NottsRam77

What about the auditors regulator?
That quote is from the original decision.
I find it astonishing that the club, its auditors, their regulators and the original IDC (which included an actual accountant - imagine that!) can be under the impression it's all fine and dandy, totally in line with FRS 102. But a new panel, none of which are accountants, can apparently say it's not, and their decision is final...
Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

Hasn’t this been posted about 5 hours ago lol

This is an exercise in the EFL saving face, self justification, and placating bitter football clubs looking to do one over on each other. It is not about protecting football clubs from Portsmouth scenarios or the integrity of the competition. 
The EFL is quite happy to overlook Watford and Forest’s unique methods of circumventing FFP (switch/loan players between clubs for fee values to help their compliance with rules), not penalise the overspending of the likes Villa Bournemouth Leicester QPR Wolves, and overlook the dodgy practices of Steve Gibson and the use of his haulage company to help circumvent rules. 
 
They are choosing to follow this grotesque charade and to ruin the integrity of competition with league positions being decided by arbitration panels instead of addressing the fundamental issue, that parachute payments are creating a grossly unfair competition, creating spiralling wages and resulting in clubs needing to spend beyond their means just to compete. Much has been made of Derby’s spending, yet it’s been dwarfed by the clubs that have come down by the premier league, highlighted by the spending and wages disparity between Derby and both clubs they have lost playoff finals to. The irony of all of this is the main club fighting this - Boro - are doing it because we beat them to the playoffs. Did we have an advantage over them? No. They had a bigger budget than we did due to parachute payments!! They blew it on Assombalonga and others and failed. 
 
How are clubs without parachute payments supposed to compete. Eventually the majority of those that do try and compete will eventually come into problems unless they have luck ie. they somehow get promoted. These clubs don’t want to spend over the odds on wages, they are forced to by the parachute funded clubs that set the market rate, like Boro giving Assombalonga £50k per week.
If they try to apply FFP for the past two seasons (average of 19/20 and 20/21) as has been suggested, half the clubs will fail it, they must do, they’ve had massive revenue cuts so how can they comply? Only the clubs who are parachute funded could possibly comply.
 
We will probably be punished to make a point and then FFP will be scrapped because half the league failing it will be ridiculous. It’s not working, it’s not making clubs more sustainable. How about fixing the distribution of money in the game and introducing salary caps either on players or in line with turnover if player salary caps is too difficult,  it would be far more effective and help level things up.
But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the EFL and Derby. I’m tired. I’m tired of reading about ERVs and FRS102, I’m tired Mel’s war with the other football clubs, I’m tired of all these jokers trying to take over our football club. When can it be just about Football again?! 

 

Hasn’t this been posted about 5 hours ago lol

Hasn’t this been posted about 5 hours ago lol

Hasn’t this been posted about 5 hours ago lol

8th red flag .. he’s got a 6 pack .. I mean come on.. a football chairman with a six pack .. that ain’t right is it lol

That would be my assumption. Otherwise it would mean a panel with accountancy expertise, adjudicating on accounts that have been cleared by auditors, would give priority over their own expertise and that of auditors, to a new panel with zero accountancy expertise. That’s why I think this makes no sense. To levy a large punishment (or any punishment really) would mean accepting that their original ruling was incorrect as determined by non-experts. 

I read it that is only being referred back to the DC in order to determine what, if any punishment there should be. Not to decide if we’re guilty or not:
The Club and the EFL have agreed that the matter shall now be remitted back to the original DC who can determine what, if any, consequences arise from the partial success of the EFL’s Amortisation charge, and the Club is therefore currently unable to comment further.

Haven’t managed to read all this as it makes my brain hurt. However the bits I did read were a bit clearer when I realised DC didn’t stand for the club but for Disciplinary Committee! duh! ??

I'm glad I wasn't the only one

We look as lost off the field as we do on it, what a wonderful combination.....

They can back date our embargo over the last year, and we should be arguing that we have already lost points due to being unable to conduct transfer windows properly thanks to the EFL's 18 months of sheer incompetence dragging us through this process.

I'm getting to the point where I just want it done.
It's been 8 months since the EFL appealed. 

It’s difficult to know whether it’s good or bad in relation to each 3 year period, as we don’t know 1. what a player was actually bought/sold for (not including any add ons that you never pay/receive), and 2. what ERV’s have been given to who and when.
I think you can relatively safely suggest that every player will have a somewhat higher (than the straight line value last year norm) ERV given to them at the start, although it may be not too different for the older ones, as you’d expect a player to come in, do well and keep their value (dependent on their age at the time of purchase) otherwise why buy them. But when this changes with injuries/form, it’s difficult to calculate how much difference it has made.
Over the course of a contract or until a sale (generally 3-5 years + extensions) there is zero difference in the amount accounted for as we still have to account for it all at some point, it’s just back loading the amounts, rather than spreading them out equally.
As I understand it, any profit made from a sale firstly cancels out what is left to amortise and then what’s left after that is the profit, so when you back load with an ERV and it equals a higher value on the books it equals less profit on the books.
£4m player on a 4 year contract, sold for £4m at the beginning of Year 4.
Straight line basis:
Year 1 £1m
Year 2 £1m
Year 3 £1m
Year 4 £1m
Profit = £3m
ERV of £3m given at the start:
Year 1 £333k
Year 2 £333k
Year 3 £333k
Year 4 £3m
Profit = £1m

Not to mention that he wears make up

8th red flag .. he’s got a 6 pack .. I mean come on.. a football chairman with a six pack .. that ain’t right is it lol

8th red flag .. he’s got a 6 pack .. I mean come on.. a football chairman with a six pack .. that ain’t right is it lol

Would it mean we’re stuck with Rooney regardless good or bad ? 

Just be thankful we're not League 1's Derby County. 

Could we make an exception if Christian Fuchs takes over, please!? 
Derby County for Fuchs' sake would be too good to miss ?

They’ve got a bit of nerve considering they weren’t even in the championship when we we’re supposedly “cheating” 
stinks of desperation and trying to piggy back on the tabloids

I thought they did 

Just seen the footage of what some of u did today outside the ground 
just wow .. simply wow 
goosebumps and absolute pride watching the footage  .. I swear that helped get the lads over the line today showing how behind them we were 
was a huge effort, honestly think that gave us that little extra fight and never say die to get us over the line today 
well done every single one of u and a massive Thankyou from Nottingham ? 

Seriously where is all this talk of a points deduction come from?
Isnt the only thing being levelled at the club that they did not use the correct wording to explain the accounting policy used for amortisation?