duncanjwitham

They're separate things. The items on the EFL embargo tracker are to do with the 18/19 and 19/20 accounts that we haven't submitted yet. The extended deadline was for the restated 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18 accounts.  Still not good obviously,  but we haven't necessarily missed the (extended) deadline imposed by the DC.

I take it you've never stumbled before. Instinct means you put your un-planted foot to the ground as quickly as possible.
The clue as to whether it's a stamp or not is with the foot coming back up, not going down. With an accidental step the instinct also kicks in and the foot is pulled up a lot quicker than a stamp, where the foot becomes planted.

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.

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

I’ve been Googling for a few minutes to try and figure this out. There’s definitely a process for amending accounts at companies house, but it looks to me (not an expert etc…) like you can only do it if the company director believes the original accounts were non-compliant with the Companies Act, and then you probably need to get them re-audited, with statements from the auditors about the compliance issues being corrected.  Which is a bit of a problem is us and our auditors all believe the original accounts are fine.
Beyond that though, I don’t see why we need to resubmit at companies house. Just restate the P&S submissions for the EFL and then plug those numbers in, going forwards.  If they need more detail we can show them the working without it needed to be formally filed.

I’ve been Googling for a few minutes to try and figure this out. There’s definitely a process for amending accounts at companies house, but it looks to me (not an expert etc…) like you can only do it if the company director believes the original accounts were non-compliant with the Companies Act, and then you probably need to get them re-audited, with statements from the auditors about the compliance issues being corrected.  Which is a bit of a problem is us and our auditors all believe the original accounts are fine.
Beyond that though, I don’t see why we need to resubmit at companies house. Just restate the P&S submissions for the EFL and then plug those numbers in, going forwards.  If they need more detail we can show them the working without it needed to be formally filed.

I’ve been Googling for a few minutes to try and figure this out. There’s definitely a process for amending accounts at companies house, but it looks to me (not an expert etc…) like you can only do it if the company director believes the original accounts were non-compliant with the Companies Act, and then you probably need to get them re-audited, with statements from the auditors about the compliance issues being corrected.  Which is a bit of a problem is us and our auditors all believe the original accounts are fine.
Beyond that though, I don’t see why we need to resubmit at companies house. Just restate the P&S submissions for the EFL and then plug those numbers in, going forwards.  If they need more detail we can show them the working without it needed to be formally filed.

Not to mention, one of the big reasons to just roll over and take it on the chin was so we could get clear of the embargo and get some players in. That's now largely a moot point, with the window being shut.  Obviously if we clear the embargo we can sign players who are currently on free transfers, but that's a pretty shallow pool to be dipping in.  I suspect the 'big prize' we wanted in transfer terms was a bunch of loan players from Man Utd etc, and that can't happen now.
I'm sure Mel also wants it cleared so he can try and push a sale through, but you'd have to wonder whether he's better off trying to sell a club now that has something like a 9-point deduction, or a club in a months time that maybe just has a £100k fine.

Given the young age of the squad, “bed time” is a bigger concern…

Given the young age of the squad, “bed time” is a bigger concern…

Given the young age of the squad, “bed time” is a bigger concern…

Given the young age of the squad, “bed time” is a bigger concern…

Given the young age of the squad, “bed time” is a bigger concern…

Given the young age of the squad, “bed time” is a bigger concern…

You can have more than 23 professional standing players, and play them all, the only restriction is you can’t sign anyone unless you are below that number.  So he’d be blocking a spot for a potential new signing if we shifted some other players out.

Sky just want the big controversial talking points to fill their programmes. “Forsyth did nothing wrong” (which he didn’t IMO) and “no penalty” don’t do that in the way “OMG blatant red card!” does.

Sky just want the big controversial talking points to fill their programmes. “Forsyth did nothing wrong” (which he didn’t IMO) and “no penalty” don’t do that in the way “OMG blatant red card!” does.

Sky just want the big controversial talking points to fill their programmes. “Forsyth did nothing wrong” (which he didn’t IMO) and “no penalty” don’t do that in the way “OMG blatant red card!” does.

Sky just want the big controversial talking points to fill their programmes. “Forsyth did nothing wrong” (which he didn’t IMO) and “no penalty” don’t do that in the way “OMG blatant red card!” does.

Sky just want the big controversial talking points to fill their programmes. “Forsyth did nothing wrong” (which he didn’t IMO) and “no penalty” don’t do that in the way “OMG blatant red card!” does.

No professional accountant (or professional anything) is going to risk their reputation, and potentially even career, by doing a favour for a football club he likes and signing off on something he shouldn’t have.

But there is no difference as far as the EFL regs are concerned. It basically says you must comply with FRS102 full stop.  Like I’ve said multiple times on here already, if the EFL want a different version of FRS102 then they should write it, publish it, enforce it and so on.  You can’t have the situation where they make up unwritten extra rules whenever they feel like it.

It's about how much of a players "economic benefit" to the club has been consumed at any given point over his contract. Yes he's worth nothing at the end, but FRS102 is crystal clear that you can derive economic benefits from the disposal of an asset as well as it's use, and the ability to sell him is only worth zero when he's actually left on a free.

The issue is there aren't any "EFL regulations" about amortization.  There are accounting standards (FRS102) that the EFL regs say we must abide by, that's it.  We believed were abiding by them, our accountants did, the auditors of our accounts did, the accountant on the disciplinary commission thought we did too.  But here we are anyway...
In terms of why we did it, it may well be that we thought it would give us an edge by deferring some of the amortization until we were already promoted (Ahem...), but if you look at it from a purely football perspective, the model we tried to use does match real-life values a lot better.  Does anyone actually believe Ivan Toney is now 'worth' a fifth less than he was a year ago?  Or is it the case that he's got a bit of wear and tear after a year in the championship, but is basically worth pretty much what Brentford paid for him a year ago (or more...)?
There are obviously questions about how accurately you can model/calculate player values, and whether that lack of accuracy means you ultimately shouldn't bother.  But the basic facts are, we were at least trying to use a model that better reflects how we consume those assets.  It's not like we were doing some super-crazy accountancy nonsense that bears no relation to real life.

With stadium sale, excluding the £30m