duncanjwitham

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

Just because he may be rich, it doesn't necessarily mean he has piles of cash lying around to throw at things. Odds are the vast majority of his wealth is tied up in businesses, investments, properties etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done some kind of gardening-leave type thing, so instead of paying him a lump sum in compensation, we're still paying some fraction of his wages until he gets another job.  So maybe if he doesn't get another job for the next 4 years, we might in theory end up paying him £8m, which fits with Morris quote's about it being a worst case scenario.
Likewise, the £20m HMRC bill is presumably deferred PAYE/NIC etc, so it will have to be paid, but they're not going to be demanding it all tomorrow. Many clubs, and many other businesses in general, will have used this scheme, and if HMRC start demanding massive payments upfront, they're just going to cause mass bankruptcies, so they will probably take a sensible approach.
The Dell loan also presumably has a payment schedule attached. They won't be demanding £15m tomorrow.
The entire article seems to be taking the worst case scenarios, and the total payable over many years, and assuming we owe it all tomorrow.

Used to be every post was a pun,
and ok, that was quite fun,
now each ones a Limerick,
I’m really quite sick of it,
so wake me up when you’re all done.

Used to be every post was a pun,
and ok, that was quite fun,
now each ones a Limerick,
I’m really quite sick of it,
so wake me up when you’re all done.

Used to be every post was a pun,
and ok, that was quite fun,
now each ones a Limerick,
I’m really quite sick of it,
so wake me up when you’re all done.

Used to be every post was a pun,
and ok, that was quite fun,
now each ones a Limerick,
I’m really quite sick of it,
so wake me up when you’re all done.

Used to be every post was a pun,
and ok, that was quite fun,
now each ones a Limerick,
I’m really quite sick of it,
so wake me up when you’re all done.

Well, the Sheikh was shown to be dodgy when he tried to buy Newcastle, and Alonso was known to be dodgy from his Sheffield Wednesday days so... in both cases the "until they turn out not to be" was before we even spoke to them.

Well, the Sheikh was shown to be dodgy when he tried to buy Newcastle, and Alonso was known to be dodgy from his Sheffield Wednesday days so... in both cases the "until they turn out not to be" was before we even spoke to them.

Well, the Sheikh was shown to be dodgy when he tried to buy Newcastle, and Alonso was known to be dodgy from his Sheffield Wednesday days so... in both cases the "until they turn out not to be" was before we even spoke to them.

Well, the Sheikh was shown to be dodgy when he tried to buy Newcastle, and Alonso was known to be dodgy from his Sheffield Wednesday days so... in both cases the "until they turn out not to be" was before we even spoke to them.

Well, the Sheikh was shown to be dodgy when he tried to buy Newcastle, and Alonso was known to be dodgy from his Sheffield Wednesday days so... in both cases the "until they turn out not to be" was before we even spoke to them.

Well, the Sheikh was shown to be dodgy when he tried to buy Newcastle, and Alonso was known to be dodgy from his Sheffield Wednesday days so... in both cases the "until they turn out not to be" was before we even spoke to them.

I think the phrase is "If a tree falls in a Forest, and no one is around to hear it, will it still remind everyone that they won back-to-back European Cups in the late 1970s" 

I think the big thing for me is, the club clearly knew they were doing something a bit unusual. So if I was them, I'd be documenting the hell out of it.  There would be spreadsheets for every player with the values we'd plugged in to get the final figures, with printed and dated copies, the rationale for any oddities (player X is valued at £Ym on transfermarkt but we think he's worth £Zm because...) and so on.  If the club can't produce that, then they've either been sloppy with their record-keeping (bad), they never had a process and made up figures to fit what we needed for the accounts (very bad), or they never did this process at all and invented it post hoc to cover their backsides (very, very bad).  Obviously I hope it's just sloppy record-keeping, but it's an open goal for social-media speculation.

Spot on.
So much has happened over the past couple of years that I completely forgot about this point. I had assumed, like charge 1, that the EFL were arguing we would have failed P&S without it.
Baswd on the Decision Document from the original hearing, charge 1 specifically claims the stadium sale meant we avoided failing P&S.
However, charge 2 only claims that by having non-compliant accounts, we have breached P&S rules.
 
The LAP have concluded that the accounts are non-compliant so a punishment is required for breaching rules.
The logical punishment to me is a fine and resubmission of the P&S figures using a striaght-line method. The reason a points deduction isn't warranted is because no on field benefit was achieved.

I think the big thing for me is, the club clearly knew they were doing something a bit unusual. So if I was them, I'd be documenting the hell out of it.  There would be spreadsheets for every player with the values we'd plugged in to get the final figures, with printed and dated copies, the rationale for any oddities (player X is valued at £Ym on transfermarkt but we think he's worth £Zm because...) and so on.  If the club can't produce that, then they've either been sloppy with their record-keeping (bad), they never had a process and made up figures to fit what we needed for the accounts (very bad), or they never did this process at all and invented it post hoc to cover their backsides (very, very bad).  Obviously I hope it's just sloppy record-keeping, but it's an open goal for social-media speculation.

I think the big thing for me is, the club clearly knew they were doing something a bit unusual. So if I was them, I'd be documenting the hell out of it.  There would be spreadsheets for every player with the values we'd plugged in to get the final figures, with printed and dated copies, the rationale for any oddities (player X is valued at £Ym on transfermarkt but we think he's worth £Zm because...) and so on.  If the club can't produce that, then they've either been sloppy with their record-keeping (bad), they never had a process and made up figures to fit what we needed for the accounts (very bad), or they never did this process at all and invented it post hoc to cover their backsides (very, very bad).  Obviously I hope it's just sloppy record-keeping, but it's an open goal for social-media speculation.