Jump to content
markg

EFL Statement

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Striggy said:

 That is not true is it?  Accountants are like Lawyers and politicians lol

 

6 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

I would suggest that their job is to make it so that non accounting people have no idea what is going on. It's why accounting fraud is so difficult to detect for starts.

 

Sorry guys but that is total Rollocks. Coming from a qualified accountant of many many years if you make people feel small and ignorant as an accountant you very quickly go out of business.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, room0035 said:

 

Sorry guys but that is total Rollocks. Coming from a qualified accountant of many many years if you make people feel small and ignorant as an accountant you very quickly go out of business.

 

 

You're a qualified accountant and speculate on figures like you do? Hmmm....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Minton said:

 

You're a qualified accountant and speculate on figures like you do? Hmmm....

But where do you get your figures from you have no grounding to say whether I am right or wrong you disagree with what I say so I am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, room0035 said:

But where do you get your figures from you have no grounding to say whether I am right or wrong you disagree with what I say so I am wrong.

 

You’re not an accountant.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toppOwl said:

 

You've made some decent points on this thread but can I ask how you've arrived at these figures, DC said no player was more than £35k a week.

I agree. Also don't think we paid £10m for Rhodes. I believe this would have been the figure with add-on and sell-on clauses. I think it was closer to £6m.

 

The reported wages paid, I imagine will be with bonuses - at least with the higher earners at the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chansiri's second season was the one that derailed the train.

Daft money spent buying up players like he was collecting Pokémon.

If anything he should've spent MORE on a few ridiculously too-good-for-this-league players like Wolves did.

I blame Paxo for this.

Think he'll have made a stinking fortune from us.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jp1981 said:

I agree. Also don't think we paid £10m for Rhodes. I believe this would have been the figure with add-on and sell-on clauses. I think it was closer to £6m.

 

The reported wages paid, I imagine will be with bonuses - at least with the higher earners at the club.

 

I heard from a local journalist that the total was nearer £8m all in so your £6m is probably about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Horse said:

Chansiri's second season was the one that derailed the train.

Daft money spent buying up players like he was collecting Pokémon.

If anything he should've spent MORE on a few ridiculously too-good-for-this-league players like Wolves did.

I blame Paxo for this.

Think he'll have made a stinking fortune from us.

 

I fully agree, we had a good team that needed 3-4 key signings to go all out for promotion, our purchases in that close season were scattershot at best.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

 

I fully agree, we had a good team that needed 3-4 key signings to go all out for promotion, our purchases in that close season were scattershot at best.


That summers business was summed up perfectly by Pudil’s signing. 
 

Integral part of the team from the season before and we waited until the last minute thinking we’d get someone better.  By the time he arrived he’d had no preseason, and was training in his local park off the back of being at the Euros. No surprise it took 3 months for him to show any sort of form.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand a lot of the points being made here, but what we did by having a financial roll of the dice to get in the PL has been done many many times over and worked, also not worked in equal measure. Chansiri made it clear when he came he wanted us in the PL ASAP.  So he was always going to go for it. Give Hooper a box here, get Lopez there, Put new pitch down, get new screen, 1st season, close no cigar. Ok go for it spend spend spend, Abdi, Van Aken, Rhodes, etc. It didn't work. Chansiri unfortunately was being advised of the wrong signings. But we came close, twice. So the after effect of this was always going to be a fine, points deduction etc. It has happened to nearly every team in the championship it feels like now.

 

What i am saying is that when the football league has 92 teams, and the top 20 of that own pretty much all the money, then some of the 72 might, when given the opportunity, go for it to try get up. Leicester, Villa, Wolves, Bournemouth did this model and lucky for them made it up to the safety of the PL. If you are left in the championship after your gamble then yes it will be hard. If the stadium sale was too late to be accounted in those years and therefore we get hit by a fine or points deduction then so be it. The real issue in football is that the 72 behind the top 20 are dying. You can't have all the money at the top and expect the 72 to survive. So the answer?? The system will not change because the EFL and PL are doing different strategies, to ensure our future we need to either accept mediocre and follow EFL rules and hope we somehow beat the money teams (unlikely), or go for broke and try get on the PL gravy boat and hope we can stay in the PL, maybe if it doesn't work end up in L1 by being deducted 20 points or something.

 

Until the PL bubble bursts, points deductions, fines and teams going bust will continue. I just hope the TV rights bubble does go and the world watches netflix instead of the PL, then maybe football can get back to being normal again, but i sense it will never happen

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, room0035 said:

I know - but good accountants are able to change the terms so people not of the accounting world can understand. 

 

Look believe what you want it law is very clear and as long as we have followed everything we have nothing to worry about - but equally the EFL would not be bringing charges against us if they did not feel there were grey areas to the sale of the ground.

Think this is a case of the EFL have to be seen to be doing something following Bury and Bolton. Bit if a saving face, so sure they will try hard to find something. Can't believe that we don't have our bases covered with accountants etc. Might be the upshot is that EFL find a minor infringement of the rules give us a token fine and can look as if they are the arbiters of the game. We carry on our merry way to the PL come May.  

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2019 at 18:00, mkowl said:

 

Be ruddy annoying otherwise - and unlike others, I do not consider that the EFL can make their own rules up when it comes to the accounts. If the accounts have been prepared in accordance with accounting standards then that is the end of that test. 

Surely we were put under the soft embargo whilst the accounts were being generated. They were signed off and accepted by the EFL. So the only thing being investigated is the sale of the ground. If the valuation was done by a surveyor that again should be the end of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Harrysgame said:

Think this is a case of the EFL have to be seen to be doing something following Bury and Bolton. Bit if a saving face, so sure they will try hard to find something. Can't believe that we don't have our bases covered with accountants etc. Might be the upshot is that EFL find a minor infringement of the rules give us a token fine and can look as if they are the arbiters of the game. We carry on our merry way to the PL come May.  

Which is what they did pretty much when Leicester flaunted the rules and started all this FFP crap IIRC. They've gone bust that many times it difficult to remember

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, room0035 said:

 

 

Sorry guys but that is total Rollocks. Coming from a qualified accountant of many many years if you make people feel small and ignorant as an accountant you very quickly go out of business.

 

 

 

 

The Sid James smiley may have been a give away, but hey ho :biggrin: Let the Accountants work their magic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darra said:

Surely we were put under the soft embargo whilst the accounts were being generated. They were signed off and accepted by the EFL. So the only thing being investigated is the sale of the ground. If the valuation was done by a surveyor that again should be the end of it. 

 

The question is whether they were signed off and agreed at that time. I know it's not the same but with the taxman you file and they basically have 12 months to pull your trousers down.

 

The process with the EFL is not in the public domain as far as I know.

 

Out of interest the EFL are apparently looking for a financial reporting manager. Might apply 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Minton said:

 

I would suggest that their job is to make it so that non accounting people have no idea what is going on. It's why accounting fraud is so difficult to detect for starts.

My clients will testify I do a good job in respect of the first sentence !

 

In terms of the discussion you were having, it is certainly feasible that the transaction was correctly shown as at 31st July 2018. The evidence in the public domain eg Land Registry possibly contradicts that but it's not the key piece of evidence in all of this. That will be the contract between SWFC Limited and AN Other. The fact the ultimate legal entity that acquired this did not exist is again not necessarily relevant. It is totally legally possible to novate a signed contract from the original person well after the event. 

 

The basic issue is that the key piece of evidence that is relevant for accounting purposes is not in the public domain. So we can hypothesise and nothing more

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a danger we are over thinking this. Only a very small handful of clubs have fallen foul of the FFP issues. We appear to be one of them. 

 

If it were Leeds, Pigs etc, we’d be expecting the book to be thrown at them. 

 

With Wednesday, a bit like under Milan, my sympathy tank has run dry. The way we threw stupid money around, on a variety of stupid transfers means we actually deserve all we get. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vulva said:

There is a danger we are over thinking this. Only a very small handful of clubs have fallen foul of the FFP issues. We appear to be one of them. 

 

If it were Leeds, Pigs etc, we’d be expecting the book to be thrown at them. 

 

With Wednesday, a bit like under Milan, my sympathy tank has run dry. The way we threw stupid money around, on a variety of stupid transfers means we actually deserve all we get. 

Indeed.

Like I said previous, if this was happening to a promotion rival we would be up in arms about it and spouting " throw the book at em"

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bulgaria said:

Indeed.

Like I said previous, if this was happening to a promotion rival we would be up in arms about it and spouting " throw the book at em"

I just hope this is not hanging over us until the end of the season - just get it done and if we have done something wrong punish us, but none of this wait till the end of the season when we cannot do anything about it.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Striggy said:

 

Not referring to any of that, just that people jump on the ground sale spouting all sorts of things, but ignore the professional posters on here that explain that this can be done in accordance with normal accountancy standards.  Bending rules? Maybe? But no evidence to suggest that he is lying about "selling" the ground, or lying about when the transaction took place.

As an accountant I would say that we can only assume that the evidences regarding the ground sale that isn't in the public domain explains why it was booked in 17/18 because the information that is known would seem to point the other way.

Edited by kobayashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...