Ghost of Clough

What about the auditors regulator?
That quote is from the original decision.
I find it astonishing that the club, its auditors, their regulators and the original IDC (which included an actual accountant - imagine that!) can be under the impression it's all fine and dandy, totally in line with FRS 102. But a new panel, none of which are accountants, can apparently say it's not, and their decision is final...
Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

Based on our current method, 3 points for 19/20 and I think it's 8 for 20/21.
Contract extension method would just be 5 points for 20/21.

Carnero questioned where losses of c£79m came from. Those figures Inposted total £84m (unless I miscalculated)

My rough P&S calculations comparing the current ERV method and the possible adjusted contract extension method:

Changes to amortisation and transfer profits accounted for.

If the accounting experts on the DC are anything like other expert witnesses i've come across then they'll flounce off in a massive huff rather than be told "you're wrong" by a bunch of people they consider to be unqualified to judge.
So we'll then have to wait for all the fall out from that to be settled.....?
It really does beggar belief......

So the "EFL win" is simply that the Disciplinary Commission need to reconsider Professor Pope's evidence?
Have I understood that correctly?

My rough P&S calculations comparing the current ERV method and the possible adjusted contract extension method:

Changes to amortisation and transfer profits accounted for.

Yet the accountants on the DC found nothing wrong with the policy itself. Only lawyers on the LAP think it's improper for the intended purpose. In fact, the LAP praised the club's honesty.

So the "EFL win" is simply that the Disciplinary Commission need to reconsider Professor Pope's evidence?
Have I understood that correctly?

A value (ERV) is assigned to a player for the start of the final season. It is then a straight line from when they sign to that ERV. the remaining amount is amortised in the final season. Contract extensions mean setting a new ERV and adjust the straight line to suit (current period in time to ERV)

I think recalculation, but no points deduction due to the circumstances.
We started using it in 2015 in good faith. Those 3 seasons spending activities were related to that decision by the EFL.
If they told us we couldn't use it, our transfer activities would have differed to ensure we remained compliant.
It's a bit different to SW, who were not complaint, then after the deadline passed tried to put the sale in the wrong year to stay within limits. Even they managed to get their punishment reduced by 6 points despite blatantly cheating. 

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.

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.

You missed the bit where we asked then if it was acceptable before we actually submitted the P&S figure to them

A value (ERV) is assigned to a player for the start of the final season. It is then a straight line from when they sign to that ERV. the remaining amount is amortised in the final season. Contract extensions mean setting a new ERV and adjust the straight line to suit (current period in time to ERV)

I wasn't sure about this fella in the beginning, but I'm starting to warm to him.

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

Yet the accountants on the DC found nothing wrong with the policy itself. Only lawyers on the LAP think it's improper for the intended purpose. In fact, the LAP praised the club's honesty.

I think recalculation, but no points deduction due to the circumstances.
We started using it in 2015 in good faith. Those 3 seasons spending activities were related to that decision by the EFL.
If they told us we couldn't use it, our transfer activities would have differed to ensure we remained compliant.
It's a bit different to SW, who were not complaint, then after the deadline passed tried to put the sale in the wrong year to stay within limits. Even they managed to get their punishment reduced by 6 points despite blatantly cheating. 

So the "EFL win" is simply that the Disciplinary Commission need to reconsider Professor Pope's evidence?
Have I understood that correctly?

I think recalculation, but no points deduction due to the circumstances.
We started using it in 2015 in good faith. Those 3 seasons spending activities were related to that decision by the EFL.
If they told us we couldn't use it, our transfer activities would have differed to ensure we remained compliant.
It's a bit different to SW, who were not complaint, then after the deadline passed tried to put the sale in the wrong year to stay within limits. Even they managed to get their punishment reduced by 6 points despite blatantly cheating. 

Well we know the EFL didn't appeal the 5th particular, and the 1st was withdrawn during the first hearing.
2. Straight line basis - wording doesn't suggest this was appealed
3. Anticipating a sale of value during the contract - maybe this one but I don't think so
4. Reliability of predicting values - this is the only one I think it's about (also the only one I could see overturned on appeal)

I think recalculation, but no points deduction due to the circumstances.
We started using it in 2015 in good faith. Those 3 seasons spending activities were related to that decision by the EFL.
If they told us we couldn't use it, our transfer activities would have differed to ensure we remained compliant.
It's a bit different to SW, who were not complaint, then after the deadline passed tried to put the sale in the wrong year to stay within limits. Even they managed to get their punishment reduced by 6 points despite blatantly cheating. 

Well, if it's found that we should be using our amortisation policy, then historical figures should be adjusted to reflect this.
Due to the extenuating circumstances, it seems immoral to me to punish us for something we could have addressed if we had known 6 years ago.

I think recalculation, but no points deduction due to the circumstances.
We started using it in 2015 in good faith. Those 3 seasons spending activities were related to that decision by the EFL.
If they told us we couldn't use it, our transfer activities would have differed to ensure we remained compliant.
It's a bit different to SW, who were not complaint, then after the deadline passed tried to put the sale in the wrong year to stay within limits. Even they managed to get their punishment reduced by 6 points despite blatantly cheating.