Jump to content

BTRFTG

Members
  • Posts

    2,714
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

BTRFTG last won the day on November 22 2019

BTRFTG had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Blackheath

Recent Profile Visitors

4,025 profile views

BTRFTG's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges

3.1k

Reputation

  1. '..last season'...what season that? Could be it's a much lower percentage than most clubs, depending upon which period the ground sale actually fell in, as opposed to what Morris stated. I thought Derby County FC LTD only filed accounts to the period end June 2018 at Companies House. That the accounts to June 2019 are overdue by 15 months, surely fans must have cottoned-on to what's been happening? Forget the fiction filed with the EFL, let's see what Morris' latest version of events comes up with.
  2. Don't you mean 'stolen'? Who'd have thought a clause could be inserted without the knowledge or veto of club members or the remainder of the Board that effectively and shortly thereafter gave the once tenant the right to purchase the asset for a nominal coin? The clause inserted by a director who shortly thereafter cut ties with the club. The Gas deserve to rot.
  3. I believe The Fake Sheikh was hoping to join in a karaoke version of 'We Are The Champions' but when told it could only be 'Hammer To Fall' he took umbrage & pulled the plug.
  4. That, good Sir, is a matter of opinion. Personally, I believe he's doing a grand job.
  5. FFP is meaningless. It's a game to be played and as with most games the richer one is the easier it is to win. In truth the difference between Morris & SL is SL has sufficient financial clout to provide an additional range of 'options', all legal, all within the rules, yet equally not within the spirit of what FFP claims to achieve. What's disgraceful is the way in which UEFA now attempt to circumvent the rules they've introduced on behalf of the historic clubs, the ones who do not have seriously mega wealthy owners. Real & Barca cases in point.
  6. Easy. Sheikh Mansour acquired Man City mid 2008. The 'historic' major European clubs already witnessing what Abramovich was achieving at Chelsea responded by proposing to UEFA outlines for FFP in 2009. UEFA implemented them in 2011. Pure protectionism and NOTHING about preventing clubs living beyond their means. So to answer your question, in City's case the horse had already bolted.
  7. Couldn't disagree more. Although we love to take the **** out of them he comes across as somebody with a lifelong (if deluded,) passion for his club that's being torn apart by some megalomaniacal despot and his sycophantic lackies. If true what he's written, that's some damning accusations against The Gas Board.
  8. As David Coleman was wont to say: "Quite Extraordinary!"
  9. As has amply been demonstrated by those who write about such matters FFP has NOTHING to do with protecting football clubs and their finances and is a wholly driven initiative to ring-fence elite European clubs from being threatened by nascent upstarts with rich backers. Always was, always will be. Look at clubs finances since FFP was introduced and there are more on the brink now than ever (and that's nothing to do with the pandemic.) If you don't believe me look no further than our own club, net liabilities approaching £130m, about to drop accounts reporting record losses, a wage bill recently significantly higher than turnover, with no realistic means of paying the owner back his 'loans' (sic).
  10. Wow, if you really want something to cheer you up read the statement just issued by the outgoing Chair of their Supporters Club! Safeguarding referral re 'IL Presidente'! What might this be?
  11. Looks like the Met Office have added a new region to their Shipping Forecast: General Synopsis Saturday : 16:50 BST Deep depression centred over North Bristol, Low, Steadily Falling. Horfield Wind: 1 decreasing zero, becalmed. Sea: Rough increasing Very Rough. Weather: Squally Showers. Visibility: Occasionally Poor becoming Poor, FOG later.
  12. Every one of the crowd look like the unfortunate folks one might see on a Channel 5 documentary, in this case: 'On Benefits - Living With Tourette's'.
  13. Interesting info but not sure if matters aren't conflated between legal obligation to file at Companies House and the farce that is FFP. I know there's been suggestion of complicity with Derby's auditors but surely if the accounts weren't fit to file there would have been an impairment noted, else the auditors themselves would be shown to have been negligent with one or both liable to censure? I thought I'd read there was nothing wrong with the accounts filed, per se, rather their construction and methodology would set alarm bells ringing with the blindest of Pews. I also get the principle about short-termism re FFP but can't get my head around what one should have in 'cash & assets' and where one explains any difference between what one can demonstrate is held at any given point in time plus what's been written off? To my knowledge the entities weren't some contrived SPV swop con, so ultimately, once the cards stopped moving, the write offs become visible. Even if the intangibles are devalued 'losses' (sic) get 'written down'. Of course one might argue that whilst Derby are duplicitous in the construction of their accounts, are City really that dissimilar? Do we for one minute believe SL's loans will be repaid in full, or he receive the face value of his stock returned once he cedes control? My money's on City's financial position improving significantly when SL (most likely his estate,) write off much of that owed him as irrecoverable debt.
  14. Thanks, though I'm still unclear whether the accounts are public (one imagines they'd need to be if a buyer is being sought)? I also thought the accounts submitted to Companies House were compliant to that standard, though as you'll know there are many variables one may flex within the standard (for good reason) as to reporting periods, methods of valuation and assessment et al, all with the caveat you've explained what you've done and why? My understanding was Derby sought to play the 'three card trick', keeping variations in periods and methodology moving, divesting to newly created subsidiaries, splitting/transferring assets within the group such unless you're a forensic accountant it's difficult to see the wood for the trees. I'm no accountant but struggle ,(the amortization change, for example,) to understand if the accounting standard is followed why the overall and true position wouldn't materialise eventually? Some suggest Derby sought to omit player write downs but I've never seen an explanation as to how they would eventually be able so to do?
×
×
  • Create New...