AnotherDerbyFan
-
Posts
175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by AnotherDerbyFan
-
-
22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
If reworked numbers under the new method show a fail to 2017...that'll be interesting. Happy to go back again and try and work the figures, from the figures that you yourself provided combined with the figures in the Written Reasons- think it hinged on the difference between Ince profit under straight line with contract Renewal and the Derby way as to pass or fail, as that might swing upwards too if figures restated. Still if nothing to hide, then you're only dragging it out for yourselves with respect to an Embargo and limitations- the Club should get/have got those numbers submitted straight line at speed and prospects might improve.
I recall a £16m profit on the sales of Hendrick, Hughes and Ince - so we're looking at about £3m profit under the 'Derby Method', whereas it would have been more like £5m under the standard method.
22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:I think it's a grey area- there are your figures but also the mooted £30m swing in Amortisation which has been quoted in a few places, what accounts for the difference I'm unsure- possibly taking the total additions and dividing it by average contract length in the case of Kieran Maguire? Your calculations clearly go into depth and drill down.
KM's figures seemingly included all potential add-ons - promotion bonuses, appearance bonuses, etc... A massive chunk of that would have been promotion bonuses, but some appearances based. it's no secret we stopped playing Thorne and Anya becuase of those high appearance based add-ons (£25k per game for Thorne)
22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Yeah, the charge might hint at it but I remember reading it in posts from as far back as last Autumn on social media and the like. Almost as if there had been some official claim/forecast but perhaps not.
Sort of cutting across both of the last points here, but by its very definition, non compliance with FRS 102 could be construed as a breach of P&S. Feels like a technical breach, and maybe more.
Snippet from people who I believe will know, the summary states:
Very true, and I cannot deny breaching P&S regulations, but the punishment has to fit the crime. I'm just struggling to see how a points deduction can be justified if the recalculated figures show we're withing P&S limits. A fine seems the most logical punishment. i'm sure if someone delved into the records for accounting malpractice in football you'd only see punishments of fines and/or bans from football related activities.
22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Like I say if a restated set of Accounts and reassessment show you just within limits to 2018, why the delay. The delay only drags from an Embargo POV- the EFL need minimal criteria for Embargoes or use of Regulation 16.20. It seems to be a bit of a holding pattern when in doubt anyway, the Soft Embargo.
In short, the Soft Embargo is a useful tool because it prevents Clubs from splashing out if say prior Accounts show just within, but Accounts submitted for season just gone- see submissions not long after Reporting Period for Birmingham and others- say there is a gap between the two, a Club might look to buy players for fees, for good money if theoretically free to do so before Accounts show them in breach or at least needing special measures ie a Birmingham type Business Plan.
Soft Embargo, in conjunction with EFL Regulation 16.20 is an excellent tool to prevent this. It's not always used well however- see Summer 2019, and Reading. They were released from it due to a late transaction and then signed Joao and Puscas!? Unsure their losses and underlying losses looking both past, present and at the future were of a level to merit it! The FFI and future monitoring aspect of it failed there.
21 hours ago, AnAstonVillafan said:I'm sure Derby will get whats coming to them. The club is in a downward spiral anyhow with one owner who does not want to be there and no one coming to the rescue. The EFL will get them sooner or later, if they are proven to be guilty.
And yes The EFL are mostly to blame. The regs have loopholes and they seem slow to react. I believe currently they are more geared towards saving clubs rather than compliance.So very little will be coming to us then. Thanks for that.
20 hours ago, supercidered said:Ok, so sorting the wheat from the chaff. Are you basically saying the Derby County are innocent or not? Are you saying that the club should not face any sanction of any kind?
The DC and LAP both concluded we were guilty to differing degrees - I'm not arguing we're innocent.
20 hours ago, supercidered said:When I look at sorting the wheat from the chaff i.e. stripping away all the flannel then the club should face sanctions at least similar to Sheffield Wednesday and Birmingham City.
But those two clubs were found guilty of exceeding allowable spend limits whereas we weren't. Different cases required different punishments
20 hours ago, supercidered said:My guess is though that due to the amount of smoke and mirrors deployed during this horrible mucky affair that the club will escape sanctions. Then it will be another nail in the coffin of the integrity (if any still exists) of the EFL and football in general. No deterrent means that murky Mel and people / clubs like him will continue to at best bend the rules and at worst show contempt and blatant disregard for the rules.
Okay...
19 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Oh yeah. EFL should have shut that loophole 2 years ago. Better still had it not been opened up in the first place!
I'm very surprised that haven't yet
-
22 hours ago, Hxj said:
Whilst all that is noted and understood you also need to take into account that was not until a week or so before the Independent Disciplinary Committee hearing that Derby County finally made the EFL aware of the actual amortisation method used.
Taking that as a fact (it is mentioned in the IDC decision) then the absence of a P&S failure in exceeding the loss limits is not at all surprising. They simply didn't know.
Looking at it another way, it is for the EFL to prove their case. If they cannot cover the basics on that any charge would have to fail.
Better to wait and see what the actual outcome is.
As I have asked before. If Derby have not breached the P&S loss limits why don't they simply come out and say so?
It would have been quite easy to add a sentence of meaning to the otherwise absurd press release that did come out.
You mean like this club statement?
"even if the EFL succeeded, would have only lef to the Club re-submitting its P&S calculations".
Except, you've already stated you don't trust a word the club say...
-
On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:
Your points are debatable @AnotherDerbyFan
Before I start, I would state a position which is that contrary to what quite a few on your forum seem to think I'm not explicitly anti Derby- I have slated quite a few clubs for possible FFP related issues. That said I can't abide Mel Morris for obvious reasons- but anyway- I would also add though that a new owner shouldn't wipe the slate clean if any punishment occurs. by which I mean remove verbatim any punishment. Mitigate perhaps.
@Hxj has covered the bulk but a couple of things. Is it truly and utterly verifiable that Straight Line would see you compliant at all times? Reports suggested that you were trying to delay the process- nothing to hide, nothing to fear as they say- well it might be applicable here. How do you for sure that a restatement on the EFL's terms would not see any breaches over the last 6 seasons?
I've previously said we would have failed the 3 years to 2017 under the straight line method. The numbers do seem to indicate we would be between £1.6m and £3.6m within the limits for the following seasons though.
On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:I think that is a debatable assertion. I also saw a suggestion that any punishment under the new method for past Accounts if it changed from compliant to breach would be immoral- but would it be explicitly forbidden, that is a better question. I'm not altogether sure if I care about the morality aspect here if I'm honest.
Further, I have seen it stated a number of times- not least on your forum that because no advantage was gained that no punishment would be merited. That is a nice try, but no dice. Sheffield Wednesday arguably gained no advantage yet look at the Panel etc. A better example is Birmingham because they absolutely gained no advantage up the top end certainly and in their case the below formed part of their 2019 defence:
The difference is Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday both failed P&S, whereas all evidence points to Derby not. By overspending, BCFC and SWFC gained an unfair advantage. By staying within the limits, DCFC didn't.
On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:Let's go back a bit. In Birmingham's case after years of turmoil followed by austerity they went a bit mad under Zola for half a season ie a January window and Redknapp in Summer 2018.
Two windows, in an overall period that covered 18 months from December 2016 to end of June 2018- restraint was shown in January 2018 or maybe the EFL had a word who knows. This formed part of their argument...no advantage gained so why punish?
Did not cut any ice. Was a nice try but Paragraphs 25-28 make it abundantly clear why it is flawed. A Summer 2018 Soft Embargo, which became a strict Embargo and a deduction of 9 points, an EFL Business Plan during which they had to ask EFL in terms of renewing existing and some young players even- think they had trouble renewing Captain Morrison eg and I remember references to young players and contractual issues. Indeed even follow up charges with respect to the 2018/19 season- indeed the EFL even appealed the Not Guilty- and rightly so. Because it gained them the right to impose an Absolute Obligation on a Club with respect to the numbers as opposed to Best Endeavors.
Yeah.... they failed P&S.
On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:I would also add, that just because the Club or indeed any Club says something- and even to an extent this applies to the EFL- doesn't make it entirely so. Both will look to paint their picture in a favourable light- thought Derby's statement was absolutely evidence of this, and so to a lesser extent was that of the EFL. On that note, what or who was the original source of the claim that no Points could be docked for this offence, only a fine- if it was from the Club I question the veracity- or indeed Club friendly journalists. Is there anything in writing from a truly independent and relevant source that states it can only be a fine at most?
Nothing official, but it's also hinted at in the charge. To paraphrase:
Charge 1 - related to a true value of the stadium would result in being over the limit and failing P&S
Charge 2 - the amortisation policy isn't compliant with FRS102Pull up the official document(s) and take note of the actual wording. Rather than just being "non-compliant" it would have mentioned failing P&S if it was the case.
-
8 hours ago, Hxj said:
As I said previously we would be delighted if you could let us all have the figures proving this. I wouldn’t trust anything the club says on this. Unless they are available we will have to await the outcome.
If Derby didn’t fail FFP then I still expect a 3 points penalty for next season. Misleading is a serious offence.
In addition the EFL AGM could be interesting next month.
The LAP concluded we were open an honest through the whole thing so can't see us getting punished for "misleading".
The charge was only for using an improper amortisation policy, not for failing P&S due to the policy.
That's backed up by the club's statement of "would have only led to the Club re-submitting its P&S calculations", and further backed up by my own P&S estimates (£1..7m inside the limit).
-
12 hours ago, Hxj said:
Plus I doubt that you can prove that Derby would not have been relegated, had they abided by all the regulations correctly. I would also suggest that the club did get an on field advantage given the Play Off appearances in 2015/16, 2017/18 and 2018/19.
Proven by not failing P&S under a standard amortisation method, so we could/would have had exactly the same sqaud...
-
1
-
-
On 25/05/2021 at 11:18, hertsexile said:
The problem we have here is that Derby have broken financial regulations Sheffield Wednesday were punishment for the same the offence.
The EFL need to impose their punishment now before the fixture release. Therefore Derby should be relegated and Wycombe stay up that would be the right thing to do.
However as we all know in football the powers that be are more than happy
to punish the little teams but reluctant to enforce any punishment on so called big clubs
Except it's not.
Sheffield Wednesday were guilty of putting the stadium sale in the wrong accounting period. Sheffield Wednesday overspent in the 3 years to 2018.
Derby were found guilty of only incorrectly defining the amortisation policy in the accounts by accountants, and by using an incorrect amortisation policy by lawyers. Derby did not overspend in the 3 years to 2018, even when using a 'commonly accepted' amortisation policy.
Logic dictates that no on field advantage means no on field deduction (points). As it was simply an accounting c*ck up, a fine is the reasonable punishment.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
T-2, Amortisation straight line so the FFP figures out there seem right. SwissRamble says a £9m FFP loss? -£9m.
It was -£5.6m
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:T-1, Amortisation "The Derby way" sees FFP loss at -£15,127,000. £5.88m is added on using the Extension method. -£21,007,000.
Ooh getting a bit closer...
Original method for 2016/17. T sees a loss of £13,948,000, so -£13,498,000.
The extensions Amortisation method adds £7.54m onto that. -£21,398,000.
-£5.6m, -£21m, -£21.4m
Total = -£48m (£9m over limit)
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Wow, quick calcs or not...
8 figure breach- will Profit on Transfers with straight line and extensions be the saving grace?? Not sure it knocks it down by £11-12m!! The biggest ticket sales in that period were Academy products, which as we know is pure profit on disposal, therefore being unaffected regardless of which method is used. Ince seems the most likely candidate for that particular period?
Also, Albentosa, Shotton and Dawkins. Along with Ince, the total difference is likely in the £3m region.
Overall, £6m over the P&S limit.
Saying that, I'll be surprised if they do charge us for the 3 years to 2017. They would surely have charged us with failing at the same time as the 2018 period.
-
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
On a side note, it makes me laugh- a few of them are still going on about the dubious claims about Gibson selling a tax loss.
Because selling a tax loss doesn't affect Profit or Loss Before Tax one iota. There is no Profit on Disposal and nor does a Tax Credit or Loss of any kind affect the FFP figures. Struggling to see the case tbh. We can definitely argue about the ethics or similar, but it's neither a Profit or Loss on Disposal, nor does it appear in the Income Statement- ergo it has zero effect on FFP.
Wasn't that under the old FFP rules which were a lot more basic, hence including the sale of tax?
-
9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Derby County- quite simply:
The Derby County FC Limited- Football Club
The Derby County FC Academy Limited- Youth/Academy Expenditure
Club DCFC Limited- Listed as "Event Catering Activities"- CH Category.
Stadia DCFC Limited- Listed as "Other Sports Activities"- CH category.
Sevco 5112 Limited- Top Company in the Group.
Quite simply, no Accounts released for 2 years now. Since Spring 2019 (so the Reporting Period to 30th June 2018)!! Most of those come under Sevco 5112 Limited.
Gellaw Newco 203 Limited- wasn't sure if it would cover to 2019 or 2020 as its first year but CH seems to have it as the consolidated Accounts ie the top company in the Group over and above Sevco 5112 Limited- as per CH their Accounts to 30th June 2019 were due on 18th March 2020- still nothing.
Sevco 5112 Limited also has the Confirmation Statement listed as overdue. Although it has been suggested that control has reverted back to Sevco 5112 Limited?
Now there is an argument seemingly emanating from the club that Accounts not released as they are awaiting the EFL's final amortisation verdict. Where this might have some merit is e.g. Derby County FC, Sevco 5112 Limited and Gellaw Newco 203 Limited if applicable in the latter case. Even if you take that at face value though as Amortisation in other areas wouldn't count towards P&S but is integral to the EFL v Derby case, and if you then accept that consolidated and top consolidated results would include the Amortisation of Players- how does it impact upon DCFC Academy Limited, Club DCFC Limited or Stadia DCFC Limited??
Any ideas @AnotherDerbyFan why even the 3 smaller ones which wouldn't factor in Player Amortisation Registration haven't released in 2 years?? I think the case not to release is sketchy in the Club and 2 Consolidated but can see arguments for and against- but in these 3 (Club, Stadia, Academy), I can't see any great justification on the face of it...
In all honesty, I have no idea.
I would have expected us to submit all accounts then restate the relevant figures if needed in following accounts
-
On 20/03/2021 at 01:30, Mr Popodopolous said:
How much will come of it who knows but it's been definitively nailed down, that the EFL WILL be appealing vs the Derby amortisation charge verdict.
@Hxj @Davefevs @downendcity @AnotherDerbyFan
I wonder if these two events might have been linked? That said BZI or whatever their exact name was, have form for non takeovers.
I expect to hear something from next week onwards. I'm still certain we won't get any form of punishment, but we'll see.
Can't see it being linked to be honest. You can only get strung along for so long before enough is enough - 1 year on from when talks started, 4 months on from it going through "imminently", and 3 months on from "sending the money over".
14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Agreed- one of the better clubs for sure. Think they'll be fine and definitely agree on Gibson and his annoyance at elsewhere and reasons for it being justified.
Concur- though reading on their forum their fans or a lot of them seem so blase about it all. One of them however, one of the (few) sensible financial ones reckons it'll be the academy, free transfers and loan market this coming summer mainly.
It's hard to see it being anything else without selling the academy graduates already in the team (Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Sibley). Come the summer, we won't have many other players worth anything, in fact, we won't have many players left at all.
Given we posted a £25m P&S loss in 18/19, amortisation jumping from just under £5m in that period to £25.1m in 19/20 (slightly offset by a reduction in wages {c£10m?}), I'm expecting another rabbit to be pulled out of the hat just to get us under the 20/21 limit to be honest. I'm already bracing myself for the backlash from you when those account eventually come out
Once we reach a conclusion with the EFL hearing, it won't be much of a wait until we get to see the 18/19 and 19/20 accounts which will provide a much clearer picture going forward.
14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:I'll give it a go!
Brentford should seem aok IMO, Look at who they sell and for how much- they have started to spend more and up the wage bill but they also sold Griffin Park or the land on which it stood to help fund new ground- that's a legitimate profit as far as I can see, because disposing of a former ground/the land of it seems aok to me, actually getting rid. Long story short I don't see them being in issues.
Reading surely are heading for issues and Richards has now gone to Bayern on a free according to reports- personally I'd like to see them docked points in March some of these clubs as per the original FFP regs, any club over in March should be docked points in April unless they have a binding sale of a player in the summer- ie arranged now but to be sold in summer but still falling within the Accounting Period. Maybe they're walking the line very tightly, also read Stoke are coming close- once Parachute Payments gone they might have issues but not as urgent as Reading. Sheffield Wednesday got docked 12, halved to 6 and then were allowed to move Stadium forward into 2018/19 when it was originally sold, EFL appealing clearance for Derby and will post some figures I saw online for them summarised nicely by someone else heading into 2021/22 almost irrespective of this case- ironically an EFL win on this appeal and a restatement of accounts would help them moving forward but surely push them into breach in prior Accounts.
In terms of Sheffield Wednesday I have to wonder if there aren't still grounds for the EFL here, for example I'd be looking at a) Company Structure and b) The justification for the rolling forward. Ideally they'll go down and be hamstrung a bit more, knowing that if they spend to come back up it'll still carry over in some respects but I hope the EFL are looking at aspects.
Birmingham resolved off it, in serious issues on it- Swansea it's hard to say, they seem to have been selling players tbh and came down at the same time as Stoke but went into cutback mode much quicker it seemed. Their 2019/20 Accounts could be instructive.
In terms of hamstrung- not hard sanctions but restrictions- I wonder about Blackburn and Nottingham Forest to name 2.
For the current 2021 period, my 3 would be Reading, Stoke and Cardiff. Derby would be 4th. I'm amazed Reading have so far escaped punishment. They were very close to the limit in 2019 so I find it hard to believe they are still within limits given their transfers since. Stoke and Cardiff must be pretty close too given their wage bills, bloated squads and parachute payments reducing. I don't see any others being in danger.
For 2022, a lot depends on how well the recently relegated teams have cut their wage bill and dealt with amortisation. Along with Stoke and Cardiff, I think Swansea and Huddersfield may struggle (without promotion). Reading and Derby would also remain on my watch list. Forest will need to cut their wage bill to stay within limits, but shouldn't be too tricky for them to achieve that.
-
14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
We certainly have!
A few clubs have...Norwich, Hull, Birmingham (in Hong Kong consolidated), Wigan (disposed but as per £20m loss in Hong Kong consolidated). With respect to submission, clubs (like all such companies) get 9 months from the end of the Reporting Period- usually May or June, and Government gave all a 3 month extension but many took advantage so 12 months from Reporting Date.
The Football League themselves get results with respect to 2019/20 in advance of the public/Companies House, ball is started to be rolling with the Projected Accounts which are usually pretty accurate then it seems if there is a question mark they check in again but the Process is ongoing and can be revisited within the relevant 3 year period- possibly beyond, I certainly think there are bits about Aston Villa that would merit a second look if and when they return!
Ah yes, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- with reference to the bolded bit. Haha, their auditors- let's just leave it at that! I can only assume that the Football League have some data for the two clubs in question, but in the case of Sheffield Wednesday I'm not so sure- their company structure is a hard one to unpick, I think clubs who don't submit in the right time frame, should have some kind of automatic transfer embargo, open ended and rolling yet open to review subject to conditions, in its scope.
Pearce was asked about the accounts on Radio Derby the other day. He said ours haven’t been filed due to the ongoing EFL P&S case, and depending on the outcome may have to make adjustments. It makes sense, but couldn't we submit the accounts as they are, then make adjustments (if required) in the following accounts?
Still doesn't explain Sheff Weds.-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
I will certainly go with yours and look no further- in addition, to work it up to 2023/24 is outstanding!
Only one I might query would be Weimann, simply as it took place after June 2018- or was that in the 2017/18 accounts? Definitely would have bumped up the Ince profit, I expect- being sold after 1 year his RV might well have still been close to the full amount.
Some huge work done on it, very impressive. The difference in Amortisation to look at here I assume is between Derby and Extension?
Based on a quick Google search, Weimann was on the 3rd of July. Based on a couple of our sales (such as Ince) which completed on similar dates, I belive his sale falls into the previous season.
It should be Derby vs Extension but figures won't be massively out if you use original instead.
I should point out, that I think the figures stated in the accounts include add-ons (I certainly hope so!). Total potential add-ons in 17/18 about £13m. I would therefore assume that our amortisation in following years should be lower than estiamte due to not paying out on promotion bonuses and appearance fees? That may explain why the Hearing Decison Document stated amortisation is £25.1m for 19/20 as we had to calculate a 'worst case scenario' - meaning paying out for promotion? It'll still be above £15m either way
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
@AnotherDerbyFan I'll address your points later or tomorrow, but I would have thought that's fairly standard in football anyway- when we're talking Straight Line method. Amortise and then adjust for contract extensions- maybe it isn't though?
I believe there are a few methods in use:
- All upfront (typically used in non-league I believe)
- The infamous Derby method - use of residual values
- Amortise over the original contract
- Make adjustments if a contract extension has been signed
- Impairment being an additional part to most club policies
Just from using figures from transfermarkt (plus filling in a couple of blanks), you can see the difference between the methods here:
KM has overstated the figures by about about £2.3m (2016), £2.7m (2017) and £4m (2018) compared with the 'acceptable' methods. My first instinct was he added on agents fees, however the actual figures for those seasons were £0.3m, £2.0m and £2.2m. So it can't be that. Most of our business is done in the summer. The accounts therefore give a good indication of what we spent by looking at the "post balance sheet events" section (which includes EFL levies and agents' fees)
Based on the accounts more accurate upfront figures would be:
2016 - £27.24m
2017 - £17.03m
2018 - £12.76mOver that 3 year period, transfermarkt is only out by £200k (estimating winter signings at the transfermarkt values).
I made the assumption of summer sales not having an amortisation charge against them for the upcoming year? Even if I've got that wrong, KM is still £6m too high.
-
1
-
14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Some possible good news on the horizon, hopefully anyway @Davefevs @Hxj @downendcity @chinapig @Coppello
Well overdue this. Gibson and Lansdown maybe can drive change here? Embargo or Points deduction best bet? Interested to know thoughts of @AnotherDerbyFan with respect to this too- I think that Good Governance in these scenarios does require stringent measures.
Maybe Transfer Embargo to begin with, escalating to a points deduction over time. Assume this means publish to Companies House or on website- EFL surely have some kind of idea or they should both be under a rolling Embargo and maybe more- if they don't submit to the EFL then maybe even suspend membership.
Well maybe not the last bit but the EFL or more likely the clubs, need to up the ante with this issue.
I think it depends on the circumstances for the delay. If it's a consequence of the EFL's appeals for example...
11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Interesting figure from Kieran Maguire about the gap in Derby's amortisation using the two methods- I mean it all has to be done in the end, but in those 3 seasons?
Albeit the Profit on Disposal would have to be reconciled to get the full figure. I suspect that it increases as well in these 3 seasons.
Presumably he's used the very basic amortisation method (over original contract), rather than one of the other accepted methods (taking account of contract extensions). My calculations estimate £30m for the old method (£15m lower than Kieran's guess).
As you point out, profit on players would also increase, notably Ince and Weimann.
-
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
The Lampard compensation- was it staggered? Maybe a small amount then, the rest in 2019/20? £4m was reported in the Press, that suggested compensation in the Written Reasons was well short of that. Had Derby not yet factored in playoff final revenue too by July 2019? Can only assume not.
I'll be surprised if it is staggered as I'm struggling to think of an instance this has happened in the past for any club. With the Final being the end of May, I would have expected that money to be accounted for by July.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:I think there was still an argument to be had over the Stadium- but hard to prove. Messenger however was shocking- some of the examples he chose were a total joke, yet comparable grounds from period, from similar bits of the world albeit with Land Value being higher in Derby, comparable capacities- he chose Morecambe and a Rugby League Stadium, with standing capacity either in part or full to name 2??
I don't doubt the EFL could have put a much stronger case forward if that chose a competent expert. With the EFL not appealing this part of the charge then I think this is the end of it.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Amortisation, we'll see- one report did suggest the EFL have put in new evidence though it's unclear tbh.
I thought the rules prevented the submission of new evidence, instead only appealing the decision based on the evidence already provided.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Back on Messenger, am I right from memory that he also didn't go to Pride Park itself for the valuation but instead relied on modelling or somesuch? Amateur! I should also add I've looked at some comparables in terms of relatively recent valuations, albeit unsure all were under DRC- and it feels toppy, £81.1m.
Maybe asked a friend/colleague (who visited a while back) for his opinion who described our facilities as "basic".
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Don't see what they would have hoped to have gained from a small discrepancy in amortisation value, would it even have materially impacted P&S, only felt like a couple of million?
The club's amortisation policy requires a review every 6 months (iirc). If the review says the change is required...
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Would it have accelerated losses into 2019/20 then, or decelerated into 2018/19? It's difficult to tell given those short extensions and the impact.
The extensions to Butterfield, Johnson and Blackman? It would have pushed a reasonable chunk of losses into 19/20.
If my understanding of the policy is correct... An example would be signing a player for £5m on a 5 year contract. £500k amortisation a year for the first 4 years with the rest £3m in the final year. Am extension in that final year reduces that amortisation in the 5th year to £500k, with £2.5m in the 6th year. It may not be 10% per year in the actual policy but it helps illustrate the point.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:A drop to £15m is still hefty, considering that losses in 2018/19 as per the Written Reasons were quite a lot despite a fairly low amortisation charge of £4.6m being stated!
19/20 shot up to £25.1m. £15m is a reasonable drop from £25.1m, don't you think?
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Wisdom and Waghorn signing extensions would kick the can down the road, would reduce the losses in that particular season but knock headroom off the following one. I hope no club gets any leeway for P&S as a result of these reforms, that's for sure.
It does but it also helps keep the squad size at a healthy level. If we had to sign replacements then the same wages would be going put anyway. Don't think it'll make much P&S impact.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Of those, Malone's wages being covered in part or full by Millwall surely? Carson's certainly in full by Man City- Holmes, £1m minus remaining Net Book Value. Plus Marriott and Te Wierik as you stated.
You'd hope so. Holmes was a £500-700k signing so a welcome profit on him.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Remember though, that is only part of the package- lots out of contract yes but losses overhanging from prior seasons make it difficult to recruit competitively. Might be reliant on a bit more youth as well though? I hope the EFL give no leeway to clubs.
"A bit more youth". Any more youth and we'll be an U12 side
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Net spend is a red herring though, wage bill is a better indicator but that seems to be coming down. Net spend with that amortisation model doesn't seem the best indicator.
My point was more about doing things 'the right way', rather than looking at amortisation which indicates behaviour from the past.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:As an aside, how much do we think the Cocu sacking might have cost? Has Keogh yet resolved his issue, I think if not he should still pursue it personally.
I think the papers suggested around £4m. Doubt it'll be paid upfront . Knowing Cocu he would be happy enough with deferred payment given the financial situation at the club. Given we've allowed him to join MK Dons I'll be very surprised if it hasn't been resolved.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Yes, sounds about right. My personal view on clubs who do not pay the wages is that a punishment needs to stick- lifting as soon as paid is just weak, weak, weak.
A harsher punishment due to unexpected takeover delays seems harsh to me. Mel was assured the takeover would complete on the 24th of December and the wage bill will be accounted for. If he knew he would have freed up some cash, but he didn't know so he didn't free it up. However, if an owner simply chooses not to pay the wages then that obviously required harsher punishment.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:I also believe clubs should be soft embargoed for not submitting accounts to Companies House in a timely manner, but unlike the first bit, this bit can be lifted fairly swiftly thereafter. There are two Championship clubs who are well overdue in this respect.
Seems to be in part due to the charges brought upon the two clubs by the EFL. I don't think it has a material impact on P&S submissions so does it really matter to the EFL?
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:I mean- 4 year period but my reading is this?
- 2017-18- Year 1
- 2018-19- Year 2
- 2019 and 2020-21- Added then halved- Year 3. With Covid losses of course excluded/factored in.
Presumably then, you would get in 2021/22:
- 2018-19- Year 1
- 2019-20 and 2020-21 Added then halved, with Covid losses of course excluded/factored in. Year 2.
- 2021/22- Year 3.
If not, you would get some very bizarre P&S outcomes, with some clubs benefiting unduly and some clubs unable to fully utilise their 2018/19 profits! Not even sure it should have been averaged out plus Covid losses, surely Covid losses alone and the usual process up to 2019/20 would have sufficed.
I'm with you on the 2021 period but I assumed a move back to 3 years for 2022. I think the difference in P&S loss is only a couple of £million either way. Average AND Covid allowances is strange. There must be a reason for it?
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:I assume they are still using the Parent as the basis for the P&S results. Which again is the right thing because Sevco 5112 represented the consolidated accounts.
The EFl will but for us who like to estimate the P&S losses is doesn't really matter if you use a correction value - something like an improvement of £7m from the group accounts or £3m worse than the club accounts over the 3 seasons.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Those varied bolded bits suggest that the compensation was received in, or moved into 2018/19? 3 year aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings before Tax fell by £617,000. No mention of the playoff final- but Compensation was reported at £4m or thereabouts IIRC.
Lampard officially joined Chelsea on the 4th of July. It's another of those in the first week of July which creeps into the previous accounting period for some reason - see Ince and Weimann(?) as examples in the past.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Rent at £1.1m? £4.16m per season seems fairer by far for a transaction of that size. Regardless, I wonder if that £3.1m sensitivity pushed up the Forecast losses and these would therefore drop by the same amount at time of resolution.
I'm still surprised the EFL didn't push back on this one during the hearing. It would have been easier to win that than the stadium fee or amortisation charges.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:We see a huge spike into 2018/19 above. I appreciate wages will have been down too of course.
The small reconciliation in the year doesn't interest me too much, Derby would have been just about within P&S anyway IMO.
Yep. That's mostly due to the group of players who signed extensions in 18/19, only to leave in the very early part of 19/20, the fault with our amortisation policy - Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, Anya and Huddlestone all left on frees in the 19/20 period after costing a combined c£20m.
18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Does the amortisation drop off a cliff in 2020/21? We know Rooney was on £100,000 a week but that £80,000 a week was put into the income kitty by 32Red, IIRC. Bieilk- similar £20k per week, less? Clarke loan- less in the case of the latter I'd surmise.
I've estimated a drop to £15m in 20/21 (pending no extensions). This could decrease by almost half if Wisdom and Waghorn sign extensions though. Dropping again to £9m in 21/22 (pending no extensions), made up mostly from Lawrence and Marriott. Only Bielik and Jozwiak of significant book value beyond that, with their contracts currently set to expire in 2024.
Rooney's wages would be a complete guess. One source suggests the following for other players above £10k:
- Lawrence - £30k
- Davies - £25k
- Wisdom - £23k
- Clarke - £22k
- Carson - 20k
- Malone - £20k
- Bielik - £20k
- Marriott - £18k
- Jozwiak - £15k
- Byrne - £11k
It's hard to argue against those figures being too far out. Only those in bold are currently set to stay beyond this season. te Wierik was another supposedly in the £10k+ camp, but he's on his way back to the Netherlands. Marriott has also returned to Sheffield Wednesday on loan who will pick up most of his wages. Holmes off to Huddersfield for £1m and a small saving off the wage bill.
We'll have a tiny squad for next season at the moment. Marshall, Roos, Byrne, Evans, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Lawrence, Jozwiak, Ibe and Marriott are the only players with more than a season and a bit of experience to their names.
I don't think anyone can use the wage bill as a stick to beat the club with anymore. Same for transfers where fees received exceed fees going out.
-
On 10/01/2021 at 16:09, Mr Popodopolous said:
Well that's a shame but it shouldn't make any significant difference with the £39m loss limit?
Sounds like Derby were/are also under some kind of embargo- shouldn't be lifted so quickly IMO.
One of their better posters- G STAR RAM- is he forgetting so quickly the spike in amortisation forecast for 2019/20, the massive Projected losses in 2018/19, the fact sacking Cocu and probably hiring him probably not cheap as chips and the fact that even if wage bill came down, the Stadium Sale and leaseback profit disappears from the calculations after this season.
There's also the small matter of whether the rent is too low for FFP in terms of arms length, fair market value etc- or if not, then whether the club should keep the commercial revenue that is not related to football? Otherwise from a structure POV and whether it counts, worthy of another Investigation potentially?
That said maybe I'm underestimating the wage reduction- some sites suggest that Waghorn wages eg are £7,800 per week?
We're currently under a soft embargo due to not paying the wages. Once paid, the embargo should be lifted.
It appears like Covid has helped us pass P&S for 19/20 and 20/21 due to the 4 year period. I wouldn't bet against P&S losses for the 18/19 and 19/20 seasons to be far off £25m and £36m respectively. I recall the Decision Document stated £29.5m for 18/19, which wouldn't include the playoffs or the Lampard compensation. There's no way we would have stayed within the P&S limits for the 2020 period and 2021 would have been difficult, requiring a lot more academy graduates being sold. With the high earners off the wage bill, I have no concerns about the 2022 period though.
I'll be surprised if Waghorn is outside the £15-20k range. You look at the squad list beyond this season and the only high earner remaining will be Lawrence. Bielik, Jozwiak and Marriott the next highest earners, but unlikely to be on much more than £15k
-
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
They've signed Nathan Byrne...
I don't know, are the EFL busting a gut to shut the loophole? One of their sensible posters seems to think they have amortisation hitting £20m for a number of years! Though I've also read on DCFCFans that their wage bill is £15-20m per season so...?
Would hope if and when the loophole is shut, the weakening of their squad can continue.
If I’ve understood that post correctly, that’s £20m total amortisation still to show up in the accounts. £10m this season, £5m next (Lawrence and Evans’ contracts end), then £5m over the following two seasons (Bielik’s contract ends).
As we both know, some of those players will sign extensions delaying the amortisation shown.
Looking at the squad, I’d be surprised if first team wages were much higher than £20m. Total club wages will probably be £5m higher.
How would changes to the amortisation and stadium rules affect solidarity payments from the PL? I thought I read a while back though our rules need to be aligned with there’s so ensure EFL clubs still get those payments. The best part of £5m for Championship clubs, £700k for L1 and £500k for L2.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
This bit is bloody ridiculous.
Disgusting club, disgusting hierarchy- minority, maybe a reasonable minority of fans equally so!
No offence, but I hope there is a new Derby journey ahead- not on a Cup run or on a promotion push- but into admin!
Fancy a bet on which club makes it to the Premier League first?
-
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
I think the EFL should've insisted for P&S purposes of the Depreciated Replacement Cost of £74.4m personally. There and then- DRC feels a more reliable and measurable method than the profits one, for these kinds of transactions.
However on the price- looking at comparable stadia, capacity, region, year of setup- feels too high. Sorry but that combined with the ridiculously low rent...hell even set against one or two other suspect RPTs for P&S it comes out high!
Comparisons:
Birmingham- £22.76m- Annual rent £1.5m
Reading- £26.5m- Annual Rent £750,000
Reading Mk. 2- £37.5m- Annual Rent £1.5m
Aston Villa- £56.7m- Annual Rent £2.6m (I think). Though this has a problem with lease length arguably.
Sheffield Wednesday- £60m- Annual Rent ??- Though it is mooted as £3m per season- nice little millstone!
If any commercial revenue from non matchday flows to Derby or Sevco 5112- or is it Gellaw Newco 203 now- the EFL must revisit the rent, perhaps add in a market rent for P&S purposes.
I suspect your owner will therefore given the club own it, sell and leaseback Moor Farm next. Hopefully the EFL will shut the loophole pronto.
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:What evidence have we actually got for this apart from the oh so reliable words of a certain owner? Were there any genuinely dated emails or documentation backing this up?
DRC seems absolutely fair enough to me for this. Profits basis? Not so much! Market Rent falling by £3.06m per season- that's different approach wise!
So far, so meh...though the valuation sticks out like a sore thumb! Looks alright when £4.16m in rent is factored in.
The valuations and proposed rent are still broadly consistent...until.
Like I say not one penny of Pride Park commercial income that is non football related should flow to Derby. Running costs I assume ncluded within the rent? Interesting use and reiteration of the term 'purported' higher up.
Now this bit is farcical- clear breach of the agreement.
100 days vs no restriction on the number. Pearce Out!!
This bit is rather unusual.
Professional valuers- JLL renowned professional valuers- taking advice and implementing it from a club??
Toxic club and the sooner Pearce is removed from the EFL board the better.
Move on and forget about the stadium valuation. The EFL already has.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
EFL MUST shut that loophole or get clubs to agree in sufficient numbers, to prevent Derby- or any other club for that matter from selling and leasing back fixed assets to try and duck FFP, in Derby's case it'd be the training ground if it's possible- unsure who owns the Training Ground, whether it's club or AN Other.
Derby's current squad FWIW, as per Wikipedia.
Lacks balance in some areas yes but not bad tbh! Certainly for a club with a possible £31m FFP loss in 2018/19 and £20m spike in amortisation in 2019/20!
The training ground is owned by the club
9 hours ago, Hxj said:Well the DCFC website claims 4 goalkeepers and six defenders - and people complain about our squad - plus Rooney is a year older - even easier for someone to close him down so he passes backwards.
Regarding the squad based on the OS:
Goalkeepers: 1st choice, 2nd choice, keeper we want to loan out, U23 keeper
Defenders: 5 competing for a start, 1 ageing pro who will have limited game time, 1 U18 player
Midfielders: 1 player coming back from a year long injury and will still be out for a couple of months, 1 CB/DM cover, 2 U23 players, 6 others
Forwards: 2 are wingers, 2 are forwards25 players listed in total, with 4 of them have never kicked a ball in professional football, and a further 7 have played fewer than 100 games.
-
10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
I accept it on balance but it just sticks out like a sore thumb compared to so many other grounds- either transactions or valuation (not cost but valuation) in accounts. Albeit of varying methods- comparable , some have sponsorships which can enhance- doesn't make a lot of sense.
I wondered about that- £4.16m initally as per the valuer down to £1.1m was it- good point about over-riding dominance of DCFC lease that I'd never really considered. Zero non matchday revenue to Derby could justify it though maybe?
The shunting around of the valuation was interesting- wasn't it about £57m or something BEFORE Derby pushed back on it- why the EFL accepted the higher of £81.1m and not £74.4m feels odd too- surely the £74.4m for DRC was more reliable for such a transaction- sure the valuation company (name escapes me) had the initial DRC at quite a bit lower, maybe £58m.
Lastly, the fact is that the accounts- look at Derby 2016/17 accounts- the ground was possibly net of depreciation not materially different to valuation as per their own Accounting Policies- yet it shot up in a year to £81.1m!
I'm sure that they- and Sheffield Wednesday and possibly Aston Villa, Reading the 2nd sale would not receive on the open market the terms they did by their owners. Sure of it.
I'd hope they will!
Could they win a reprimand like Birmingham, or something to keep on the permanent/relevant FFP record I wonder?
£81.1m originally. Marked down to £74.4m to get through the P&S submissions, with view to enter further discussions at a later date. At the later date, both sides agreed to using the £81.1m figure.
9 hours ago, downendcity said:Mark Ashton here.
Do you need any midfielders - I could do deal for a job lot?
Probably the only position we don't need any players.
-
11 hours ago, Davefevs said:
Do you think that’s why they’ve sold Lowe and Bogle???
Those two being sold should mean we'll meet the 4 years to 2021 P&S limits. We were hoping to get more for Bennett and actually sell Malone and Jozefzoon, which may have meant keeping one of Lowe/Bogle.
The coronavirus impact and P&S period changing to 4 years appears to have saved us from a hefty penalty, for what would have been the 3 years to 2020. Although, if it wasn't for the extended season, we would have almost certainly sold players to stay within limits anyway.
We've got a paper thin squad now, with only 16 senior players, one of which we're doing whatever we can to offload, and another two of those having played fewer than 100 professional games. From the 16, 4 are currently injured, with 2 only just returning to the team following injuries.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
The profit is curious given the amortisation model chosen- wage bill down by £6m in 2018/19?
Changes between 17/18 and 18/19...
Wages removed: Russell (1/2 season), Palmer (1/2 loan), Vydra, Weimann, Shackell (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Blackman, Lowe (loan), Jerome (1/2 season), Martin (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Baird, Bent (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Pearce (1/2 season), Thorne (1/2 season), Butterfield (1/2 season loan), Ledley (1/2 season)
Wages added: Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Evans, Wilson, Mount, Tomori, Cole (1/2 season), King (1/2 season), Ambrose (1/2 season)4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Your own accounts state in terms of post balance sheet events- talking about the profit on disposal here. Appears on both the Derby County and Sevco 5112 accounts.
There's more about purchases in it too but not particularly interested in that. Post balance sheet I take to be between July 1st 2018 and the accounts being published- but in this instance, it could both Summer 2018 and winter 2019 windows?
Fee received-net book value is the usual formula but I guess this changes with residual value?
I guess the profit on players is the difference between mine and the official figures. Strike my £4m profit of and we're bang on the money. According to transfermarkt, Vydra, Weimann and Jerome were signed for a combined £13.5m minus a bit of amortisation them it won't be far off £12.8m. Surprised we only sold them for £11.7m when Vydra was rumoured at about £11m, Weimann at £2m and Jerome £1-1.5m.
-
1
-
Derby County
in Football Chat
Posted
He signed the extension in October when he went out on loan. Approval was withdrawn by the EFL in December.
Discussions between club, agents and EFL since January.