Ghost of Clough

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

They were given a penalty during the season. The appeal wasn't until the season ended, with the original penalty standing. Very different circumstances than what we have.

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

They were given a penalty during the season. The appeal wasn't until the season ended, with the original penalty standing. Very different circumstances than what we have.

They were given a penalty during the season. The appeal wasn't until the season ended, with the original penalty standing. Very different circumstances than what we have.

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

First line: The EFL has won its appeal
Next paragraph: An independent panel will now decide on what punishment
So they haven't won anything yet. A "win" could simply be a penalty.
They state Wednesday as a "precedent", yet ignore the fact they were awarded the 12 point penalty at the end of last season, with the deduction being applied to this season. Using that precedent, a penalty for us would be applied to next season.
 
The reporting in this country is poor.

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

First line: The EFL has won its appeal
Next paragraph: An independent panel will now decide on what punishment
So they haven't won anything yet. A "win" could simply be a penalty.
They state Wednesday as a "precedent", yet ignore the fact they were awarded the 12 point penalty at the end of last season, with the deduction being applied to this season. Using that precedent, a penalty for us would be applied to next season.
 
The reporting in this country is poor.

First line: The EFL has won its appeal
Next paragraph: An independent panel will now decide on what punishment
So they haven't won anything yet. A "win" could simply be a penalty.
They state Wednesday as a "precedent", yet ignore the fact they were awarded the 12 point penalty at the end of last season, with the deduction being applied to this season. Using that precedent, a penalty for us would be applied to next season.
 
The reporting in this country is poor.

First line: The EFL has won its appeal
Next paragraph: An independent panel will now decide on what punishment
So they haven't won anything yet. A "win" could simply be a penalty.
They state Wednesday as a "precedent", yet ignore the fact they were awarded the 12 point penalty at the end of last season, with the deduction being applied to this season. Using that precedent, a penalty for us would be applied to next season.
 
The reporting in this country is poor.

First line: The EFL has won its appeal
Next paragraph: An independent panel will now decide on what punishment
So they haven't won anything yet. A "win" could simply be a penalty.
They state Wednesday as a "precedent", yet ignore the fact they were awarded the 12 point penalty at the end of last season, with the deduction being applied to this season. Using that precedent, a penalty for us would be applied to next season.
 
The reporting in this country is poor.

First line: The EFL has won its appeal
Next paragraph: An independent panel will now decide on what punishment
So they haven't won anything yet. A "win" could simply be a penalty.
They state Wednesday as a "precedent", yet ignore the fact they were awarded the 12 point penalty at the end of last season, with the deduction being applied to this season. Using that precedent, a penalty for us would be applied to next season.
 
The reporting in this country is poor.

But we were charged with filling P&S. "Breach of acounting standards", "EFL regs" and misleading the EFL does not equate to failing P&S.
I envisage a fine for misleading the EFL and refusing to hand over details of the policy on request. There is absolutely no chance of a points deduction.

So let's get this right.... Every man and his dog has decided we deserve and are going to get a points deduction for next season because we didn't clarify enough the fact that for three years we used, and the EFL signed off on, an acceptable but different amortisation policy to the other clubs.....if so it's nothing more that a witch hunt. 

You want us punished for sticking to the rules, and when unsure about the rules to ask the EFL for guidance?
All the club has been guilty of as far is not accurately stating the amortisation policy to the suitable financial standard. That is in no way cheating and should only mean a fine (covering all costs?) as a worst case scenario.

It's not a lesser charge. It is the same level of transgression as the stadium sale if that had been upheld. The difference is the size of the P&S breach. The stadium could have meant a £25m breach so upto 12 points, plus another 11 if we were seen to have acted belligerently. 
The difference in the amortisation policy would only be a couple of million, so any punishment would be far lower - probably not even points, but a couple is a possibility. 
I think the fact that the EFL signed off on the policy, that it is a legal accounting method and that it has already been judged within the rules by the original panel means we won't get any punishment at all.

You want us punished for sticking to the rules, and when unsure about the rules to ask the EFL for guidance?
All the club has been guilty of as far is not accurately stating the amortisation policy to the suitable financial standard. That is in no way cheating and should only mean a fine (covering all costs?) as a worst case scenario.

You want us punished for sticking to the rules, and when unsure about the rules to ask the EFL for guidance?
All the club has been guilty of as far is not accurately stating the amortisation policy to the suitable financial standard. That is in no way cheating and should only mean a fine (covering all costs?) as a worst case scenario.

Iirc, if we had used a standard amortisation policy, we would have only failed the 3 years to 2018 by about £2.5m.. that's equivalent to something like 4 points.
Still, I find it extremely unlikely based on the evidence from the original hearing.