Matchday Thread: Brizzle v Rams

[ramAnag]

GP will probably say shut up I'm wrong but IMO you're (again) confusing a statement/forecast with an opinion. I read GP's post as an accurate and probably experience-led reflection of the cold-hearted ways of business.

I feel certain he wouldn’t...and I don’t think I’ve ever suggested otherwise.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve accepted that he particularly, alongside both you and Swale, know more about the business/economic aspects of things than most on here...not least me.
Within the context of this and other debates, however, GP has often shown a reluctance/inability to accept the moral aspect of most arguments, and as someone with no connection to the area, other than a longstanding and long distance support for the Rams, he perhaps cannot be expected to appreciate the impact on the city and surrounding area.
That’s not a ‘dig’ at anyone. It’s just how it seems to be.

P.S. MA, did you mean ‘in the direction of the fan’...or the ‘fans’?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Shut up Andy...

RA I entirely understand the community aspect of your argument, but don't understand why it's unique to living in Derby. I had a close encounter with exactly this as a former resident of Wimbledon.

Unfortunately I also recognise the futility of the community argument.

As to your moral stance, I am, I freely admit, perplexed. Are you suggesting there is a moral argument supporting avoidance of paying tax legally and morally due in order to advantage a minority group of football fans? If so why is all other tax avoidance so repellent to you? Or do morals change the closer to home they get?

[ramAnag]

Shut up Andy...

RA I entirely understand the community aspect of your argument, but don't understand why it's unique to living in Derby. I had a close encounter with exactly this as a former resident of Wimbledon.

Unfortunately I also recognise the futility of the community argument.

As to your moral stance, I am, I freely admit, perplexed. Are you suggesting there is a moral argument supporting avoidance of paying tax legally and morally due in order to advantage a minority group of football fans? If so why is all other tax avoidance so repellent to you? Or do morals change the closer to home they get?

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.

[MadAmster]

The amortisation methodology used is legal according to FRS102. It is, however (apparently), against the "spirit" of an EFL rule, they found that the method, or one part of it anyway, could have been explained better. That is the technicality that saw us fined 100 grand and forced to resubmit the accounts using linear depreciation. That saw us break FFP in something like 4 of 5 seasons. That led to the extra 9 points deduction.

So, it would appear that EFL rules trump UK Law. Does that mean that I could commit murder and get away with it under EFL rules because they don't forbid killing?

[Ramshank72]

The amortisation methodology used is legal according to FRS102. It is, however (apparently), against the "spirit" of an EFL rule, they found that the method, or one part of it anyway, could have been explained better. That is the technicality that saw us fined 100 grand and forced to resubmit the accounts using linear depreciation. That saw us break FFP in something like 4 of 5 seasons. That led to the extra 9 points deduction.

So, it would appear that EFL rules trump UK Law. Does that mean that I could commit murder and get away with it under EFL rules because they don't forbid killing?

They'd sanction it, then change their minds when Steve Gibson decides it's a bloke he once saw crossing the road and therefore a personal loss.

[Geoff Parkstone]

rA "that is a disproportionately punitive reaction which shows complete disregard for both the club and community."

The point you are missing is that the destruction of 137 years of history etc is not a punitive reaction by the EFL or in fact anyone, it is simply a direct consequence of financial screw ups. It's not a punishment handed out, the points deductions are almost irrelevant. If the club can't pay its debts, then it's all over whichever division we are in.

That in 6 years a regime could potentially destroy 137 years of history is a disgrace, but not a punishment.

[StensonRam]

I wonder if Mel inherited some of the HMRC debt from GSE or was it all accumulated under his watch?

[ramAnag]

That in 6 years a regime could potentially destroy 137 years of history is a disgrace...

Let’s just agree on that bit. To quote our moderator...you’ve ‘worn me out’.

Wearing your accountants hat...what do you make of MA’s earlier comment? If it’s legal according to FRS and only against the ‘spirit of EFL rules’ does that make a difference?

[Geoff Parkstone]

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....

[Andy_Faber]

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....

EXACTLY why I resigned my professional accounting body membership in 2017!

Remember rA, there are only three types of accountants, those who can count and those who can't