duncanjwitham

Anyone else getting a bit of passive-aggressive DC-on-LAP action from this paragraph:

Just missing some sarcastic air-quotes around "the LAP has found".

Should’ve told him to make sure he amortises his pint in a straight line. No sipping at the start and downing the last half at the end.

The written reasons are very clear that they didn’t deduct points because there is no evidence that the 2 breaches we have been found guilty of so far actually resulted in a sporting advantage on the pitch.  I’d say that’s a massive point in our favour if Wycombe did decide to try something on.

Obviously if the restated accounts resulted in a massive overspend then it’s a different case.  But even then, the penalties etc are clearly laid out for that kind of breach.

Anyone else getting a bit of passive-aggressive DC-on-LAP action from this paragraph:

Just missing some sarcastic air-quotes around "the LAP has found".

Should’ve told him to make sure he amortises his pint in a straight line. No sipping at the start and downing the last half at the end.

Should’ve told him to make sure he amortises his pint in a straight line. No sipping at the start and downing the last half at the end.

That para is pretty hilarious. Basically a chartered accountant with much relvant experience and another accountant sitting on the panel did not think this was wrong, but the LAP, who were not accountants, did.

Should’ve told him to make sure he amortises his pint in a straight line. No sipping at the start and downing the last half at the end.

Absolutely.
If I was on the DC (especially if I was the accountant) I’d be furious with how the LAP have basically said you’ve not done your job properly so do it again.
It’s a good job it wasn’t the LAP making the call on punishment as it could have been a totally different ending. 

Anyone else getting a bit of passive-aggressive DC-on-LAP action from this paragraph:

Just missing some sarcastic air-quotes around "the LAP has found".

Anyone else getting a bit of passive-aggressive DC-on-LAP action from this paragraph:

Just missing some sarcastic air-quotes around "the LAP has found".

Anyone else getting a bit of passive-aggressive DC-on-LAP action from this paragraph:

Just missing some sarcastic air-quotes around "the LAP has found".

Anyone else getting a bit of passive-aggressive DC-on-LAP action from this paragraph:

Just missing some sarcastic air-quotes around "the LAP has found".

That is exactly what I said. They’re not appealing because their lawyers are telling them not to and not because they think we might get a bigger punishment next season.

I don’t *think* there’s actually any risk in appealing (other than cost of lawyers etc) - it’s not like a red card where you can get an extra match for a frivolous appeal. The written reasons are very, very clear in why they think a points deduction isn’t appropriate in this case, and I doubt even the most stupid of appeals for us would change that. The reasons are also quite frank about there being no precedent for a fine in this kind of case, so it was almost a case of plucking a number out of the air, so that’s your angle of attack for an appeal. But I suspect it’s not worth it purely because it’s unlikely to succeed and would probably cost us more that we would save on a reduced fine.

They aren’t appealing because they can’t find a mistake in the ruling. You can’t just appeal for a laugh, you actually have to have a coherent argument as to why the original judgment was wrong. Whah-whah-whah-I-don’t-like-it unsurprisingly doesn’t count.
Seriously, everyone with an interest in this should read the written reasons. They aren’t *that* long and are fairly readable for a layman. The arguments they lay out for why they've given the punishment are very clear and logical to me.

There’s a section in there suggesting that we could have gotten a completely independent opinion on the amortisation model (I.e. not from the clubs normal accountants or auditors etc), so I suspect we could go down that route. Get a different set of accountants to sign off on something similar to what we do already and submit that.

There’s also a section in there stating that we have 2 possible amortisation models under consideration, a straight line one, and a non-straight one that we believe is FRS102 compliant. So expect everything to kick off again if we go with option 2 for the restated accounts…

There’s also a section in there stating that we have 2 possible amortisation models under consideration, a straight line one, and a non-straight one that we believe is FRS102 compliant. So expect everything to kick off again if we go with option 2 for the restated accounts…

Not an accountant, so take with a (massive) pinch of salt...
Tangible assets are physical things, like property, factory machinery etc. Intangible assets are non-physical things like Trademarks, Intellectual Property, brand recognition etc.  I suspect the EFLs biggest intangible assets is the EFL brand, and the agreements in they have in place to have the 72 clubs competing in their competitions.  That must be worth a fair amount, given the amount of money it generates.
I'd be very wary of judging the cash that the EFL have around at any given moment. A lot of stuff they're involved with basically boils down to collecting money and funnelling it to clubs - e.g. selling TV rights, collecting the payments and then paying it prize money etc to the clubs.  So I suspect at any given moment there could be plenty of payments that have been collected but not yet passed on.  That doesn't necessarily mean they are sitting on piles of cash for no reason. (Caveat: this is total speculation, and I could be very, very wrong here.)
In terms of the accounts submission extension, if we wanted to be generous to the EFL, they aren't directly under the FFP rules that requires clubs to submit accounts at the same time to 'ensure' 'fairness' (quote marks fully intentional here!).  The clubs have to comply with additional rules that the EFL don't.  They aren't competing with other football leagues, and have no requirement to be 'fair' to other leagues.  It's very much a "one rule for me, one rule for thee" situation though. Not a great look. 
Also, obviously, **** the EFL!

That's pretty much it for me.  At the point we signed him, we knew we'd almost certainly be playing one up front (having loaned in Mount and Wilson etc), and he'd only ever been productive in a 2 at Peterborough.  The only time we ever got close to making him work was with Waghorn sort of playing a wide-right-but-almost-a-striker position, so he was almost in a 2.  It was just another stupid signing really, with no thought into how he was going to be used or where he fit in the team.
He may well go on to score a decent amount for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean he would have scored them for us, playing with our squad in our system.  Obviously caveat is we have no idea what our squad or system is yet for next season though.

Why not? I can't be any worse then anybody else that played up front last year. (Narrator: He was worse in every possible way.)

And of course it's not really straight pass/fail, it's how much you fail by. Given the stadium sale, it's unlikely we're failing by untold millions of overspending, so any points deductions that might arise *should* be relatively minor.

That's pretty much it for me.  At the point we signed him, we knew we'd almost certainly be playing one up front (having loaned in Mount and Wilson etc), and he'd only ever been productive in a 2 at Peterborough.  The only time we ever got close to making him work was with Waghorn sort of playing a wide-right-but-almost-a-striker position, so he was almost in a 2.  It was just another stupid signing really, with no thought into how he was going to be used or where he fit in the team.
He may well go on to score a decent amount for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean he would have scored them for us, playing with our squad in our system.  Obviously caveat is we have no idea what our squad or system is yet for next season though.

And of course it's not really straight pass/fail, it's how much you fail by. Given the stadium sale, it's unlikely we're failing by untold millions of overspending, so any points deductions that might arise *should* be relatively minor.