Animal is a Ram

Really glad this story comes with such a helpful visual. It was unclear from the first sentence exactly what was happening but now I can see that Cardiff's plan is for him to leave Derby - hence the big red cross - and make a move to Cardiff, as referenced by the big green arrow, pointing to Cardiff City's badge.
For those of you unsure what would happen next, he'd sign a contract with Cardiff, hence the cartoon image of a contract in the bottom left.

1. I was having a 'pop' at Jim Wheeler (not Rams Trust directly though as their main spokesman it's hard to separate the two) who claimed that all 30,000 Rams fans would have signed the letter if he'd been able to ask them....
2. Why would I ring Radio Derby? - my view (as I've previously posted on here) is that the club will issue statements as and when they are able to - the naive view that all the club's business should be done in public says an awful lot about the intelligence of those making the demands. Just look at the hand-wringing and wailing over the Alonso bid as an example.....I genuinely hope that the next time we get any takeover news is when it's done and dusted.
3. If you don't think Rams Trust are self-important, look at who is top of the list of 'signatories'. If their demand for a place on the board is ever met, I'm pretty sure who will be claiming the right to be that representative - and as an aside, why they are demanding a place now when any decision will immediately be invalidated by a takeover? - simply re-inforcing their old raison d'etre....
4. We are punters who pay to watch the team - that's all. However long we've been watching or however much the club is our life-blood, we just pay to watch. We have absolutely no right to demand anything of Mel or the next owner....

With all these supporter groups popping up, we're already risking getting into a People's Front of Judea situation.

Full transparency. I was invited to this meeting, but chose not to put my name or the forums to this.
Reason being as I have previously stated, this forum is a platform for fans views, I am not an elected chairman/spokesman to speak on behalf of you all, simply the creator of this platform for fans views which can already be openly seen by the club.
I did not feel comfortable signing on behalf of the forum without consulting you all, and felt my name without attaching dcfcfans.uk held no weight.
My own personal views are that this letter has been created out of concern for the clubs future and regardless of how you feel towards any of the groups that have signed off on it, do not see this as an opportunity to attack supporters groups for speaking on behalf of Derby County fans.
We all love this club. ?

The Foo Fighters would probably beat us. 

HMRC are responsible for:
Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, Stamp, Land and Petroleum Revenue Taxes
Environmental taxes
climate change and aggregates levy and landfill tax
Value Added Tax (VAT), including import VAT
Customs duty
Excise duties
National Insurance
Tax Credits
Child Benefit
Please don’t put this on Twitter, but my understanding is that we still owe duty on the importation of Albentosa, Camara and Jozwiak, and are massively in arrears on child benefit payments for Knight, Sibley, Buchanan and Bird. The biggest debt to HMRC though falls under the Climate Change Levy where Mel Morris has incurred the club significant fees for the over production of worthless hot air.

I think the phrase is "If a tree falls in a Forest, and no one is around to hear it, will it still remind everyone that they won back-to-back European Cups in the late 1970s" 

Or even a choux-in

Really?

Imagine Becks sitting in the exec seats up in the West Stand, the whole ground rising in appreciation, "David Beckham's Black and White Army" ringing round the stadium......then it dies down, goes quiet, and a lone voice from the back of the South Stand gives it, "Posh Spice, takes it up the.........." 
 

I reject this. Wayne Rooney is not Derby County. He is a temporary custodian.
The club has existed a long time before his arrival and it’ll exist a long time after he’s gone unless of course the new owners are as inept as our forward line.
Maybe I’ve got my grumpy pants on today but this unconditional support tosh isn’t washing with me any longer. It’s a two way street as far as I’m concerned. Give me something to be proud of and my support will be vigorous. The halfhearted bilge I’ve endured in recent weeks is unacceptable as is our hoping for other teams failure to cement our safety in a weak division.
 

@MACKWORTHRAM @Super Derby Super Rams
You Guys were the oracles during the Sam
Rush years, spill the beans!!

However, from the original IDC report, by Pope’s own admission, it does appear some clubs are using methods other than straight-line amortisation, so there must be other methods that are seen as permissible?

They seem to be implying that because no one else has ‘ever’ done it, or thought to do it, then we shouldn’t either. One of the problems with that is that numerous accountants have thought it was an ok method to use, one academic didn’t, and they, a trio of lawyers, decided to go with the academics view, rather than that of the actual accountants.
Also, surely everything anyone ever does had a starting point somewhere, someone had to be the first to do it, otherwise things would never have happened and things will never evolve any further if everyone takes that stance.

Point 74 doesn’t make any sense, does it? It states many times in FRS 102 that consumption of future economic benefits includes both its use and its disposal, this isn’t ‘an appeal to common sense’ it is written plainly in black and white, how else are you supposed to take it?
Point 75, again I’m confused and feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s more that he couldn’t have done otherwise because there was evidence of other clubs financial statements apparently using different methods? Isn’t this because the wording of 18.22 makes it permissible? Why would you want him to be able to have done otherwise if it wasn’t right?

Also, appears to be a shame that the DCs decision to exclude Pope's evidence was overturned by the LAP.
Them pointing out that he sounds a bit dense and the metaphors weren't anywhere near the same thing as football players wasn't enough of a reason.

I know it's the much maligned KM, but.

I know it's the much maligned KM, but.

You're wrong. If the numbers do come out as us failing 18/19, 19/20 , etc then I would expect new charges against us. However, my estimates suggest we'll be fine, and backed up by the 'noises' coming from the club.
16/17 is the period I'd be more concerned about (estimated £6m over the limit). But, with the EFL starting with 17/18, I can't see them going even further back.

I’ve read a good chunk of the document, will go back and read the rest later. Trying to be objective about this, it seems the main contention is not just the fact we didn’t use a straight line method for amortisation, but also the convoluted way we use ERVs which potentially over inflated the values of some of our players as it’s hard to determine what the ERV should be, we also didn’t clearly explain our methods for calculating ERV, furthermore we didn’t actually account this way in practice. None of this is in the rules and no other club has done it, while it isn’t wrong from an accounting standpoint. 
 
Through potentially over inflating values of some players through our method for calculating ERV (which seems to be the main issue)  and not using a straight line method, we’ve limited/deferred losses out of the three year period being analysed giving us much more headroom to spend, none of the other clubs have done this and it goes against the spirit of the rules. Is this the case because if so this Is very different to our accounting being deemed acceptable but we should have just made it clearer?
Based on this, then whatever your views on the principles of this case, FFP rules and whether they adequately address the issues which I covered in my previous post, on these particulars ....we’re screwed aren’t we? Please tell me im missing something? It seems we just have to hope despite these changes we still fall in line with the £39m loss. 
 
I’ve also seen in the club arguments they’ve gone down the procedural route again with its contentions. Every single one of the procedural arguments raised last time was dismissed so again it’s not hopeful these will be considered by the DC?

Also, appears to be a shame that the DCs decision to exclude Pope's evidence was overturned by the LAP.
Them pointing out that he sounds a bit dense and the metaphors weren't anywhere near the same thing as football players wasn't enough of a reason.

I'm getting to the point where I just want it done.
It's been 8 months since the EFL appealed. 

He lives in Middlesbrough. Isn't that the same thing?

This line from Derby's statement interests me the most.
It seems to insinuate that the League Arbitration Panel are in a worse place to judge whether it follows FRS102 than the original Disciplinary Commission.
Then this line: 
In combination with this from the EFL statement:
Would suggest we have some mitigating circumstances. While the LAP did not agree that the amortisation model DCFC used followed FRS102, those at the club believed it did, for good reason - 'carefully researched and objectively justifiable information'.
I still think it throws some shade at the EFL. They should have spotted this in the first place - they knew at the time that there was a different amortisation model, but breezed past it taking the club at face value, instead of investigating it further. As above, the club didn't outright mislead the EFL, but what was said was not enough. 
So, as I understand it, I'd expect a fine for the misconduct, and then a points deduction as a result of the accounts recalculation.

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.