Ghost of Clough

I've started so I'll finish... ?
The EFL probably (I say this with no evidence at all so it's just conjecture) wanted to avoid rule writing as far as possible, that's for sure. 
However, they appear to have done no real analysis to see whether a straight adoption of existing frameworks will give them what they now claim they want in terms of outcomes (everyone using the same approach to the detailed topic of amortising player contract values). 
Accounting standards by definition are really NOT industry specific. They are now based unequivocally on the principle of "economic substance over form" to reinforce this point. 
I think as far as "indicative market values" go then you would be looking for broadly comparable transactions. That's basically how property valuation is carried out. But it is a negotiable point and as it is indeed industry specific should be within the EFL purview. 
To be sure, if you held aggressive valuations in your accounts on the basis that you would be actively trading out these player assets, but you then didn't and they went for 0, then you would expect the following... 
- large final year write downs
- an increasing auditor challenge to the directors as to why they felt the approach met the overall principles of true and fair, plus the accounting concept of prudence. 
- ultimately an insistence on a revision to the approach in order for the auditors to continue to sign off. 
My overall issue with the EFL is that they appear to have "short circuited" these stages altogether and are now writing rules retrospectively at the same time as sanctioning a member for not complying with a non-existent rule. 
From a regulatory lens that is appalling behavior. 
 

To summarise: Lawyers think they understand accounting regs better than accountants.

Got the source for that?

To summarise: Lawyers think they understand accounting regs better than accountants.

To summarise: Lawyers think they understand accounting regs better than accountants.

Probably meant he could spend more time away from a nagging wife at home 

Could also be length and incentives are better from Cov, and it could be we've not actually tabled any offer to him beyond "we'd love if you'd stay and take a massive pay cut" type chats.

You appear to be reading something that isn't there. That statement simply said Pro Pope gave a convincing argument.
After all, it's the DC who issue the penalty. The only statements we have to go off both suggest that we don't have to stick to the standard straight-line method.

Croatia had a midfield starting 2 players from Real Madrid and 1 from Barcelona and another from Inter. Defenders from Atl Madrid and Liverpool. Forwards from Juventus and Inter.
Our squad included Rose, Cahill, Jones, Delph, Young, Dier, Loftus-Cheek and Welbeck.

Doing us a favour whether we had money to spend or not. Based on my calcs, we would have had to sell players in the summer just to meet P&S. Given the size of our squad already, we would have been in very serious trouble... so everyone should be thanking Gibson for helping us ?
We now need to wait for 5 sets of accounts to be released to have a clearer picture of where we'll be in terms of P&S for 21/22, but I estimate about £12m better off.

It could also be down to them guaranteeing him more football? 
Pretty much a guaranteed starter in their front 2, whereas he'd be backup winger, and hopefully 2nd choice CF at best for us next season

If the EFL are going to work to a single interpretation then they should write that as an efl rule rather than assume everyone would reach the same conclusion from their own analyses. 
The accounting rules are drafted to be very general and cover a huge range of Intangible assets like intellectual property, patents and all sorts. 
 

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.
It also has to be stated that the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge.
Also, the original DC revealed that the EFL claimed to have only been made aware of the different amortisation policy shortly before bringing the charges in January 2020. Please also note that Kieran Maguire wrote to the EFL regarding the amortisation policy in June 2018.
Incompetence.

hopefully we get the finding of DC2 soon

Can you imagine the EFL reaction? Might be worth it just for boiling the urine of certain chairmen of certain clubs.
 

"difficult to have sympathy for Derby given their indiscretions" - indiscretions originally approved by the EFL for 3 consecutive accounting periods.
"independent body has now opted to dole out a fine alone and not a points deduction like the twelve points Sheffield Wednesday were docked last year" - yeah, that's probably because the charge wasn't related to overspending ?
"clear examples of points being an appropriate sanction for such rule breaks and that should happen" - really? I don't think any club has ever been charged for using an improper amortisation policy. 
"that should mean the penalty being applied for last season which would see Derby relegated to League One" - based on what exactly? Because a verdict for SWFC was arrived at just after the end of last season and had their penalty applied to 20/21?
 
The problem is the perception of us "cheating P&S", which automatically means points deduction in people's minds.

Are you referring to the large impairment? The DC document revealed £25.1m amortisation for 19/20, so I imagine it's just pulling that forward. All covered by my calculations no matter which year they were actually due to fall in under the 'Derby method'.
 
Another thought just crossed my mind. From my understanding, the latest DC decision doesn't state we have to use the standard method. Rather, we have to resubmit whilst meeting the requirements of FRS102. If this is true, then we could possibly create a completely new
EFLStatement: "file restated accounts... that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations"
DCFC Statement: "submit revised accounts...using a policy for the amortisation of player registrations which complies both with the requirements of FRS 102 and with the P&S Rules."
Given we were guilty of 2 particulars, that means we only need to modify our existing policy to suit:
     2. Reliably estimating estimating ERVs or use a straight-line method
     5. Accurately define the policy in the accounts
Defining the policy in the accounts should be straight forward. If we can 'engineer' a way to reliably estimate resale values, we can avoid using straight-line.

Are you referring to the large impairment? The DC document revealed £25.1m amortisation for 19/20, so I imagine it's just pulling that forward. All covered by my calculations no matter which year they were actually due to fall in under the 'Derby method'.
 
Another thought just crossed my mind. From my understanding, the latest DC decision doesn't state we have to use the standard method. Rather, we have to resubmit whilst meeting the requirements of FRS102. If this is true, then we could possibly create a completely new
EFLStatement: "file restated accounts... that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations"
DCFC Statement: "submit revised accounts...using a policy for the amortisation of player registrations which complies both with the requirements of FRS 102 and with the P&S Rules."
Given we were guilty of 2 particulars, that means we only need to modify our existing policy to suit:
     2. Reliably estimating estimating ERVs or use a straight-line method
     5. Accurately define the policy in the accounts
Defining the policy in the accounts should be straight forward. If we can 'engineer' a way to reliably estimate resale values, we can avoid using straight-line.

This one? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/efl-v-Derby-county---appeal-decision.pdf
or this one? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-new-evidence.pdf

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.
It also has to be stated that the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge.
Also, the original DC revealed that the EFL claimed to have only been made aware of the different amortisation policy shortly before bringing the charges in January 2020. Please also note that Kieran Maguire wrote to the EFL regarding the amortisation policy in June 2018.
Incompetence.

I was thinking about this in bed last night (?). 
They were almost certain they would win charge 1 (stadium sale), but they didn't know how much would be knocked off the sale value. If it only dropped it to £65m for example, we still would have passed P&S for the period. However, if they could also get us to restate our amortisation figures, then we would certainly have failed P&S as a result.
Perhaps they're trying to push for a harsher penalty for now, because they know/think we'll pass with the restated figures.

Doing us a favour whether we had money to spend or not. Based on my calcs, we would have had to sell players in the summer just to meet P&S. Given the size of our squad already, we would have been in very serious trouble... so everyone should be thanking Gibson for helping us ?
We now need to wait for 5 sets of accounts to be released to have a clearer picture of where we'll be in terms of P&S for 21/22, but I estimate about £12m better off.

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.
It also has to be stated that the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge.
Also, the original DC revealed that the EFL claimed to have only been made aware of the different amortisation policy shortly before bringing the charges in January 2020. Please also note that Kieran Maguire wrote to the EFL regarding the amortisation policy in June 2018.
Incompetence.

Maybe one of the side's was trying to lose so that we can now re-jig the amortisation to our advantage, now we know the stadium sale is accepted. Why do you think we didn't bother with an "expert" for the LAP? ?
(Joking by the way... or am I....)

As we all suspect they must have a pretty good idea what the figs will look like.  Did you read the inadmissible evidence paper from LAP, that's got some good data in it and shows what their thoughts are.  I am not so confident that we will pass but that is merely a hunch and hopefully very wrong
you are right, they thought the DC would find us guilty on charge 1 and I think both sides fought so hard on that one, neither side did enough on charge 2.