Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

A compulsory strike off is not an insolvency event.

It won't happen as much as I am sure Her Majesty would enjoy owning and running a football club, would make a change from the racehorses

Oh, so Sevco 5112 Limited, Club DCFC Limited, Stadia DCFC Limited and Derby County FC Academy Limited if they got compulsorily struck off would have no consequences for the club?

No Golden share issues? Group, Parent, Subsidiary undertakings...

Club DCFC Limited is still trading at the very least, updates its Twitter daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

if they got compulsorily struck off would have no consequences for the club?

It would be a change in control event.  That said I doubt that the EFL would argue that Her Majesty in her Official capacity was not a 'Fit and Proper Person' ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby. Looks like the talks still ongoing.

It's not so much negotiations I expect as the EFL propose a Sanction and the Club have a period to decide whether to accept it- whereas rejection or ignoring the proposal escalates it back to an IDC.

I would expect it possible that an IDC would drag and surely Embargo sanctions would remain during said period- wonder how long it takes? January window? :whistle:

I also assume this would be to cover the outstanding periods to 2019, the combined 2020 and 2021 average and to 2022- or at least the Business Plan with suspended deduction to keep the Club in check).

Working back to 2017? Could that be theoretically possible, but tbh the EFL have never mentioned it so...

Some on their forum still argue it's within FRS 102 btw- which is debatable and arguable probably.

Interesting line of argument from a couple as well- what they did didn't break the rules as such, but merely wasn't covered by the rules.

This post sums up a possibility EFL wise/

image.thumb.png.408cdd59997534121389c78ec7809c7a.png

Seems to be under 85.4 and so on.

image.thumb.png.7fa1d95aad861d22797383d13b41f399.png

I think we can all safely agree, despite possible disagreements on other threads- Mel Morris is an arrogant POS who thinks he is above everything, esp the first 4 words- the arrogance of that line "wants the rules changing as we havn't broken any rules, just done them a different way".

As for the law courts, erm- terms of membership??

As for all that, whether the poster has any validity or basis in truth to their post is one thing but I certainly think Mel Morris is an arrogant POS. "Ill"- or was that a timely bit of PR!?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw that, just need Cardiff to pay for Sala now.

Re Derby proposed points deduction, think Percy put up another tweet saying 9 points plus 3 suspended.  But agree with you, a lot of people saying why are Derby getting to negotiate, I see it as the EFL have decided, and Derby need to accept or challenge it.  If they challenge it, it’s gonna drag on, they’ll be kept under sanction and run the risk of impacting January too

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with that.

Sala, Cardiff v Nantes all in the hands of the CAS atm. Could be wrong but wonder if all parties have to wait for that to conclude before the next move.

Little update on Derby. They've submitted at last 2021 Confirmation Statements for:

Club DCFC

Derby County FC Academy

Stadia DCFC

Plus CH says that for Sevco 5112 the 2020 one has now arrived.

Threat of strike off now gone, but don't think it was ever likely that the Club or ownership would have let it slide to strike off, I had a small conspiracy theory but not necessarily serious.

Likewise the two year Transfer Ban would have been hilarious but in reality they were likely to have paid up an instalment.

In both cases, needed to do something small to avoid the immiment big problems. They have.

On a general note, it is possible at least that I have misattributed certain aspects of Mel Morris any his actions as Machievellian as opposed to rank bad management.

Still think he has and has had plenty of cunning plans but these two bits of brinkmanship may not have been.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Hahahaha

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58501958

Wayne Wooney whining again.

You really would think he'd learn to keep his mouth shut and pick his battles given how lightly Derby have been punished.  Don't want to anger the Gods and all that (I appreciate the irony in that in this case, the FA Gods more of your fake Wizzard of Oz type God).

I guess he's still got a lot to learn ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, unsure why, two clubs especially, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday didn't look to take their medicine at a better time for them.

Two cases, where fighting constantly isn't always wise.

Sheffield Wednesday take a deduction on the chin in 2018/19 with full contrition, transparency and cooperation. Derby in 2019/20 when initially charged and clearly not going up- better than Embargo upon Embargo, Charge upon Charge surely- take the hit, accept no Promotion in Year X and then look to rebuild steadily, perhaps in Derby's case, under new owners while the club still at this level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had something like 67% of the ball against Birmingham but from what I saw it was painfully slow build up and apart from Lawrence it doesn't seem like there is much in way of goals in the team. Also looks like they can be pressured into making a fair few mistakes at the back. 

I have never really cared for Derby but there is something about an underdog story that makes me want to root for them just a little (their players and coaches I mean, nothing to do with their owners and fans). But if they get a points deduction this season I think they are definitely relegated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Derby fan getting salty that Troy Deeney getting mentioned more than Wayne Rooney.

Jeez, they are hypocritical.

Hypocritical, incapable of irony or just not very bright?

Given they think there is a conspiracy against them by the EFL and referees my money's on the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@chinapig

Do you ever read DCFCfans? It's interesting stuff, though I've been quite hard on that forum in the past, which I won't go into tbh but some still seem to believe that the Accounting Policy deemed not in accordance with FRS 102 is in fact the EFL making things up/getting things wrong. Not in so many words but they believe their Accounting Treatment is in fact right, some of them- yet a guy who claims it has according to him, between 20-25 years Audit and Accounting Experience...shame the League Arbitration Panel didn't agree! Differences in interpretation perhaps...don't see the EFL giving ground however, unsure how they can.

There has been a victim mentality/narrative on there in recent times though, which is at odds with the reality- well yes and no because in a sense they are victims- but of an owner who is bad/inept/reckless or even just plain old stubborn as hell!

13 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

They had something like 67% of the ball against Birmingham but from what I saw it was painfully slow build up and apart from Lawrence it doesn't seem like there is much in way of goals in the team. Also looks like they can be pressured into making a fair few mistakes at the back. 

I have never really cared for Derby but there is something about an underdog story that makes me want to root for them just a little (their players and coaches I mean, nothing to do with their owners and fans). But if they get a points deduction this season I think they are definitely relegated.

See what you're getting at, but a club with a multi million Bielik and Lawrence still on the books to name 2...and despite everything youngsters such as Knight, Sibley and Buchanan who have considerable promise on the books, then Byrne and Marshall- the latter two sound odd but remember how Wigan surged post Christmas 2019 up to and even including admin, under Cook- they not only beat teams but started hammering them, playing them off the park going from doomed to midtable prior to the -12 - they plundered both in Summer 2020 when Wigan into admin through a freak event, then a Jozwiak who featured v England and joined for multi millions.

There is tbh- only IMO of course- a case to say that Derby should have a reasonable chance of survival, subject to injuries and depth issues of course- plus of course the great unknown ie the deduction or non deduction.

13 hours ago, chinapig said:

Hypocritical, incapable of irony or just not very bright?

Given they think there is a conspiracy against them by the EFL and referees my money's on the latter.

Some conspiracy eh! ?

Last 2 games, when the ref missed Forsyth's well wasn't so much tackle as on the Forest players- *ahem*- tackle albeit he got the retrospective 3 match ban from the FA and Lawrence leading with the elbow vs Birmingham, it merited a free kick only. Latter could be elevation or accidental, Shearer after all liked an elbow IIRC but if ref saw it- talking the Lawrence challenge- no ban possible surely.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will add a bit more.

Accounting wise...multiple links to ponder as to whether Derby's apparent (source: Kieran Maguire) £30m claim is within FRS 102, let alone P&S Regs or not.

The extra Profit could well have been something else, maybe the difference between Depreciation between Cost and Revaluation methods as opposed to the £30m...ie lop that off the Carrying Value. EFL won't accept it willingly I'm certain but..

https://www.accaglobal.com/lk/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-reporting/technical-articles/pl-concepts.html

https://annualreporting.info/reclassification-adjustments/

https://fincyclopedia.net/accounting/r/reclassification-adjustment

One of these links is listed in $ which throws me, another is IAS 16 which could well differ materially to FRS 102.

https://www.accaglobal.com/my/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-reporting/technical-articles/profit-loss-oci.html

https://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias16

https://www.accaglobal.com/lk/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-reporting/technical-articles/pl-concepts.html#No-OCI-and-no-reclassification

Then.

This Revaluation Reserve was transferred in 2018 on disposal to Profit and Loss Account- as in the cumulative Profit and Loss Account as opposed to the annual one- even with it included, it was -£42m...surely you cannot cherry pick one Reserve like that?

As for the Sevco 5112 Accounts, even were you to add that £30m into those- these consolidated Accounts were active from 2015/16 to present but most recent Accounts to 2017/18 ie June 2018- even were you to add it in, then the cumulative P&L would still be negative ie below zero...again the whole cherry picking question.

This was the Revaluation Surplus ie the remaining Revaluation Reserve at time of disposal and the possible basis of Derby's claim about the extra Profit on disposal.

This thread also calls into q the claims of an extra £30m Accounting Treatment wise...

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/frs-102-other-comprehensive-income

...As do the EFL's own Regulations and how it could be recognised- where is the place to put it?? The possible bit about Depreciation differences maybe one avenue but then Depreciation is of course excluded from the overall loss for FFP so? ?‍♂️

image.png.21eab0941f1a5ad6cb9fb3383a9f11e2.png

Plus ⬇️

image.png.48d83fa1801b1cba85d16a696d352011.png

A problem here is that this is for the division below but in theory could add a bit of clarity.

I think we know what the answer to 2.10 would be! :D 2.9... "For the avoidance of doubt any revaluation reserves do not qualify for inclusion". 

Accumulated Profit basically I believe is Retained Earnings- Derby's is negative no? Let alone the exclusion of Revaluation Reserves for EFL purposes- wonder if that clause was written with anyone in mind?

There are so many arguments against it seems.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This was the Revaluation Surplus ie the remaining Revaluation Reserve at time of disposal and the possible basis of Derby's claim about the extra Profit on disposal.

Unfortunately you are looking this from the wrong end.

FRS102 allows you to value property on a 'cost basis' or a 'valuation basis'.

When Derby started using FRS102 for the first time they decided to use a 'valuation basis' and therefore carried across the £30m relavuation reserve.  However they first used FRS102 for the 2016 accounts, which is the eraliest year that they have to restate their accounts for the EFL.

So the question is - "Having initially used a 'revaluation basis' can they change to a 'cost basis' when restating the accounts.  The reversal of the reserve on a cost basis will be a prior year adjustment in 2015.  If this is a valid adjustment then the profit on disposal in 2018 will be enhanced by the lack of a revaluation reserve.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

Unfortunately you are looking this from the wrong end.

FRS102 allows you to value property on a 'cost basis' or a 'valuation basis'.

When Derby started using FRS102 for the first time they decided to use a 'valuation basis' and therefore carried across the £30m relavuation reserve.  However they first used FRS102 for the 2016 accounts, which is the eraliest year that they have to restate their accounts for the EFL.

So the question is - "Having initially used a 'revaluation basis' can they change to a 'cost basis' when restating the accounts.  The reversal of the reserve on a cost basis will be a prior year adjustment in 2015.  If this is a valid adjustment then the profit on disposal in 2018 will be enhanced by the lack of a revaluation reserve.

 

Kieran Maguire was coming at it from a mistaken angle then?

In other words, from what you say, Purchase Price remains the same but Revaluation Reserve disappears from the Carrying Value? Carrying Value - Revaluation Reserve=New Carrying Value. Proceeds -  Carrying Value=Profit or Loss on Disposal.

As far as I can see, the policy in 2016 and 2017 ie into FRS 102 remained as Revaluation.

They surely cannot go back and Restate retrospectively that policy.

Bit I've looked at briefly too (only briefly tbh) is Deemed Cost FRS 102 Valuation etc. Strikes me as possible double counting to Profit from Revaluation Reserve. 

Anyway if it's only applicable to 2018 accounts then the period that begins 2018/19 sees that vanish.

EFL just need to keep the Embargo and Rule 16.20 in play for a long time to come, if it goes to an IDC that can take months, good luck buying in Jan. Policy of maximum pressure seems a good starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Carrying Value - Revaluation Reserve=New Carrying Value. Proceeds -  Carrying Value=Profit or Loss on Disposal.

Agreed.

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They surely cannot go back and Restate retrospectively that policy.

They have been asked to restate the accounts, and due to a timing fluke ....

 

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Anyway if it's only applicable to 2018 accounts then the period that begins 2018/19 sees that vanish.

It won't help them for 2015/16 or 2016/17 seasons, and it will only help them for 2018/19 to 2021/22 if it's permissible.

I did ask a couple of auditors I know, who both rolled their eyes and said, "I'll get back to you when I have some spare time ..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hxj said:

Agreed.

They have been asked to restate the accounts, and due to a timing fluke ....

 

It won't help them for 2015/16 or 2016/17 seasons, and it will only help them for 2018/19 to 2021/22 if it's permissible.

I did ask a couple of auditors I know, who both rolled their eyes and said, "I'll get back to you when I have some spare time ..."

One day I'll get the multiquote feature of the same post right but yes until then...

Agreed.

Hmm, still think good grounds not to accept for P&S purposes.

This bit I am confused on- would the Profit on disposal actually be applicable in the season following the disposal?? I assumed that if permissible- if- then it would go in the year of the disposal, 2017/18. Ergo it has dropped off by now, with 2017/18 being the year of disposal and enhanced profit, therefore 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 with 2020/21 combined average being applicable.

Along with the disposal, it drops off as the Asset no longer on the books...? What I'm trying to say is surely enhanced profit in same year as the disposal?

Might be worth delving into further because...

The rep from Club's Auditor ie Smith Cooper, Andrew Delve or James Delve might provide different advice to the Club eh. ? Funny how Derby's auditor up to from IIRC 2013/14 to 2016/17 and then the new guy from 2017/18 to present- funny how they have the same surname?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May as well take a look at the relevant Accounting policies in terms of the extra £30m or not- from 2015/16 to 2017/18 though I will also include 2014/15 for illustrative purposes.

On that note, I think the guys before Mel Morris a) From the look of it, left that club in a useful position and b) Surely had no issues with compliance- expect they behaved impeccably in that regard. Mistakes are possible of course but the problem with Derby is quite clearly their owner and perhaps hierarchy, although that clearly shouldn't exempt them from anything.

The Club

2014/15

image.png.0cb56f59b1a09b1c572ed529ff3c8c41.png

image.png.91c81af56f61b4f5de907ed93008eb75.png

This was the last year prior to FRS 102- and prior to the owner but FRS 102 probably more important.

Dunno if it's worth noting, but also mentions the historical cost convention as modified by the revaluation of certain tangible fixed assets- by which it must mean Pride Park.

Quote

"Freehold buildings known as the iPro Stadium held at valuation based on the depreciated replacement cost of the property".

The depreciation policy as well.

image.png.cec850f698271fb9dccc53d7937ef0b5.png

Global Derby- the parent company until the takeover, also has the same policies FWIW.

2015/16

This was the first year of FRS 102.

image.thumb.png.bc12941a66b892e534ce9bdfc9f44c0a.png

Some of this could be unnecessary but as we can see, Policies were basically the same- "historical cost convention as modified by the revaluation of certain tangible fixed assets"- it features again. A possible difference is Land ie Land not depreciated but then it wasn't then either, could bump up the value a bit.

image.png.d57d60c07c9c3b148ebbde783668ed3b.png

Confirmation of the Transition to FRS 102.

image.png.852f93a99eee5bf15f787e9370d4caa7.png

The policies were basically retained on transition and no alterations of the relevant bits were required.

2016/17

image.png.9c66295451a9584c596e80e76137753d.png

Hmm, slight difference in wording here...change from "historical cost convention as modified by the revaluation of certain tangible fixed assets" to "historical cost convention modified to include certain items at fair value".

image.png.dc22069b6e9a5d9259ea55b0bae4c0b3.png

Excluding freehold property eh?

Sounds like carrying value might equal fair value here.

image.png.773305f38e7cd1ce83dc5c42be5d1dc7.png

Ah yes, these are the freehold buildings- Pride Park. In 2017, Accounts that were released in Spring 2018, no indication of impairment had been noted.

2017/18

image.png.aac587cf44f9d4ea5d85f198a3a0049c.png

image.png.2ec9e539b6f5464448f90bf14bc95a49.png

Interesting, although this was changed in the year itself of the disposal...and there is zero reference to Pride Park or the prior category- zero reference as to why the policy has changed and the categorisation has changed...it appears to be classed as Leasehold property and improvements yet FRS 102 states that certain consistency of policy plus disclosures are required.

Cake and eat it territory yet again??

The Sevco 5112 policies on Year 1, which coincidentally is the start of FRS 102- they are basically the same, save for...

image.png.683c0a9fee148eafc2cda63d6e74e6ee.png

No need seen for Fair Value adjustments...ergo Vendors' book value was seen as equivalent on acquisition to Fair value to the group...the entirety of the Tangible Fixed Assets were therefore on acquisition seen as £55,601,000.

There was no Fair value adjustment on takeover, on acquisition.

Policies were the same in 2016/17 as well as 2017/18.

Although...

image.png.f11e1b90f4b75e621f44f54cd41d5d78.png

"Excluding freehold property" differs here.

There is also no Revaluation Reserve on Sevco 5112 Limited from day one, but given the club technically owned the stadium and was incorporated into consolidated I wonder how big a difference that makes.

Overall, it seems hard to justify IMO, let alone for FFP...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This bit I am confused on- would the Profit on disposal actually be applicable in the season following the disposal?? I assumed that if permissible- if- then it would go in the year of the disposal, 2017/18. Ergo it has dropped off by now, with 2017/18 being the year of disposal and enhanced profit, therefore 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 with 2020/21 combined average being applicable.

So was I!  It should have read 2017/18 to 2020/21

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hxj said:

So was I!  It should have read 2017/18 to 2020/21

 

Thanks- this is the bit that slips out of the narrative of discussions by their fans on it, or often can anyway- even if that sees them right to 2018 and up to 2020/21, it slips out and is replaced by a loss of whatever size as starting point in 2018/19.

You might also be interested to know that, as with last Jan when the charges first materialised, some of their fans are suggesting that perhaps the club should seek injunctive relief- but I'm unsure whether that's permitted under the system.

image.png.04d80cf3e99f737420bd26c90ac5d527.png

The system that all clubs are bound by, so I must assume they are one of them, that sign up to and have signed up to this.

image.png.ee752fcc3d6bfb4b3036d58cdbf9dbbb.png

All from here...

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/b3cd34c726c341ca9636610aa4503172/regulations-season-2021-22-final.pdf

Unless I've misread something fairly sure Section 44 of the Arbitration Act covers it..."exclusion extends to any rights that would otherwise arise under:" Included in that is, yes we've guessed it, Section 44...anyway they'd have to go through the initial IDC before even reaching this stage surely- "Membership of the League shall constitute" tells me that they have to go through the system as it is with only challenges under Section 67 and 68 a possibility once it reaches the LAP.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a view that's gaining traction on there among a few- was hoping to edit that post but ran out of time...one or two say "walk away from this process and go down the Court route"- pretty sure it doesn't work like that!!

Likewise, going to the CAS- it's not impossible I guess but it feels like significant barriers would exist.

image.png.f433eae3033ae277230b1b257b8df02b.png

95.1.2 feels quite pertinent- from the same link above.

In further good news, if things are still dragging then it appears that they might have maxed out professional standing even if Jagielka and Baldock leave on expiration of contract. Gives the EFL a little more leverage.

1 start or sub appearance at the relevant levels or in the relevant competitions=Professional Standing but excluding the Chorley game.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...