Indy

But the problem is that we are competing with clubs with ludicrous parachute payments giving them an unfair advantage. Clubs have no choice but to gamble in some way in order to compete.

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

But the problem is that we are competing with clubs with ludicrous parachute payments giving them an unfair advantage. Clubs have no choice but to gamble in some way in order to compete.

But the problem is that we are competing with clubs with ludicrous parachute payments giving them an unfair advantage. Clubs have no choice but to gamble in some way in order to compete.

That's how I see it. By moving the hit to later for each player we had a season or two more in which to achieve promotion. The problem is that those players weren't good enough. What it also means in my opinion, is that we gained an advantage because we didn't have to sell our sellable assets. Nothing illegal or against any League rules (at the time).

It allowed us to stretch our budget at that time - we covered that by Mel selling the stadium. Maybe we'd still have the stadium on the books if it'd worked.
Edit: what Indy said.

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

I wouldn’t take the punishment out of principle, but then I can understand why the club would just to settle it and be allowed to move on.
Whilst you have the likes of Gibson and Wycombe threatening to take legal action, the EFL will continue to appeal to show they have done everything in their power. 
My concern now is there is genuine tension between the club and the EFL, this might calm once Mel has completed the sale of the club, just fear that we will be scrutinised for any minor infraction now and on their radar.
With the club statements made, we have embarrassed them, shown the EFL up as the incompetent organisation it is, and that will have ruffled some big feathers.
Some would argue, we should have kept quiet, rolled over, but let’s not forget how this tension really all started, way back when Mel was the one actively fighting for better TV deals to benefit the entire Football League gaining support along the way.
I agree with @Dan_Ram, as fans of this club we should be doing our bit to change the narrative to the real issue here which should be a huge story.
Unfortunately though, the vocal fans we do have are using their voices to continue with their anger towards the club from top to bottom.
We have no chance of this happening and I find that kinda sad in all honesty, doesn’t feel like we have any togetherness at all right now. Some will argue that’s Mel’s fault for the way he’s run the club, but that’s missing the point here which Dan has made in this thread.
When you see other clubs like Leeds for example, blatantly cheating with spying on training sessions they were out in force over Derby forums and social media defending their club.
Us? We even had fans saying so what, they spied on our training sessions preparing to play them and that’s the difference.
Keogh, rather than look at what he did to this club, we have fans out there going through employment laws section 2b on page 456 that says we did wrong. 
Forget the fact that the club captain refused a taxi home and stayed out with young lads, one of which had been drinking to get over the loss of his mum, get in a car with them. 
No no, 2b in the employment law, page 456 ffs says we should have sacked them all, wanting us to write off one of our most valuable assets that could still perform for the club and actually needed an arm round him, some support as the young man tries to get over the loss of his mum. 
I really dislike Leeds, REALLY dislike Leeds but I can’t help but respect the togetherness through right or wrong, that is there club and nobody shall attack it.
I’m sure you could link this to the atmosphere between the 2 grounds as well, feels like we’re waiting to boo rather than get behind the team.
As a disclaimer to this I do feel there are times when you cannot support, a player that has been racist for example, found guilty, but in fairness I don’t think he’s been that popular since with them.

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

Coincidentally, several years ago I drew up an approach for amortising deferred acquisition costs for my financial services employer. 
Two or three years on, the auditors came back and said "your approach isn't the same as emerging market practice, which means that your profit profile looks different and market analysts won't be able to compare you with other companies". 
We argued that our approach suited us, we understood it, and the accounting standards didn't prohibit it. 
They had to agree, but fell back on the "market practice" line and indicated that a special note would have to be put in the audit report, which never is a good thing. 
So we changed. With very ill grace. 
 
I see parallels here. Dcfc are being pulled up on amortisation. Not Enron style valuation of fictional assets and hidden captive entities where all the losses are hidden to present a fictional view of the club to the world. The policy was no doubt adopted to enable a short term increase in wiggle room. In the knowledge that it's the end points that are important and if contracts/registrations ultimately expire for nothing then there will be a reckoning, as there has been, which is being fully recognised.
I have no idea what other variations clubs might use in other parts of the accounts. All sorts might be going on. If forests Greek owner can do favourable deals between his 2 clubs then that's a fault in the rule drafting. 
 

That's just hyperbolic drivel I'm afraid. 

It's not the doing it that is the issue, it's actually perfectly sensible. The issue was they way they put it in the statement on DCFC sanctions and then released both sets. The sensible and neautal approach would have been to add "the EFL note the disciplinry process against Derby County has not been concluded and a contingency situation has been prepared for if needed" has a far more professional tone than "we've got the fixtures all ready for when we get you!!!"

Yes. This is what I mean. I’m sure that have a reasonable set prepared so they know what the position is likely to be. But the final stage of getting them fully prepared, written up etc to audit compliant standards would still need to be done. 

Because professionally preparing and finalising accounts costs money, and DCFC were only made aware that it needed doing sometime on Wednesday evening.
 
And they have until 18 August to do it, so no rush there (although the quicker the better to lift the soft transfer embargo). 

Because professionally preparing and finalising accounts costs money, and DCFC were only made aware that it needed doing sometime on Wednesday evening.
 
And they have until 18 August to do it, so no rush there (although the quicker the better to lift the soft transfer embargo). 

Exactly. Article in the Sheffield Star, and first quote is one of their fans saying Derby did ‘the same as them’ (ie some shenanigans around stadium sale) and should therefore get a points deduction. Total ignorance fuelling outrage. Should be ignored. 

Shouldn’t they be suing Steve Gibson then? 

Exactly. Article in the Sheffield Star, and first quote is one of their fans saying Derby did ‘the same as them’ (ie some shenanigans around stadium sale) and should therefore get a points deduction. Total ignorance fuelling outrage. Should be ignored. 

Shouldn’t they be suing Steve Gibson then? 

I'm no lawyer, but I'd have thought the use of the phrase "systematic cheating" is actionable. We've been through a disciplinary procedure that cleared us of any wrongdoing re. the sale of the stadium, and that censured us for using unusual but entirely legal amortisation procedures. Publically accusing the club of cheating is a very serious claim, and if I was the club's lawyer I'd be writing to this bloke pretty sharpish. The EFL have already dragged our name through the mud; we don't need every other gob***te joining in.

I thought member clubs were prohibited from suing each other, and agree to submitting to the EFL disciplinary process as final arbiter. Otherwise it’d be chaos. 

I thought member clubs were prohibited from suing each other, and agree to submitting to the EFL disciplinary process as final arbiter. Otherwise it’d be chaos. 

The major issue for me isn’t the jurisdiction or the appeal, it’s the ongoing embargo that feels like it’s designed to strangle the club from moving forward.
With what will be a poorly delivered preseason, we’ll be scraping the barrel to bring players in who are fit to compete with 2nd Division standard players.
If wages are capped for us, then it’s shown that we can’t compete with the likes of Peterborough, never mind the West Brom’s of the division.
Until they introduce a salary cap like in the 3rd and 4th Divisions, we pretty much are swimming against a faster moving tide every year.
And we know that the salary cap will never come to fruition because the big boys in the top division will not like it and threaten to remove our share of the scraps.

I thought that was a good pre-emptive strike. No use letting the EFL dock points and then try and appeal them, we need to stop the EFLs idea that docking points retrospectively is ever an option (for any team tbh).

Probably the time to stop panicking (although I’d say, more the time to stop being anxious) is when a line has been drawn under the whole sorry mess and we can start again.
 
If that’s from League 1 then so be it. Other clubs are, and have been, in such circumstances and survived (or even prospered).  I wouldn’t want it or relish it, but it wouldn’t stop me going. It might even be quite interesting to see something a bit different.  
 
Either way, I just wish we’d get to a point where it’s sorted; there are no more appeals, no more charges and no more uncertainty. We cant move on until then.