton is a joke. Scooped two sixes off the first over:

Is the game live on Youtube? Had a little look but couldn't see anything? I thought I read the other day that the non-Sky games were being streamed.

16 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

Jack Leach took three wickets in the second innings.

Finished on 5 wickets before the Australia As declared. I'm pleased for him as if he carried on in a similar way to his first innings it would be pretty devastating. 

On 12/07/2019 at 17:37, Mr Popodopolous said:

Aston Villa- really hard to say. I fear nothing but there were rumours at PL were looking into their deal as though it may well be acceptable within EFL regulations, EPL ones are not so clear- @Coppello if he hasn't covered it already maybe best placed to answer if the EPL could dock Aston Villa points for it breaching their rules?

In all honesty, I have no idea and I don't think the Premier League do. I'd be shocked if there were repercussions in the PL for their failings in the Championship.

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheff Wed fans are somewhat salty, touchy- no surprise though, always considered them quite arrogant as a fanbase/club. Entitled maybe a better term.

https://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/283349-kieran-maguire-article/

I haven't read the article but he does tend to touch a nerve with a lot of people in football. For someone who is trying to become a credible journalist and increase his appearances on Sky/BBC, he doesn't need to write distasteful things about the owners of each club which detracts from his articles.

Remaining fixtures:

Essex:

13-16 July - Warwickshire (H)

18-21 August - Kent (A)

10-13 Sept - Warwickshire (A)

16-19 Sept - Surrey (H)

23-26 Sept - Somerset (A)

Somerset:

13-16 July - Yorkshire (A)

18-21 August - Warwickshire (A)

10-13 Sept - Yorkshire (H)

16-19 Sept - Hampshire (A)

23-26 Sept - Essex (H)

So three away games each and two home games remaining, ending with the big finale in Taunton at the end of September. The game this weekend is massive as I wouldn't fancy going to the T20 break in second place. I can't see Essex dropping any points at home which adds additional pressure on the final game. 

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Partnership BROKEN.

Two quick wickets...if we can keep Middlesex to 200 or so, it maybe on. Not much margin for error though, the lead 194.

Stop referring to Gloucestershire as 'we', it's confusing the hell out of me. This is clearly a Somerset forum, your views belong on Gaschat 

7 minutes ago, MichaelRobartes said:

Samit Patel is the concussion sub for Nash for the remaining two days. Not sure how like-for-like that is!

I thought that. It's a bit cheeky given they've just seen our spinners take 8 wickets between them!

3 hours ago, Coppello said:

I'm expecting a vintage Bess/Leach performance today! 

26-5 between the two of them. I'll take the plaudits chaps. 

I'm expecting a vintage Bess/Leach performance today! 

4 hours ago, phantom said:

A bit wet at Worcester, looks like they will be playing at out grounds for a few weeks !!

This happens every single year and I don't think it has been the wettest year on record by any stretch. Maybe they should turn it into an aquatics centre and be done with it! 

Another major positive is over the past few seasons, Somerset have been very strong at home in the latter part of the summer. Leach normally comes into full flow and skittles out many teams at Taunton. I'm starting to believe after 139 years of hurt, we're finally going to win the CC!

This is ridiculous!

Early breakthrough by Gregory. Kent 7-1!

At least Extras is having a good game - 14*!

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's late so I'll look properly tomorrow but one note.

Reports- maybe erroneously- suggested Aston Villa under a soft transfers embargo until 30th June 2019.

They've just announced signing of Jota. If it a straight swap with Gary Gardner all okay to a point as no cash changed hands but if not- aggravated breach.

How many points should within regs EFL dock them if they return in a year or 2? I'm going with 14.

Am assuming amoral scummers at EPL won't honour the agreement- legal action a possibility?

@Coppello you are the expert and particularly on PL FFP. Any scope for a Championship points deduction to follow a promoted rule breaker into PL?

Assumed that was a key point of harmonised FFP! A number of sources have certainly intimated it possible.

Is this a PL points deduction once a Championship club has been promoted? There's currently nothing written in the legislation about it and I don't think the PL are that interested. They're focused on the granting of UEFA licenses to PL teams and ensuring the adherence to those rules rather than looking at the teams towards the bottom of the division. In addition, they're almost separate jurisdictions and this is why the EFL were unable to punish QPR until they went down to the Championship. There may be appetite to change this given the current situation but I haven't heard anything.  

2 hours ago, DerbyFan said:

It's interesting to get the input of someone with some knowledge of the subject that can back it up with examples, however I would imagine there will be vast differences in the various stadia and it's not a one size fits all valuation.

As you mention, they were built 3 years apart and actually ours is based on Middlesbrough's, but I have no knowledge of the work that has been undertaken on theirs since it opened, but I do know, to some extent at least, the work that has happened on ours, so I wouldn't like to say that they should be anything like the same value now, and as you point out, property values in Middlesbrough are much less than in Derby, in fact I believe Derby is one of the places that prices have gone up rather a lot over the years, it helps that we are very central and it's pretty easy to get to anywhere from here I guess.

I notice that our remaining tangible assets amount to around £14.5m, I can only guess that this is the book value of the training ground, I don't think the valuation of this on the books has changed recently either as the book value of them all including the ground from the previous year was £59.3m (and this had been going down at a similar rate for years from what I can see) so minus the £41m we're told was the book value of the stadium at the time of the sale and you're not too far off what's left, presuming the current figure is minus the years depreciation.

I imagine the training ground will now in actuality be valued a lot higher as since Mel Morris bought the club a lot of work has happened on it, including the acquisition of and work to further land (which was maybe a 60-70% increase on the original size - guesstimate from looking at a map) to create more pitches to keep us up to Cat 1 standard, and there is planning permission in place for even more work to take place, which I believe also adds value.

I know that Middlesbrough's training ground is also Cat 1, so I imagine a similar size and probably standard, this maybe gives an idea of the difference in value of the clubs assets. (As an aside, I assume the Hall and golf course aren't included in Middlesbrough's asset valuation - 'other properties' from that quote? I believe Gibson also owns these - surely the value would be even higher if they were.)

As far as I can see the accounts don't mention who did the most recent stadium valuation for the sale, but the previous accounts do mention who did the last two, and having just Googled the most recent one, it seems that the two companies merged in 2011, so they were effectively done by one and the same.

I don't know how it works in relation to the clubs accounts, I've no inside knowledge of them, but others have said that it's a perfectly acceptable method of accounting, just different to use it for a football club. As far as I'm aware having seen discussions on the subject on our own forum, once a player is valued down they cannot then be up valued again, so your Assombalonga example is not how it would actually be done on the books.

There is a section in the accounts that says:

Yes it is a loss on residual values, however it does seem from that they were at least fairly accurate.

*I forgot to ask, from someone in the business would the market rate of a stadium, be the valuation with the depreciation removed, or the value before that is taken into account?

Yeah but I'm sure that we can agree that the land value difference between Middlesbrough and Derby is not significant enough to create a £40-50m difference. As mentioned, i've spoken to various professional in and around the sports industry and they think it's a bit of a sham. This includes the surveyor who works for a large firm who have become a leader for valuing sports facilities. Whilst I'm sure that the property prices are rising in Derby, it's not exactly London or Monaco in terms of land value. 

I saw your explanation of the development works that have gone on at Pride Park over the last few years but I seriously doubt the capital expenditure will be anywhere near enough to have significant boost (>40%) to the stadium value. As a side note, we levelled a three stands at Ashton Gate a few years ago, added in boxes, top media facilities, a desso pitch, increased our capacity by £8,000, added in a coffee shop/sports bar/new club shop and landscaped the whole area and it still only cost £45m. This value would then have been depreciated if we to do a depreciated replacement cost valuation today. This is where myself, finance professionals in the sports industry and experienced surveyors are slightly confused and why the 'independent' valuation might not be all that it seems. I am sure you can appreciate this?

Regarding your point about reversing impairments, you can only reverse an impairment up the amount of the initial impairment. So my calculations were correct when I said that you can reduce a players value from £20m, down to £2m and back up to £20m. There is a reason why no other football club (that I can think of anyway) accounts for player valuations in the same way.

Your point about the accuracy of the accounting valuations on disposals compared to their market value is actually quite a simple one. If you sell a player on the 10th August 2019 for £20 million for example, you would have performed an revaluation exercise as at '30th June 2019'. Whilst this is the book date, this will actually be performed a lot later, ie around September/October time when the company is audited. This will allow you to accurately account for the players sold and you will adjust said players value to the £20m he was sold for. There is no better indication of a player's value than its actual selling price. This will limit the loss/gains on player trading because it will always been fairly accurate, you would've already recognise an impairment or valuation gain pre-disposal. The vast majority of losses would actually be made in the January transfer window as they would've been revalued several months earlier. 

The big issue will be for players who are not sold in the summer and therefore the accounting valuation is based on an internal assessment. These will fluctuate significantly season-on-season and will result in impairments and reversals all over the shop. As I mentioned, player registrations are not an asset which should be fair valued, it doesn't really follow accounting guidance, creates a lot of risk and makes an auditor shit their pants. Any reputable audit firm would have a real issue with it. 

Regarding your query about the stadium valuation, the depreciated replacement cost method is basically what it would be to build the stadium now and then depreciate to the current level of wear and tear. So it would be the value with the depreciation removed. 

Also, what do the two owners in dispute have to called Mel Morris and Steve Gibson. I keep thinking your owner is called Mel Gibson!

I thought I'd dip my toe back into this thread. Thanks for contributing @DerbyFan, it's always good to have opposing fans views on here and it allows for better debate. 

I don't want to turn this into a dick waving contest (as I know you already mentioned that you're female ) but I feel I'm reasonably qualified to comment. I was an audit manager at a big four accounting firm having worked there for 6 years, currently work in the football finance world, have worked on a stadium valuation over the last couple of months and have also discussed the Pride Park debacle with a surveyor who has conducted four different stadium valuations in a variety of locations in the UK. 

I've commented on here in the past that the organisation that I have a problem with is the EFL for leaving these pretty obvious loopholes open but I think Derby's actions are pretty unethical. I also have a problem with some of the professionals engaged by Derby to conduct the valuation and sign off the accounts. The fair valuing of the players registrations is also questionable practice. 

I'll start with the stadium valuation, I apologise if you have already responded to some of these points to Mr P. but I've quickly scanned over this thread as there is a lot of posts! I appreciate that you have conducted an 'independent valuation' but it is clearly out of line with the market valuations. The club I work for has had its stadium valued over the past few weeks and the final value was considerably less than Pride Park. The club that I work at is London based and therefore I would've expected the land value to give the London club a significant head start before even considering the stadium itself. This raises a few concerns for me personally.

Another club who revalued their stadium per their most recent set of accounts is Middlesbrough. The combined value of their stadium, training ground and headquarters has been revalued at £49.7m also using the depreciated cost method. The notes from their accounts is as follows:

This is an excellent benchmark given they were built three years apart and have almost identical capacities. Whilst this does not consider all of the work performed on the stadium during their 20-25 year lives, the values are remarkably different. Middlesbrough is a notoriously cheaper area, I will admit, but this does include the stadium, training ground and other buildings. 

This does call into question the integrity of the surveyor who performed the valuation. The auditor has a duty to review the report and, whilst they're not experts at valuing stadiums themselves, should consider the credentials of those performing the survey and also perform a benchmarking exercise comparing against other stadiums in the area. As @Mr Popodopolous states, the right thing to do would be for the EFL to conduct its own review but they are completely inept as an organisation and that ship has sailed. Personally I wouldn't sue Derby in the way that Gibson has; as you state you've just exploited a loophole and, whilst unethical, is not against the rules. 

I was not aware of the way in which you account for the player registrations until I read the thread this morning. I can't fathom how this could be allowed by the auditor having looked at the financial statements. As stated previously, accounting guidance allows the fair valuing of assets in many circumstances and this is not a situation where it is applicable. In the most simplistic terms, there is a 'fair value hierarchy' which considers the reasonableness and the level of judgement exercised. The hierarchy is as follows: 

- Level 1 inputs: This is where there is an identical asset in an active market. Players are not like barrels of oil where they are homogeneous and there is not an active market of Jack Marriott's being traded daily. Players are all different and would not meet the level 1 input criteria. 

- Level 2 inputs: These are quoted prices for similar assets in active markets or quoted prices for identical assets which are from inactive markets. In reality, footballers are not really similar assets as the sales prices are so volatile and cannot be reliably measured. Form, contract length, medical history, nationality and age all haze the situation further. The willingness of other clubs to buy a player has a massive impact on the valuation rather than the individual player himself. 

- Level 3 inputs: These are values which determined from observable sources. For example, Mel Morris' excel model or an in-house assessment of other forwards etc. These are the least reliable and is what the player values are based on. 

As you go down the hierarchy the relevance of the valuation decreases. The value of players are volatile and are hugely determined by form, injury etc. For example, say Bristol City sign Assombalonga for £20m and in 19/20 he scores 1 goal. This would result in a massive impairment charge of probably about 80% of his value (I say probably because it is impossible to value!). If he then scored 29 goals in 20/21 he would be revalued up to £20 million again, causing massive volatility in the financial statements. If I told my auditor that I was going to use this method, he would laugh his way out of the door before resigning. 

It is clearly a piece of creative accounting by the Derby County finance team. If I were the audit partner of Smith Cooper Audit Ltd, who sign off the accounts of DC, I'd be sweating that the accounts were going to be reviewed by the governing body as there's some very concerning issues in the accounts. What is even more interesting is that the lead audit partner is a Derby County fan which probably impairs his independence somewhat. 

As I mentioned previously, it's not the club itself that are completely at blame, there's many other 'professionals' that are failing to perform their duties properly. 

Apologies all for the length - I'm not sure how many will make it to the end!

3 hours ago, phantom said:

The ECB have applied for trademarks for the names of six of their teams for their new competition, The Hundred, which begins next summer.

One of them is for London Spirit, which, as was exclusively revealed by Standard Sport yesterday, will be the team based at Lord’s. The others are Welsh Fire (Cardiff), Southern Brave (Southampton), Birmingham Phoenix, Leeds Superchargers and Trent Rockets (Nottingham).

There will be two more teams in the competition, based at Old Trafford and the Kia Oval, although it is understood the names for those teams have not been decided.

The teams, based at the eight Test grounds, will be managed by the host county, in partnership with neighbouring counties.

For instance, London Spirit will be run by a combination of the MCC, the owners of Lord’s, Middlesex, Essex and Northamptonshire, while Trent Rockets will be looked after by Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. Surrey and Kent are likely to be unhappy that the latter will have Trent in their name. It is understood that they wanted to have Oval in their name but, like crosstown rivals London Spirit, are set to have London as their locator.

 

 

What the **** are these names? Absolutely dreadful and insulting to the history of the game. I hope it falls flat on its ass and there's no chance I'll be going to any of the games. What is wrong with T20 cricket - it's short enough?!

I got a little nervous when the 9th wicket took a while to fall. Looks like we're nearly there now! 

Thank god Extras top scored in the first innings. His runs have given us a fighting chance. 

0-1. Off to a flyer. 

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ha but a reprieve for Colin. Or Bryan (not too bad granted).

Would provide a fair solution though and denial of promotion the ultimate realistic punishment.

One bit I don't quite get in UEFA FFP PL limit split.

PL loss limit the aforementioned £35m plus costs. UEFA loss limit is quite a bit lower IIRC.

Which one takes precedence for obtaining a European license- UEFA I assume.

Yeah it's the UEFA rules. They're two independent codes of conduct but its just that the UEFA one is mainly administered by the PL (who have no actual say in the rules themselves). 

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think if enforced by UEFA (or us on here  )instead of EFL, we would have seen harsher and swifter punishments- the fact they i.e. UEFA are pushing for a Man City ban from CL is belated but finally- they have been trying to reopen the PSG investigation too, post Football Leaks.

Same could go for EPL, but then the limit is set at such a level that combined with TV money and allowable write offs it is almost impossible to fail (STCC a different matter)- funny that! 

One thing that you might find slightly interesting is that the UEFA have their FFP rules which are different to the Premier League (as you're aware). UEFA sets the rules and each nation has a licensing body, which is the Premier League in England. Any team that wishes to compete in a European competition has to submit a number of reports through the UEFA portal to show that they are in compliance with these rules. All clubs are encouraged to submit these documents to UEFA regardless of their league position but in reality it would only be beneficial for any clubs with a shot of getting into CL/EL in April. 

These documents are submitted through the portal but are actually detail reviewed and audited by the Premier League (or whoever the local licensing body is). If the test is passed, the club are then issued with the UEFA license. If there are any issues, such as Man City/PSG, UEFA will then step in.