Ghost of Clough

Congrats mini Waghorn.
Perhaps rubbishes the rumour the other day regarding Mel closing the academy down.

Cian Kelly and Olamide Ibrahim called up for Ireland U18 / U19 training camp:
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/05/u18s-duo-set-for-republic-of-ireland-training-camp

Be good to see how he’s progressing.

Haven't heard anything official, but I think he has a 'weak ankle'.
He's be my cup keeper for next season to be honest.
I suspected it, but it could easily have been to be closer to home/family during the pandemic.
He was always #2 to Foster in the younger age groups, so it was no surprise that he didn't get a chance with the U23s when we have so many other keepers.

Idem and Foster seem to be joint 3dd choice. The pair of them along with Roos and Marshall were all part of the extended matchdsy squad. That gave other GKs, further down the pecking order, game time for the U23s.

You'll get no push back on that statement......

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.

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.

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

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.

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.

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

Are you sure? That sounds a bit positive for you. Why not the maximum 21?

Any deduction is dependant on the outcome of recalculating the amortisation in the accounts.
Any deduction would have to be in the 21/22 season.
Any deduction can be reduced due to mitigating factors.
Any deduction will not be increased due to extenuating circumstances.
 
My estimate suggests we don't fail P&S in 17/18.
KM's estimate of £30m amortisation vs £21m for mine, suggests failing P&S by about £7.2m.
Based on KM's figure (worst case), we would be due a 6 point deduction.
Given the precedent set in the SW case of halving the penalty, it becomes 3 points instead.
Given the EFL's incompetence, that's reduced to 2 points.
Given the accountants on the DC panel thought we were compliant, reduced further to 1 point
Given we did not deliberately exceed the limits, rather we did everything we could to stay within them, 0 points deducted

Are you sure? That sounds a bit positive for you. Why not the maximum 21?

Are you sure? That sounds a bit positive for you. Why not the maximum 21?

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

Has anyone seen Gibson recently?

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

Transfermarkt is by no means a reliable source when it comes to determining player’s values, especially regarding younger players who have just come through the ranks at Pride Park.
Well academy graduates don't exactly come in to amortisation (the numbers would be very small)
 
Edit: I may compare the club's amortisation with the change in Transfermarkt values

Are you sure? That sounds a bit positive for you. Why not the maximum 21?