duncanjwitham

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.

An intangible asset sits on your balance sheet, if that asset no longer exists, i.e. the player leaves then the auditors would insist on removal from the balance sheet crystallising a loss of the outstanding balance sheet figure, if you sell the players registration for more than the balance sheet figure you register the difference as a profit. Therefore I would stand up all day in court and defend the Rams policy, the EFL would fail if they went through a court of law, however I assume that  one of the rules of association of being a member of the football league is that you cannot sue in a court of law you can only be judged by a kangaroo court.

I’m not 100% sure that’s right, and I’m going from memory here… 
FRS102 basically says you have to amortise the economic benefits (both from use and disposal) of an intangible asset over the course of its useful life. And if there’s no reliable and systematic way of measuring that, you’re supposed to use a straight line model. That’s basically all it says that’s relevant here. So it’s certainly not massively prescriptive about how you do it, but it doesn’t say nothing either.
The result of the DC and LAP was that our model was ruled both systematic and reliable (and any other criteria that might be needed). The EFL appealed those ruling but the LAP found no grounds to overturn. The entire issue came down to the “disposal” element. Professor Pope decreed that you couldn’t ever factor in disposal unless you have an agreed sale in place, the DC basically laughed him out of the room because it’s clearly written in FRS102 that benefit from disposal is allowed.  The LAP decided they couldn’t do that.  It’s seems like utter gibberish to me, because you basically never have an agreed sale in place for any asset you own, so that would render that entire element of FRS102 useless.

I’m not 100% sure that’s right, and I’m going from memory here… 
FRS102 basically says you have to amortise the economic benefits (both from use and disposal) of an intangible asset over the course of its useful life. And if there’s no reliable and systematic way of measuring that, you’re supposed to use a straight line model. That’s basically all it says that’s relevant here. So it’s certainly not massively prescriptive about how you do it, but it doesn’t say nothing either.
The result of the DC and LAP was that our model was ruled both systematic and reliable (and any other criteria that might be needed). The EFL appealed those ruling but the LAP found no grounds to overturn. The entire issue came down to the “disposal” element. Professor Pope decreed that you couldn’t ever factor in disposal unless you have an agreed sale in place, the DC basically laughed him out of the room because it’s clearly written in FRS102 that benefit from disposal is allowed.  The LAP decided they couldn’t do that.  It’s seems like utter gibberish to me, because you basically never have an agreed sale in place for any asset you own, so that would render that entire element of FRS102 useless.

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.

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.

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.

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.

don't put the bullets in attackers guns.  I don't know about you but those types of things I leave out of bios

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...