Ghost of Clough

Clark, Quansah, McConnell and Danns brought on to win a League Cup Final. Meanwhile, we don't even bring Brown off the bench against Bradford, nor DRobinson, Brown, Cox, Weston against Crewe.

Wildsmith Nelson Bradley Cashin Wilson Bird Adams Hourihane Elder Mendez-Laing Gayle Subs: Evans, Nyambe, Ward, Smith, Thompson, Sibley, Barkhuizen

I'm fairly certain it was a 4 year plan for us to be established in the Championship upon Warne being appointed woth a 4 year contract. That suggests 1 year in the Championship avoiding relegation, followed byba second 'establishing' ourselves as a side not fighting relegation. That in turn means promotion within 2 years (those season at the latest). Of course, that doesn't mean plans can't change, but in this scenario, it would be 2 years in a row Warne has failed to meet expectations. Last year being a top 6 finish (with a chance of promotion), and this season being promotion.

Hourihane decided to drop in as a 4th CB, then far too slow to close the man down when we initially headed clear - it was his man who scored. I don't recall where Adams at the time. He may have been pulled out towards the RB spot though?

There are some countries where if you gain citizenship in another country, you automatically lose your original citizenship (but you can apply to regain it afterwards)

Cracking ball from Bird to find Gayle's run

At least we've brought Smith on to help defend our 2-1 defeat too 😜

The CB is Pines.

Sibley pulled down when he would have been clear down the wing. No foul given

Always liked Blackpool. 2-1 up vs Bolton

Good break but Bird a bit slow releasing the ball. Should have played Mendez-Laing in IMO. Cashin's header destined for the top corner but headed clear. Now BRADLEEEEYYYYY!!!!!!!

That started as a 343 with Bird CM, and changed to 3412, with Bird playing in that advanced role.

11 goals/assists in 11 U18 league games this season and he's still only 16 (until tomorrow). I think it's a really special crop of players and wouldn't be surprised if we challenge for the title next season. 9 of today's starters are only first year scholars.

It looks like he spent 4 years as an auditor at KPMG, followed by 7 years as Head of Statutory Reporting at Chelsea prior to joining us as CFO. He only stepped up as CEO in 2018 after being on the board from 2017. John Vicars was COO up until his retirement at the end of the 17/18 season. Sam Rush was CEO up until 2017. David Williams and John Kirkland were also on the board from 2017 to 2019. I wonder how much of a say Pearce actually had when he club opted to change amortisation policy and selling the stadium.

2-0. Osong

U18s just kicked off vs Stoke Price Eames Banks Osayande Gill Hawkins McAndrew Trialist Allen Osong Oguntolu Subs: Hardy, Cox, Tola, Agustien, Green Cox will very likely come off the bench for his first appearance since November. He had played in every U21 game up until that point.

Define "decimated". In terms of players, we lost only Ryan, Eze (who joined us at the start of that season), and Kellyman from our academy sides during adminstration. Williams was a fringe first teamer by the time we sold him. In terms of staff, I beleive we no longer have any vacancies for academy roles. Define "dreadful". Last season, the U18s finished 7th last season (2 points off 4th) and are currently 4th (3 points off 3rd) this season. Results for the U21s this season still aren't great, but if you'd watch them you'd know they aren't too far off the pace - evidenced by having lost by more than 1 goal only twice in all compettiions since September (a record which our first team also has). It defeinitely won't take a "geenration" to get back to the levels we were at previously. Warne has had a number of academy players participate in first team training. That doesn't mean he's willing to give them a go in the first team though. It also doesn't mean Warne is a good or bad judge of player. As I've stated many times before, there is also a difference between the ability of a squad/fringe player and a regular starter. Examples I gave in the past were Brown and O'Shea being good squad players at Man Utd, but less impressive as regulars for a struggling Sunderland side. You could also look at current PL sides and their use of academy players. For example, Liverpool have given Bobby Clark 6 appearances this season, but if they were to loan him out to a L1 side. "If they're good enough" is only true if a manager is willing to give them a go. Thompson was good enough for 25 Championship games in the 21/22 season (1521 mins) but only good enough for 10 under Warne last season (159 minutes). Warne isn't the only manager guilty of it, but he absolutely is afraid of putting young players in incase they make mistakes.

There was nothing to stop other clubs adopting the same approach, so it was as if it was an 'unlevel playing field'. In fact, further down the line it would have put us at a disadvantage before evening out. The club could have called upon 'The big 4', but the audit file had been reviewed by the ICAEW and approved as compliant. The IDC also stated "[evidence] was consistent with the Club having been able to determine the pattern of its consumption of future economic benefits from its ownership of player registrations ‘reliably’" You also must have misremembered that about our expert witness. "The Club did not serve a report from or call evidence from an expert accountant... It took the decision not to call any such expert evidence having seen the factual evidence served by the EFL". When the EFL wanted to submit a late report, the Club weere given another option to call upon a witness.

I've found Inpost and Stasher

The gave a range of £77.4-89.5m (£83.45m mid range). The IDC had the power to go with this figure ratehr than the one stated in our accounts, but felt that it was fair to stick with our recorded figure as it sat within the acceptable range. The EFL's 'expert' not only based the value agaisnt Morecambe's ground, but also stated we would only need a 28k seater replacement as that's what our recent average was (20% less than actual capacity) Refering back to the amortisation charge: 1. The IDC dismissed all particulars, excluding the failure to adequately disclose the change in policy. Importantly, the IDC dismissed the 'experts' evidence. 2. The LAP (appeal) felt the opinion of the EFL's expert should have been taken more seriously - he felt the policy wasn't FRS102 compliant, esentially becuase we couldn't reliably estimate values. Despite the IDC panel containing Chartered accountants, their own opinion shouldn't have been used in favour of the non-practicing 'expert'. The club failed to provide their own expert, but if they had, his opinions would have been enough to change the outcome of the LAP's verdict. Prof Pope felt "no serious acccountant would deem is to be an acceptable amortisation approach based on the consumption of economic benefits". This is at odds with all of the Chartered Accountants involved in the case - the club, auditors, IDC, etc... The LAP themselves pointed out "there is no accountant on our panel (ii) we are differing from a DC which included and was required to include an accountant member" and "However, the DC was faced with expert evidence from a distinguished academic accountant, and this was the only expert evidence which was led before them". Hence, why the LAP felt the evidence of the academic 'expert' should have stood. The example given by the club suggested a straight amortisation to the start of the final year, then the remaining value amortised to zero. What some people with a lack of attention to the real details assumed (and I imagine this is what @Leeds Ram's BiL also assumed) was that a non-linear amortisation approach was used (ie values made up each year to suit our P&S budget). It was also not possible to uplift values (as a large number of people believed). Impairment could still be used (to drop the book value to a fairer value if deemed approriate) which is used in common amortisationn policies anyway. 3. The 2nd IDC (which contained Chartered Accountants) couldn't argue agaisnt the LAP's findings. The decision was to task the club with creating a new policy which could be proven to be reliable - this didn't have to be drastically different from the one we had been using. 4. The club then went into administration. The administrators didn't have the time or funds to argue the case of a new policy so accepted the EFL's charges.

Selling the stadium was a mechanism to spend MORE under P&S rules, and isn't a sign of an owner unwilling to continue funding the club - as per all the other clubs to have done the same and not gone into administration.

Perhaps I should have highlighted this for you: "Do you really think Pride Park is worth 80 million quid... At the time I'm pretty sure it was widely regarded this was a very high end valuation" £80m was justified as fair value under independant review. Other sales (such as Stoke) were sold using the same method.

Stoke sold their stadium for £70m without any critisism.