Spanish

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes but we have had our punishment for the previously submitted accounts.

If the restated accounts don't comply, which I'm sure is very simple to calculate, then they should charge us with breaching P&S rules.

So the old ones don’t comply 

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Where have they said our accounts don't comply?

Aren’t we restating them?

6 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

I guess the only people who could stand to benefit from us receiving a points deduction would be this year's Championship relegation contenders, not that anything we're supposed to have done has had any discernible impact on their own fortunes.

A bit like how it was going to be Wycombe who'd have benefited had the disciplinary panel chosen to deduct points from last season's tally, even though they were playing in League One at the time of our supposed discretions.

It's mad really - punish us for some perceived wrongdoing that (realistically) didn't negatively impact anyone else, first by giving every other team in the league an advantage over us with the transfer embargo (even another team they can prove have spent £54m more than they were allowed!) and then further punishing us with a 9 point deduction.

It's not just mad, it's totally insane and there's no justification for it.

 

   in reality P&S will never be effective in the year of breach.   Boro claim to have missed out but the punishment does them little good really 

8 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Its disingenuous in that you were stating two hours earlier that there was no advantage gained by the club to @Wolfie. Now you are agreeing there was competitive advantage from the change of policy.  What do you think a professional football club might most want to be be obtaining - competitive or financial advantage? ?

I may be wrong with the dates, I dont know for certain, and really cant be arsed to look back at dates involving ground sale, and the running down of said players contracts to nil. (It would have been around the same time I guess that Morris was telling fans at group events that they could all do their bit to improve income and make sure we stay within FFP limits, although he had at the time already  completed the stadium transaction).  Anyway, the stadium sale I would suggest was forced upon Morris as the only 'clever' way to cover the big losses that had been deferred on player values.  

 

DC1

The Club responded on 25 April 2018, enclosing a revised P&S Appendix 1 Form That revised P&S Appendix 1 Form recorded

a) A loss before tax for T-2 (year to 30 June 2016) of £14,725,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£15,271,000)17 b) A loss before tax for T-1 (year to 30 June 2017) of £7,873,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£4,686,000) c) A forecast loss before tax for T (year to 30 June 2018) of £27,445,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£23,970,000) The Club’s actual/forecast aggregated loss before tax for T, T-1 and T-2 was thus still £50,043,000, but its actual/forecast Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 had become (-£43,927,000). That aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax had thus become a figure in excess of the LLT and the ULT

70) On 4 May 2018 the EFL wrote to the Club a) With further queries about its P&S Information, and b) To advise that, since the revised P&S Appendix 1 Form showed a breach of the P&S Requirement (because the aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax exceeded the ULT), the Club would be placed under a registration embargo pursuant to EFL Regulation 16.20. 71) The Club continued to address the EFL’s queries. It also began to consider what steps it might take before the end of the year ended 30 June 2018 (i.e. T) to avoid breaching the aggregate ULT for T, T-1 and T-2. The steps that it took comprised 2 strands: a) It began to negotiate to sell players to other clubs b) It decided in principle to sell Pride Park to Mr Morris. As we have set above, Mr Morris was by that time already interested in developing Pride Park as a ‘stand-alone’ venture.

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

But to counterbalance that, from DC2:

It carries on further but you get the idea. So the description was misleading, but it's not like it was utterly incorrect.  The big picture was right, it was the details that were ambiguous.  We weren't trying to claim we were using straight-line when we weren't or anything remotely like that.

But certainly there have been massive mistakes made by us, the lack of documentary evidence for calculating the player values being another one. And that's what makes it so frustrating.  If we had just kept better records and found an accountant to say what were doing is fine, this mess would probably have ended months ago.

I think we got a very fair hearing from DC1 and more supportive than I expected.  They drew no negative conclusions from the lack of evidence retained by he club.  I do wonder why our auditors did not ask to review this material.  Throughout this I have believed they were very culpable and I am surprised that the club is not suing their PI

1 minute ago, EnigmaRam said:

Sooooo does anyone actually know what the potential points deductions are for?

potentially 

1 for breaching P&S using an acceptable method of amortisation

2 depending on 1, for being underhand

Hopefully a total of 0

8 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

To me, DC2 reads very much to me like they know the LAP are wrong, but they just can't do anything about it. 

I suppose it's telling that DC2 doesn't seem to specify how we restate the accounts, only that we have to (and they must be FRS102 compliant). You could argue that if they had decided that straight-line was the only acceptable way, they would have mandated it in the ruling.

they have very much said that they only want to review the charges not the result of any proven charges, hence the demand to restate.  I presume that don't want to get into they matter of what is compliant if they don't have to.  We will see but I suspect that this will not end up back with DC.  

9 minutes ago, angieram said:

 

Now there's nothing in the rules to stop us using our method of amortisation either. So the EFL relied on at appeal an interpretation of the rules by an 'expert' who isn't an accountant but who they had brought in to specifically question the ruling of the first panel, which disagreed with the EFL's view of something which they didn't even know about until it was pointed out to them! 

I suppose I am not being right minded but ah well;

Peter F. Pope is Professor of Accounting at Università Bocconi and Emeritus Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His research focuses on capital markets and international equity valuation, with particular reference to the role of fundamentals in pricing and the analysis of securities risk. He has published extensively in leading journals including The Journal of Finance, Journal of Banking and Finance, The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies and Contemporary Accounting Research, and in many other international accounting and finance journals. His main teaching interests lie at the interface between accounting and finance. He has served as the Academic Coordinator of the Institute of Quantitative Investment Research since 1991 and is a consultant to a number of firms in the investment management industry. He holds PhD and MA degrees awarded by Lancaster University and a BSc from Liverpool University; he is also a qualified accountant (FCMA).

6 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm not actually sure of the exact process, but my take on it was basically they read the written reasons and pointed to the bits where they thought the DC had screwed up and that's pretty much it. It certainly wasn't a full hearing with witnesses, and definitely with no new evidence. I think the club and EFL may have made submissions too, but I'm not even sure if they were present for the hearing, or just submitted in writing.  The only thing they had to go on to judge Pope's credibility was what was documented at the time - in the written reasons, and I suppose possibly in other notes etc (not sure on that bit).

And yeah, the lack of our own expert witness was mentioned both in DC1 and the LAP, IIRC.  Maybe hindsight's a wonderful thing, but it certainly seems like a massive mistake, of our own making, now.

that and this from DC1, damned with your own evidence

Mr Pearce and Mr Delve described the Notes in the Club’s financial statements as (1) Being ‘… arguably ambiguous and could lead a reader to interpret the Club’s policy in an incorrect way’ (Mr Delve), and (2) Using ‘possibly slightly misleading terminology …’ (Mr Pearce)

29 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Exactly. And the DC found that our method was both systematic and reliable. The EFL appealed over those too, and the LAP found no reason to overturn them.  So as far as the EFL's disciplinary process goes, we have a reliable way to determine the way we expect use those economic benefits.  We're just not allowed to use it because... erm... ?‍♂️

DC2 is an odd read.  The best I can surmise is the breach is the impermissible use of resale values in amortisation calculations.   I am not sure how we can put in restated accounts which include an element of this if that is the case 

30 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Well at least one of them was, by design. The rules say at least one of the DC members must be an accountant for matters like this.  

Although us not providing our own expert witness is ultimately the reason we lost IMO.  And it's a mistake entirely of our own making.

It's interesting - the LAP written reasons explicitly state that the evidence of our accountants and auditors can't be classed as "expert evidence" because they were called as factual witnesses, not experts. And because of that, it did not give the DC the chance to examine their qualifications and experience and decide whether they were worthy of taking into account. But the exact same applies to Pope - they did have chance to examine his qualifications and experience and found them lacking, so disregarded him.  The LAP didn't get to speak to Pope or cross-examine him, they are entirely going by documents arising from the first hearing.  So they've taken the quotes I posted earlier and basically decided the fact he was unaware of the rules he was being an expert on, didn't actually matter ?‍♂️.

good points as usual.  I interpreted that they didn't cross examine him because no new evidence is allowed in an appeal?

the lack of our own expert witness was picked up by LAP wasn't it?

6 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

You don't have to gain an advantage,only seen to take an advantage.

sorry don't understand, if we take an advantage we are not gaining one?

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Of course being a Professor holds kudos but it should not mask the fact that what he said is wrong.

so I should rely upon some bloke on the internet rather than a professor?

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

What we did wasn't specified in the rules. We asked the EFL and we were allowed to do it. 

sorry Roy this is wrong and you will have read it previously.

the rules are accountancy rules not EFL's, there's no point banging on about EFL rules.

when contacted the EFL believed that they had no right to challenge it because the case made by the club said it was compliant, that's all in DC1.  The EFL trusted the club.

we never got to stage where we used that as defence though which is a pity

6 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Riiiiight, so it's purely coincidental that the other 72 clubs do it the other way.

Believe the club spin if you like. I've made my point.

If we gained no advantaged though why TF has this torture been endured.  It makes no sense to me at all.  We chose an alternative unique method and we gained no advantage?????

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Where have I shown him a lack of respect? 

I couldn't care less if he is a Professor or the king, what he said was wrong and pretty much everyone educated in the matter appeared to agree on that.

Having worked as an accountant/auditor for 23 years I would like to think I do have a bit of an idea what I am talking about and to be honest could not care less how much respect you show to either me as an individual or my opinion. 

If you think I'm wrong by all means tell me why but just saying Mr Pope is a professor does not hold much weight in the debate I'm afraid.

can't pluck up the courage to look at the Covid thread but I do think perhaps being a professor has some kudos and you may hold that view in other debates. 

We are here because the EFL decided that standard accountancy rules should prevail, I can't argue with that and I dare say it sounded perfect when they decided on that when the rules were set.  Certainly better than creating your own rules you would think.  The EFL have only one rule on P&S (it must meet accountancy standards) and they do not sign off the accounts contrary to some opinions.

However, the interpretation of the standard rules has thrown a spanner in the works.  The LAP think the professor is right and the club's auditor disagrees.  If the club and EFL do not agree in an outcome I fear it will end up in the High Court.

30 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

They did that. Just look at the quotes I posted on the previous page. 

the response was to the laughed at comments.  What did the LAP think of the prof?

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

His evidence pretty much got laughed at by the IDC.

Which was a mistake, if they had reviewed it then justified why it was not appropriate, then the appeal may have fallen short.  He is a professor after all, you may not agree with him but show him some respect.  You clearly believe you know better than him though so perhaps I should show you the same amount of respect 

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

And what expertise did the LAP call upon when making this decision?

Because the IDC, that used accounting/auditing experts views concluded differently. 

I can categorically state that the method used IS in accordance with FRS.

Whether it is being applied correctly is a different matter.

Amortisation is an accounting estimate but if them estimates are not giving a true and fair view there will be indicators that show the auditors that the estimates are not reasonable. In this instance we would be making big losses every time a player was sold.

Of course many of our players ran their contacts down so it is hard ro say whether amortisation is correctly spread across their contracts.

Professor Pope

6 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

It says there were a group of supporters insulting each other .  Lesson 1.  Don't get involved if your not with a group you don't know, if it turns properly nasty you might be on your own.  Most upsetting thing that he was with a group of Derby supporters who let him get dragged of a train by one bloke. Bunch of fannys.  As for Leeds -3 on 1 - not surprised . **** *** supporters

not sure the newer generations had the 'up bringing' that we had to experience.  It is all very good until you meet this sort of trouble which I think in the main is quite rare thankfully.  I am sure we are no longer a warrior nation

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Group of middle-aged melts drag a kid off a train for taunting them over the play-off win. Kid is beaten, punched to the floor and then kicked and stomped. Judge describes the attack as 'fairly sustained' yet hands down only suspended sentences. Fines of £300 to £500 but no mention of restitution to the victim. No mention of bans from attending games either - incident occurred after two separate matches. 

Justice served? Not even close IMO. 

Two of the absolute toilets shown below - Ian Greener aged 47 (left) and Dean Wilson aged 37 (right)

 

Full article here: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/Derby-news/leeds-united-hooligans-drag-Derby-5882886

 

well this is odd.  some46 years ago coming back from Leeds, the 4 of us were attacked on the train whilst in the station.  We made out to be train spotters, god we were desperate.  They said they would wait until the train was moving then throw us off.  One of my mates broke and started screaming from the little window in the carriage, all hell broke loose, he got a knife in the back which fortunately went through his jacket and not him.  One of them was caught and sentenced to 1 year I remember his name but it is not one of those barstewards.

if you lived through those times you really didn't go looking for trouble and there is no thing as bantz.  Even now when I go to what is a much more safe environment for football the radar is on.

10 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

This is one of our longest stints or even the longest stint we’ve had in the second tier in our history. If it isn’t the longest then it’s second only to the 1950s/1960s. We’ve only been in the third division 5 seasons in our entire history.

I would say we are underperforming.

The issue is we are underperforming at the worst possible time as the last 10 years has seen huge money roll into the top division that is being unfairly distributed, therefore this 10 years might reset the status quo for the future of Football, and clubs like Burnley Brighton Watford Norwich Fulham Bournemouth Palace Brentford regularly compete for the Premier League and we become irrelevant as regards the top level.

That and being perennial bridesmaids.  I don’t think you can maintain the level of effort to get in the top 6 so frequently without it damaging the squad.  There is never a reset a quieter time at the end of the season to reflect on the next.  Try hard, miss out, go on hols, come back, start again, sometimes sack manager.

8 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

It’s genetics really. Fast twitch muscle fibers. Aside from being footballers, many are athletic enough they could compete in other sporte as well.

I have a friend who does all that parkour stuff. He didn’t train for it at all and can naturally do backflips and all that. His dad was a gymnast, so good genes.

A test of muscle fibers is to just do a standing jump, two feet, to see how high you can go. Some can naturally jump 1.5m+ whereas others can barely jump the sofa.

Of course you can learn gymnastics from a young age and it may take years to get there. For others, genetically gifted, it’s natural.

Just like sprint speed.

Jump over the sofa? Barely? Quite a few would need a lot of practice to do that.  Some can’t even get off the sofa?

yep genes are key, I’ve always been a sprinter and still run internationally at over 60.  Some of the ex Olympians can still outrun the vast majority of men 40 years younger.

being professional footballers will mean they will practice their celebrations though.  Not sure ours bother with it, so unlikely

14 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

This is true. 

I was invited to the Chelsea v Derby match in 97 by my season ticket holding mate. 

We sat in the east stand middle tier, above and further along the side of the pitch to the away fans. 

When ace whacked in the free kick I just couldn't help myself.....off my seat, both arms in the air, "woooaaahhhhyyyessss". 

 

The silence was deafening. 

 

Thankfully, unlike 1983, good humor was restored as the blues rattled three goals in and won the day, so I got some indulgent pats on the back rather than flying Doc's.......?

I was at Maine road for franny’s goal and there was no choice all I could think of it was probably worth potential death  

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

Back in the 70s, being in the 'away' end (if there even was one), or being a fan who just wanted to follow his/her team, was no guarantee of avoiding trouble. The home team's mob weren't always picky about which opposing supporter they clumped or threw a brick/bottle/dart at. You had to keep your wits about you and planning was a big part of avoiding a kicking. You also had to be able to trust who you went with : no big mouths attracting the wrong kind of attention, but also mates you knew wouldn't leave you stranded if things got a bit threatening. 

You also had the added problem we tended to win away games because we were good.  All the intentions of sitting quietly regularly evaporated