duncanjwitham

Like the one on the DC? A 30+ year experienced forensic accountant?

Like the one on the DC? A 30+ year experienced forensic accountant?

So the interesting question becomes, assuming we have a rich new owner of course, would we actually be better off taking the 3 additional points and having a big splurge and signing some better players... 

Cool. So we have to beg if we want to use the same rules that Stoke have used then? Parts iv and v are interesting too...

If I'm reading the rules right, they can still be subs, they just can't start another game ?

It’d have to be agreed with the player being subbed off, but I’d love it if Wayne made a sub to bring one of the youngsters on after a few seconds.
I know we might end up having to play with less players if we get injuries during the game, but it would certainly make a clear point, especially if it was a TV game, and would be within the rules as they’ve been presented in that document.

I read it the same as you.  And the new rules make no mention of the staffing up if under the limit, it's very much a hard cap of 25. So I think this new rule actively bans us from playing academy lads in the first team (they can only start 2 games), whereas the previous ones didn't.

Oh look, it's "invent a weird new amortization policy and accuse Derby of doing it" day again:
"However, Derby gave players a 'residual value' - meaning that the club could increase the value of players during the life of the contract - a practice which it was claimed was not in line with generally accepted accounting principles."
Just no. Literally every word of that is wrong.

Oh look, it's "invent a weird new amortization policy and accuse Derby of doing it" day again:
"However, Derby gave players a 'residual value' - meaning that the club could increase the value of players during the life of the contract - a practice which it was claimed was not in line with generally accepted accounting principles."
Just no. Literally every word of that is wrong.

So the interesting question becomes, assuming we have a rich new owner of course, would we actually be better off taking the 3 additional points and having a big splurge and signing some better players... 

So the interesting question becomes, assuming we have a rich new owner of course, would we actually be better off taking the 3 additional points and having a big splurge and signing some better players... 

He works for the EFL.

I’d assume the point of ratification is to avoid any potential accusations of collusion/impropriety etc - e.g. if Derby still had a member on the EFL board and they agreed a decision with us etc etc. I suspect it’s very unlikely there would be any issues with a decision in our case.

Part of having an expert witness provide evidence is the the jury (or panel of judges in this case) decide on the competence of the witness.  You can't just have someone rock up and claim to be an expert and then be required by law to take it on faith that they are. The 3 judges on the panel clearly listened to Prof Pope's evidence and decided he was unfit to be an expert witness - there are repeated statements in their written report about him being unaware of the very rules he was giving evidence on, him not understanding his actual role as an expert witness and generally not being at all useful.  It's quite frankly bizarre that that would all be ignored by the appeals panels.
Obviously we should have presented our own expert witness, but I do wonder if we thought the point we lost on was so self-evident that we didn't actually need to prove it was true. We basically lost because the EFL argued that when FRS102 says "from use and disposal" it actually only allows "from use" and the other 2 words are entirely superfluous.  If you're going argue that words don't mean the things they mean, then we'd still be there now arguing over every word in the dictionary.

Part of having an expert witness provide evidence is the the jury (or panel of judges in this case) decide on the competence of the witness.  You can't just have someone rock up and claim to be an expert and then be required by law to take it on faith that they are. The 3 judges on the panel clearly listened to Prof Pope's evidence and decided he was unfit to be an expert witness - there are repeated statements in their written report about him being unaware of the very rules he was giving evidence on, him not understanding his actual role as an expert witness and generally not being at all useful.  It's quite frankly bizarre that that would all be ignored by the appeals panels.
Obviously we should have presented our own expert witness, but I do wonder if we thought the point we lost on was so self-evident that we didn't actually need to prove it was true. We basically lost because the EFL argued that when FRS102 says "from use and disposal" it actually only allows "from use" and the other 2 words are entirely superfluous.  If you're going argue that words don't mean the things they mean, then we'd still be there now arguing over every word in the dictionary.

Part of having an expert witness provide evidence is the the jury (or panel of judges in this case) decide on the competence of the witness.  You can't just have someone rock up and claim to be an expert and then be required by law to take it on faith that they are. The 3 judges on the panel clearly listened to Prof Pope's evidence and decided he was unfit to be an expert witness - there are repeated statements in their written report about him being unaware of the very rules he was giving evidence on, him not understanding his actual role as an expert witness and generally not being at all useful.  It's quite frankly bizarre that that would all be ignored by the appeals panels.
Obviously we should have presented our own expert witness, but I do wonder if we thought the point we lost on was so self-evident that we didn't actually need to prove it was true. We basically lost because the EFL argued that when FRS102 says "from use and disposal" it actually only allows "from use" and the other 2 words are entirely superfluous.  If you're going argue that words don't mean the things they mean, then we'd still be there now arguing over every word in the dictionary.

Part of having an expert witness provide evidence is the the jury (or panel of judges in this case) decide on the competence of the witness.  You can't just have someone rock up and claim to be an expert and then be required by law to take it on faith that they are. The 3 judges on the panel clearly listened to Prof Pope's evidence and decided he was unfit to be an expert witness - there are repeated statements in their written report about him being unaware of the very rules he was giving evidence on, him not understanding his actual role as an expert witness and generally not being at all useful.  It's quite frankly bizarre that that would all be ignored by the appeals panels.
Obviously we should have presented our own expert witness, but I do wonder if we thought the point we lost on was so self-evident that we didn't actually need to prove it was true. We basically lost because the EFL argued that when FRS102 says "from use and disposal" it actually only allows "from use" and the other 2 words are entirely superfluous.  If you're going argue that words don't mean the things they mean, then we'd still be there now arguing over every word in the dictionary.

I agree with what you say but the original question was why the appeal panel hadn't mentioned  ICAEW, I was attempting to answer this. They didn't reexamine the evidence just looked at the procedure followed and decided there was an error in law.

Part of having an expert witness provide evidence is the the jury (or panel of judges in this case) decide on the competence of the witness.  You can't just have someone rock up and claim to be an expert and then be required by law to take it on faith that they are. The 3 judges on the panel clearly listened to Prof Pope's evidence and decided he was unfit to be an expert witness - there are repeated statements in their written report about him being unaware of the very rules he was giving evidence on, him not understanding his actual role as an expert witness and generally not being at all useful.  It's quite frankly bizarre that that would all be ignored by the appeals panels.
Obviously we should have presented our own expert witness, but I do wonder if we thought the point we lost on was so self-evident that we didn't actually need to prove it was true. We basically lost because the EFL argued that when FRS102 says "from use and disposal" it actually only allows "from use" and the other 2 words are entirely superfluous.  If you're going argue that words don't mean the things they mean, then we'd still be there now arguing over every word in the dictionary.

Sadly, the forum's slowly but surely going to the dogs. Just a joyless, humourless pile-on, with the same folk posting the same stuff day after day with anyone trying to be remotely upbeat soon set upon by the know-all, mithering, man-baby, moodhoovers. I guess being 'right' trumps actually supporting the club when it needs it most, in the minds of some anyway.
Thankfully the lads doing the heavy lifting are still putting in a shift on the pitch, even if the performances are a little uneven. They've certainly not given up, even if half the 'supporters' on here have. What any of the players reading this forum would make of it, God only knows. It's hardly inspirational! ?

Cheers everyone ?

The EFL told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - George Orwell, 1884.

I don't *think* so. Wasn't their second tribunal a result of them not complying with the agreed business plan arising from the first tribunal?  So it was a new charge, not a re-run of the first one?
So obviously we could get charged again if there's an issue with our restated accounts etc, but I don't think there's anyway they can revisit the original sale of Pride Park.

I don't *think* so. Wasn't their second tribunal a result of them not complying with the agreed business plan arising from the first tribunal?  So it was a new charge, not a re-run of the first one?
So obviously we could get charged again if there's an issue with our restated accounts etc, but I don't think there's anyway they can revisit the original sale of Pride Park.

I don't see what the EFL can actually complain about though (I'm not an expert etc).  Buying back the stadium is going to make no difference to our current and future FFP bottom line (£Xm in cash will go out and an £Xm-valued asset will appear on the books, so there's no change there).  The reason we *had* to sell for the independently-valued price was because it was a non-arms-length transaction (i.e. Mel Morris was on both ends of the deal) - that no longer applies as Morris will have no involvement in the club going forward.  So we can pay whatever we like, providing Morris is willing to sell it for that.  There's no requirement to sell at market value any more. 
The value we sold it at previously has already been signed-off by the EFL's tribunal process.  They've literally already been through the process of having that transaction challenged and it was found in our favour.  Whatever their predilection for revisiting decisions, they can't just re-run tribunals until they get the result they want.