Ghost of Clough

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

Has anyone seen Gibson recently?

The EFL had more time to find someone as they knew we were getting charged for it in advance.
Their 'expert' was basically saying straight-line is better, not arguing why ERV isn't suitable. This means the basics was al that was needed. Our policy goes into a lot more detail meaning it more time would be required.
Delays in the charge? There was no prior notice of a possible charge against amortisation.

The EFL had more time to find someone as they knew we were getting charged for it in advance.
Their 'expert' was basically saying straight-line is better, not arguing why ERV isn't suitable. This means the basics was al that was needed. Our policy goes into a lot more detail meaning it more time would be required.
Delays in the charge? There was no prior notice of a possible charge against amortisation.

The EFL had more time to find someone as they knew we were getting charged for it in advance.
Their 'expert' was basically saying straight-line is better, not arguing why ERV isn't suitable. This means the basics was al that was needed. Our policy goes into a lot more detail meaning it more time would be required.
Delays in the charge? There was no prior notice of a possible charge against amortisation.

I get what you’re saying, but isn’t that a technicality?
Did we know it would go to an appeal in front of a panel without an accountant and can we put forward a new witness once we know this?
The EFL’s expert put forward an example which includes a tangible asset which doesn’t use amortisation, not an intangible one which does, that’s not relevant to the issue at hand, yet they reference it because it’s come from the expert. So just because he is the only expert witness anything he says goes even if it’s irrelevant, how does that work?

Except at least 2 of those listed will be above what we can afford on wages.
If we're looking for cheap frees, then it'll be those from the SPL, lower Championship, L1, or youngsters being let go from PL clubs
SPL - Allan Campbell (Motherwell) seems like a standout option for competition at DM - wages, age, experience 
L1 - Reece Burke (Hull) a good option at CB as he's still quite young
Championship - Nyambe (Blackburn) could be a replacement for Byrne if we choose to cash in on him. Pearson (Luton) and McIntyre (Reading) options at CB. Mowatt (Barnsley) and Emiliano (Brentford) options at CM. James Collins (Luton) at CF.
PL - Bernabe and Felix Nmecha (Man City) are both attacking mids/wingers
Then you've also got cheap loans such as Mengi

Hmm. I get the analogy, but it needs refining to simulate more closely the boundaries imposed by basic accounting rules. 
If you are told that you have a maximum of 3 or 4 touches to get from one goal to the other (simulating a contract duration). No backwards touches. Have to hit the goal. 
Then I would expect the reduction in allowed variability to result in goals looking much more similar. 
As I mused, I found the use of those words unjustified, alarmist, and loaded with sinister innuendo. 
But its an independent EFL panel so it's all fine, right? 
?

It's a case of our amortisation policy giving the club the ability to control when and how much amortisation falls into each year. The other methods (excluding impairment) are pretty much set in stone from the day you sign them.
All methods do exactly what you've outlined - get from the same starting point, and end at the same point. "Not remotely similar" in this case would be the finer details of the policy rather than the overall purpose.
 
2 goals are scored. Both start with Roos from a goal kick, and end with Waghorn finding the bottom corner. 
The first is passed between the back four 30 times, slowly make our way up the pitch, keep passing it around the edge of the box, then Wahorn runs on to a little through ball and finds the back of the net.
The second is a long punt upfield. Kazim wins a flick on, Waghorn picks it up and scores with his second touch.
Both have the same start, the same end, but different middles. The goals would be described as "not remotely similar". 

To be fair I think we should celebrate the fact that our governing body show expertise in such a wide range of areas.
I mean they've shown themselves to have more knowledge of property valuation than one of the biggest commercial chartered surveyors in the world, better knowledge of accounting and auditing than a firm of chartered accountants, better knowledge of the application of accounting policies than the ICAEW. Basically, the only area where they seem to lack any creditable expertise is in running the football league.

You have a plan A and a plan B. Can you be our manager?

... plus the independant auditors... plus the auditors own regulatory body!

No, I don't think you are. The whole tone of the report is judgemental, in my opinion.

That could have been better written ?

We aren't sheep...

We aren't sheep...

Well, that went well...

The extension method is similar to the normal one (value amortisation over the original contract), except adjusted if a contract extension is signed.
Wait until someone mentions impairment ?

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?

Those two goals at the weekend must have really rub salt in Gibsons wounds ?

He certainly has the right attitude to make it in the EFL. It's been clear for a while that he wouldn't break into the first team, so he's made the right choice in moving on. Hopefully he finds a club where he will get regular football, even if he does need to drop into non-league for a season or two.

It was Waghorn

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

Maybe it's my black and white tinted glasses, but that comes across as a little bit passive aggressive. "...playing within the rules. We expect our opponents to do the same."