duncanjwitham

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

Time to quote my favourite Professor Pope bit from the DC1 written reasons again...

Although this runs it a close second...

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

Time to quote my favourite Professor Pope bit from the DC1 written reasons again...

Although this runs it a close second...

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

We still don’t know what charges the potential deductions even relate to. Are they for failing FFP in the restated accounts, not submitting those accounts on time, the other non-submitted accounts, the HMRC thing, something else?
Honestly, at this stage it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s 0 points because we haven’t failed FFP and -9 tacked on for not failing under aggravating circumstances.

We still don’t know what charges the potential deductions even relate to. Are they for failing FFP in the restated accounts, not submitting those accounts on time, the other non-submitted accounts, the HMRC thing, something else?
Honestly, at this stage it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s 0 points because we haven’t failed FFP and -9 tacked on for not failing under aggravating circumstances.

The FFP rules say you get docked up to 12 points, based on the exact amount of overspend. Up to an additional 9 points can be added on for “aggravating circumstances”, which is supposed to be for things like deliberately hiding what you’re doing, knowingly breaking the rules etc.  In our case there’s no way that should apply, because we have pages and pages of stuff from the DC written reasons about us gaining no direct sporting advantage from the amortisation policy, and having no reason to suspect what we’re doing was against the rules etc.
I was (slightly facetiously) suggesting that if we haven’t failed FFP, the EFL might try and tack the 9 points on anyway for what they construe as maliciously (not) breaking the rules.

“Legal recourse” as in “We’ll see you in court”. Sheff Wed used the EFLs own appeals process.

We still don’t know what charges the potential deductions even relate to. Are they for failing FFP in the restated accounts, not submitting those accounts on time, the other non-submitted accounts, the HMRC thing, something else?
Honestly, at this stage it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s 0 points because we haven’t failed FFP and -9 tacked on for not failing under aggravating circumstances.

We still don’t know what charges the potential deductions even relate to. Are they for failing FFP in the restated accounts, not submitting those accounts on time, the other non-submitted accounts, the HMRC thing, something else?
Honestly, at this stage it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s 0 points because we haven’t failed FFP and -9 tacked on for not failing under aggravating circumstances.

We still don’t know what charges the potential deductions even relate to. Are they for failing FFP in the restated accounts, not submitting those accounts on time, the other non-submitted accounts, the HMRC thing, something else?
Honestly, at this stage it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s 0 points because we haven’t failed FFP and -9 tacked on for not failing under aggravating circumstances.

It's also a competition-fairness thing. They don't want one club spending money on players instead of paying HMRC while everyone else is abiding by the rules.

It's also a competition-fairness thing. They don't want one club spending money on players instead of paying HMRC while everyone else is abiding by the rules.

"Separate action" is a bizarre way of describing it. It's that very landing that causes him to put his foot out to balance himself.  He lands on an unexpected and uneven surface (the Forest guys leg), of course he's going to put his foot out to right himself. 

Bogle/Lowe? That's the most recent big-money sale.

Bogle/Lowe? That's the most recent big-money sale.

I suspect we're waiting on the outcome of whatever "information" we submitted last week.  If we're still arguing with the EFL over exactly what an acceptable amortization policy is, there's no point submitting anything else and triggering off another round of charges.
I have some degree of sympathy with Morris over the amortization thing (I still don't think we've done anything majorly wrong there), and that single issue does seem to account for 3 of the 5 charges, possibly 4 if (as has been suggested) the HMRC debt is related to that somehow.  I can even understand the missed player wages, given the timing with the takeover falling through and it seemingly being remedied pretty quickly. 
There's absolutely no excuse for the missed transfer payments though, especially as it seems to have happened twice now.  If there's a genuine reason for it (not that I can think of one), then the club needs to come out quickly and explain what's going on.

Plus, you can clearly see how his momentum is carrying him over the 2 steps he takes after the 'stamp'. It's not a clear "stick his leg out to do some damage", it's just one of 4 steps in a perfectly natural motion, given what's happening to his body.

What has he done that is "dangerous" though? He's jumped up, and put his feet back on the floor afterwards.  If you ban that we'll be playing crab football.

I must admit, that was said more in hope than expectation ?