Ghost of Clough

This one?
"The Club believes that pursuing a case based on conflicting opinions about accounting policies which, even if the EFL succeeded, would have only led to the Club re-submitting its P&S calculations, is a further waste of the EFL’s resources and an unnecessary distraction to the Club."
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2020/09/Derby-county-statement-on-efl-appeal
Kind of suggests we wouldn't be worried about the numbers

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

But Professor Plum is the expert, so has to be correct when he says entitlement

Can we just...
 

This is all very strange. If the accounts will comply with FFP in either ammortisation formats then this whole process has been a waste of everyones time and money. I must be missing something

This tweet references this being said on Radio Derby
 

I'm pretty sure DCFC said that too, I think it was when we expressed our disappointment at the EFL appealing the original decision @Philmycock

The original hearing stated impairment could be £19m for 18/19. The draft report suggested it could be a bit higher (£22m) so the new evidence didn't really provide anything new.

The original hearing stated impairment could be £19m for 18/19. The draft report suggested it could be a bit higher (£22m) so the new evidence didn't really provide anything new.

3 points for the season just finished. 18 month transfer embargo plus 23 points for failing the next P&S round, plus 12 for going into administration then another 12 for playing an under strength team - because we've only got 10 professionals on the books and had to @Davidat full back. 

I also don’t understand Pope’s point here

It is referenced all the way through FRS 102 that disposal of an asset is consuming a future economic benefit, so how has he come to the conclusion above and how have they completely ignored what FRS 102 says to come to the conclusion that Pope is right because he’s the ‘expert’?
Isn’t it better to conclude that Pope’s ‘expert’ evidence doesn’t reflect how FRS 102 is supposed to work and is therefore inadmissible, which appears to be what the IDC are being told they did wrong?

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.
I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?
Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?
So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?
If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

Well, that went well...

Well, that went well...

Don't  forget, the lateness of being notified of the 2nd charge resulted in inadequate time to prepare an expert witness

They're trying to compare standard depreciation policies with amortisation. All they're saying is "this is the standard way of doing things". What they have failed to prove is our policy is not an acceptable alternative, as far as I can tell (they're looking at the problem backwards)

Seems bizarre that a set of lawyers can essentially say we can't use our amortisation method, whereas a set of accountants say we can. Even more bizarre that our accounts now have to do what the lawyers say!

Well, that went well...

Having read that document, it seems that the EFL's appeal against the decision has succeeded based on one charge, which is that the future benefits from owning a player's registration extend only to their ability to play matches and their possible resale shouldn't be considered.
To me it's just silly - in the original decision, you have the DC going down point-by-point, referring to FRS102 and why DCFC's accounting treatment was compliant with this. In the appeal, you have "Professor Pope", explaining why he disagrees with that.
The whole point of accounting standards is to act as a guide, and overarching the whole shebang is the principle of "substance over form" - it's clear that the EFL's witness is an academic because his argument reads like such a conceptual interpretation rather than (as should be) an application of the standards, bearing in mind that the most crucial point is that the substance of a transaction is more important than the form of it.
You've got two different sets of people, both reading the same standards, and coming to different conclusions.

Seems bizarre that a set of lawyers can essentially say we can't use our amortisation method, whereas a set of accountants say we can. Even more bizarre that our accounts now have to do what the lawyers say!

Found it! 
 

Because I would in their position, they are professional highly skilled individuals who have been told they made a mistake by a group of people with apparently less technical knowledge.  I think it borderlines insulting.

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 
 
IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether our approach was legally compliant and reasonable - and all accountants involved have agreed that it was. 

Seems bizarre that a set of lawyers can essentially say we can't use our amortisation method, whereas a set of accountants say we can. Even more bizarre that our accounts now have to do what the lawyers say!

I think he is the latter.