Matchday Thread: Brizzle v Rams

[ramAnag]

FRS102 creates a template for accounts preparation and establishes the policies under which those accounts must be prepared. If our amortisation accounting policy complies with FRS102 then our accounts, prepared under "generally accepted accounting policies" (GAAP) will be fine.

Problem is, as I see it, in preparing the P&S statements on which FFP calculations are based different accounting policy rules exist - ie the numbers and rules for a P&S statement will be, legitimately, different to the GAAP rules.

By way of further example, the solvency reports for the banking and insurance industries are based on accounting valuation rules that are subtly different to GAAP.

Hence an accounting policy can comply with FRS102 but not necessarily comply with the policies applicable to specific industry solvency statements.

I don't know exactly what the EFL rules say for dealing with amortisation, but for sure they may legitimately set rules different to FRS102

Bet you wish you'd never asked now....

...and breathe! It’s another world...but I did ask.

[swaledale]

I’m not suggesting it’s ‘unique to living in Derby’, GP. I thought Wimbledon’s relocation to Milton Keynes was shockingly insensitive but I had absolutely no knowledge of or fondness for Wimbledon.

As regards my ‘moral stance’. I thought I’d made this clear but I obviously haven’t...my fault and I’ll try again.
You know perfectly well that I have never advocated tax avoidance. You also know perfectly well that I’m not making a special case for DCFC.

What I’m arguing is that it’s the temporary custodians of the club who have done wrong, not the club itself.
Legally, and please take this bit on board, I totally accept that the two cannot be separated.
I accept the need for punishment, in the same way as other clubs have been punished, and have no problem - other than a natural sadness - with the 21 point penalty.
Morally however I struggle with the concept of an individual/individuals taking over a club for six years and being able to effectively oversee its ruination.

If, as a result of certain dubious and presumably ‘illegal’ practices on the part of those individuals, we are relegated then so be it. Football fans always have to live with such a possibility.
IF, as a result of the behaviour of those individuals, 137 years of DCFC history is effectively dismantled and we have to start again then, IMO, that is a disproportionately punitive reaction which shows complete disregard for both the club and community.

rA, well I answered your query about previous owners of the club - new owners took the club on, so it remained in existence.

If someone mismanages a football club such that it ceases to be a going concern, then unless somebody else is willing to take over and fund the club and its liabilities what do you suggest happens? How can Derby County as a club continue to exist if there is nobody or no group that is willing or able to fund it? if the club isn't viable then it loses it place in the league simples.

I really don't think GP is being obtuse in avoiding this point, its just there is no practical way of meeting what your asking for.

Its not a punitive reaction, its just a legal fact. Whatever the standing of the club or indeed other company - there has after all been many a company with a hundred years of history that has been liquidated and the community in which it stands suffered due to loss of jobs and income etc.

[Andy_Faber]

rA, well I answered your query about previous owners of the club - new owners took the club on, so it remained in existence.

If someone mismanages a football club such that it ceases to be a going concern, then unless somebody else is willing to take over and fund the club and its liabilities what do you suggest happens? How can Derby County as a club continue to exist if there is nobody or no group that is willing or able to fund it? if the club isn't viable then it loses it place in the league simples.

I really don't think GP is being obtuse in avoiding this point, its just there is no practical way of meeting what your asking for.

Its not a punitive reaction, its just a legal fact. Whatever the standing of the club or indeed other company - there has after all been many a company with a hundred years of history that has been liquidated and the community in which it stands suffered due to loss of jobs and income etc.

One thing that's not been suggested yet, and may allay even rA'a fears, is that one or more of the potential buyers is willing to suffer the entire debt, HMRC, Arsenal and all, as the cost of ownership (whatever it is - 50m, 100m, whatever), and their due diligence (and therefore the delay) is all about whether the 'business' has a sustainable set of economics going forward, plus shaving whetever is possible off the purchase price.

[macstheman]

To sum up, (in accountancy speak!) Mel stays a tosser and we're still in the poo!

[Ramshank72]

Well, we were supposed to hear something this week, the uncertainty (other than Mal being a tosser) continues!

[swaledale]

One thing that's not been suggested yet, and may allay even rA'a fears, is that one or more of the potential buyers is willing to suffer the entire debt, HMRC, Arsenal and all, as the cost of ownership (whatever it is - 50m, 100m, whatever), and their due diligence (and therefore the delay) is all about whether the 'business' has a sustainable set of economics going forward, plus shaving whetever is possible off the purchase price.

Isn't that the aim of the Administrators? Obviously the name of the game is to reduce the liabilities as much as possible but in the end for a successful takeover, someone or some group have to be prepared to stump up the cash.

Which of course is where the game playing begins, so if the only offer is to meet say half the HMRC and other preferred creditors debt, will that be better for those creditors than liquidation?

For me this could run for a few more weeks yet. Not concerned though as whilst we don't want to lose players in January I don't see many incoming, would be pointless really.

[StensonRam]

I don't know how much Mel was hoping or expecting to sell the club for bearing in mind the stadium on its own was valued at 80m but in my simple mind the club should come for free if the new owner takes on and settles the debts otherwise with a £50/60million debt plus the cost to buy the club plus the cost to buy the stadium and Moor farm from Mel I can't see us being sold anytime soon

[ramAnag]

One thing that's not been suggested yet, and may allay even rA'a fears, is that one or more of the potential buyers is willing to suffer the entire debt, HMRC, Arsenal and all, as the cost of ownership (whatever it is - 50m, 100m, whatever), and their due diligence (and therefore the delay) is all about whether the 'business' has a sustainable set of economics going forward, plus shaving whetever is possible off the purchase price.

Actually I have...sort of. I suggested initially that Morris should settle the HMRC debt, because of the nature of the debt acquired on his ‘watch’.
If the ultimate debt was reduced by £28m, by someone with estimated wealth that remains in excess of £500m, then surely a sale would be more likely.

[Andy_Faber]

Actually I have...sort of. I suggested initially that Morris should settle the HMRC debt, because of the nature of the debt acquired on his ‘watch’.
If the ultimate debt was reduced by £28m, by someone with estimated wealth that remains in excess of £500m, then surely a sale would be more likely.

Yes, sort of. That would 'help' (a lot), but it MATTERS less if whoever is looking to buy has got, lets say, £500m to burn rather than £50m. And we frankly haven't got much of a clue have we. As Swale says, its a bit of a 'game', and that's not demeaning the situation, we all have an eye on a bargain and for the most part prefer (I'd hope charity apart) that our cash stayed in our own pockets not some other fellahs and we are just talking bigger numbers than we are used to

[ramAnag]

Yes, sort of. That would 'help' (a lot), but it MATTERS less if whoever is looking to buy has got, lets say, £500m to burn rather than £50m. And we frankly haven't got much of a clue have we. As Swale says, its a bit of a 'game', and that's not demeaning the situation, we all have an eye on a bargain and for the most part prefer (I'd hope charity apart) that our cash stayed in our own pockets not some other fellahs and we are just talking bigger numbers than we are used to

Yep...point taken. At least we’re all agreeing...even you and Swale.

The point Swale makes about the new lack of urgency is also sadly very true. Prior to the second points deduction there was a real need to get things sorted by the opening of the window. That has now disappeared from the point of view of ‘relegation’ having become a virtual certainty. The best it seems we can now hope for is nothing worse than starting next season in League One and hanging on to some, I doubt it will be all, of our young talent.