Indy

Which is fine except that we broadly have a turnover based system now - richer clubs with rich owners are able to spend more than clubs with less turnover, with an additional leeway on top. It doesn’t work because of two factors: whatever rules anyone writes others will seek to find creative ways around them and secondly because it masks the real problems - that the wealth on offer in the PL is so heavily skewing football as a whole and that failure in the PL is so heavily rewarded (now effectively over 4 years) in comparison to the rewards on offer in the Championship.
Sheffield Utd have just earned 4 years of DCFC turnover in a season, for coming last. On top of that they will also 'earn' 3 years worth of parachute payments the first two of which will more than match DCFC's annual turnover. It has probably already reached the point where even relatively large clubs (like us) in the division simply can't compete unless we get lucky. No wonder owners go for it, no wonder they try to find ways around rules that effectively hold them back

I thought I’d read that they’d settled out of court? 

I thought I’d read that they’d settled out of court? 

I thought I’d read that they’d settled out of court? 

I think it is plain to see there is a vendetta, absolutely.
We have been and continue to be punished. Transfer windows have been decimated, takeovers have either fallen through or stalled as a result.
If we end up with a fine Derby fans will hail that as a success, but just what damage has been caused by 2 years of charges by the EFL, which were laughed out of court at the first attempt.
The fact that rumour suggests if a new owner takes over any punishment would be less severe is surely proof that all of this is just a battle of egos and narcissists and it is a case of Rick Parry gunning for Mel Morris and it is us fans who are the casualties.

I sometimes think that the EFL won't cease and desist until they've put every member club out of business. Quite whose interests they actually purport to serve has become a total mystery to me ?‍♂️

Mr Parry, it's Steve Gibson....on the Gibphone!
"I'll take it in Gibcave, bobbins"

Regardless of the outcome, the EFL have lost any credibility to govern the league and if anything, our case has brought out the need to completely rebuild the hierarchy in charge of our division.
When the EFL originally lost the case against Mel and DCFC, the honorable thing to do by the EFL would have been to accept that loopholes in the rules were exposed and used to our advantage, however that is not down to the club being in the wrong. The accounts were signed off. They have taken zero responsibility for their part in this mess and have taken all steps to cover their failings. I am a critic of how Mel has ran the football club however I will back him against these muppets.
If the EFL had questioned our practices at the time, the club would have needed to accept the consequences for breaking rules. This was authorised by the league. If I was at work and I signed off somebody's documentation, I would be the one responsible for any repercussions if there were problems. 
Not fit for purpose.

The sad thing is the the EFL seem to be punishing us anyway because of all these colossal delays in declaring the results of the enquiry, appeal, panel, etc, which means we have been under transfer embargo several times already. And if this latest outcome isn't made before the transfer window shuts we will have been well and truly punished because we already don't have a squad because of all the out of contract players and all the loan players going back, and us having no time to replace them. We really struggled last season with what passed for a full squad. How can we compete when we could easily have hardly any players available?
Come on EFL, get your finger out.

TBF, the pricing suggests it's more for "a bit of a night out".
Car Parking, Guest speaker, Booked table, set 2 course meal... and we'll throw in some footy on the telly.
 
At £20 a pop, it's a bargain, for those interested.  

Assuming there’s actually anything to this, that could describe Andy Appleby’s consultancy that matches suitable prospective owners with clubs. Fingers crossed. 

Assuming there’s actually anything to this, that could describe Andy Appleby’s consultancy that matches suitable prospective owners with clubs. Fingers crossed. 

Assuming there’s actually anything to this, that could describe Andy Appleby’s consultancy that matches suitable prospective owners with clubs. Fingers crossed. 

Why is he bringing this up and isn’t it just his opinion? I thought the hearing had found in our favour in this respect and the EFL have not appealed it.
Same with Rooney. Many may well agree but, it’s only his opinion.

Except for when he told us all that Alsono was a sound bloke! ? What can he find to blame Mac for? God the bloke is the living embodiment of soured clickbait!

That's journo code for 'dunno what's going on but not going to admit it'

EFL just wanted a win of any kind to avoid all the legal fees in my most humble opinion 

Agreed. I’d take Andy Appleby’s offer to help find a suitable buyer. He has the expertise, knowledge and contacts. Also experience of the competitive and regulatory environment of the English Championship. Plus an affection for DCFC. I’d put a lot of trust in any potential solution he put together. 

to put a balance, sorry it is long but truly important
59) For completeness, we record that there was discussion about the Club’s approach to amortisation between the Club and the EFL in April and May 2019: a) In April 2019, as part of the process of reviewing the Club’s 2019 P&S Submission, the EFL wrote to the Club with various queries. Question 17 was in the following terms:
30 ‘Can you please explain the variances in Player related amortisation charges from £6.5m in 2017/18 down to £4.6m in 2018/19 up to £25.1m in 2019/20? As part of this, please explain how the charge reduces from £3.3m in the 6 months to December 2018 down to £1.2m in the 6 months to June 2019? b) The Club responded on 17 April 2019. As regards Question 17, the Club i) provided an ‘Amortisation reconciliation’ showing amortisation by player for each of the years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20, and ii) explained the drop in the first half of the year to the second half of the year in 2018/19 as being due to a miscalculation in the first half of the year.
c) The EFL responded on 30 April 2019. Amongst the various queries that it still wished the Club to address, it stated ‘My understanding from other Club accounts and from the accounting policy note included in the [Parent Co] accounts is that Player amortisation is the spread of the cost of acquiring a Player’s registration over the respective contract length, with the provision that this can then be revised if a contract is renegotiated (extended). Please explain the amortisation charges for the following players as I can’t understand why there are significant changes in 2019/20 as against the charges in 2018/19’. The letter identified 9 such players d) The Club suggested that the outstanding issues might be best addressed at a meeting. The EFL agreed. That meeting took place on 13 May 2019.
Although there are no contemporaneous notes of that meeting, a good flavour of what was discussed can be derived i) From the Club’s internal email dated 14 May 2019 summarising what had been discussed. Mr Pearce recorded: ‘This was more about [the EFL] wanting an understanding of the process, as they accept that there is nothing they can question on it as it is an acceptable accounting policy under accounting standards. We discussed this with them and they are now comfortable with the treatment’
ii) From an email that Mr Karran sent to himself on 14 May 2019, again summarising what had been discussed. Mr Karran recorded: ‘Player Amortisation The Club; amortisation charge is expected to vary … 31 As part of the queries sent to the Club [the EFL] obviously queried these charges. The Club explained that it was due to the fact that the Club used residual values when assessing each Player’s amortisation charge, which often resulted in very small charges initially and potentially a large charge when the player has one season to go on his contract, A breakdown by player was provided. [The EFL] explained that [it] had not seen this approach before The policy was in line with that disclosed in the Club’s accounts [The EFL] highlighted that the Club’s accounting policy resulted in it being at risk of making significant losses on disposal or large impairment charges in future years or even as an impairment as part of the audit if a player was sold post year end. [The Club] accepted this position. [The EFL] made it clear that the Club would not be able to use one of these large impairment or losses on disposal as an unforeseen charge if it exceeded the P&S Requirement as a result of them based on a review of actual numbers given the Club was fully aware of the risk it was taking. [The Club] accepted this’. This section of Mr Karran’s email to himself concluded ‘Note – [Mr Karran] re-iterated this position to [the Club] during a phone call on 14 May 2019’.
e) From those documents it is clear that there was discussion about the Club’ treatment of how it amortised players – which Mr Pearce described as ‘putting a residual value on them’.
60) In light of such matters, and in light of the matters raised by the EFL with the relevant witnesses in cross-examination, we considered carefully whether the policy described by the Club in its evidence and that we have summarised above was in fact a policy a) That the Club had devised and implemented in 2015, and b) That the Club had applied (or at least endeavoured to apply) since that date. 61) Having considered all of the evidence, we concluded that what we have summarised at paragraph 54 above did indeed represent the Club’s amortisation policy for the financial years to which the Second Charge related: a) As well as finding that we could accept as accurate the evidence of Mr Pearce and Mr Delve
i) We placed weight on the fact that the Club’s financial statements referenced a change in the amortisation policy that Smith Cooper had considered and had concluded was being applied by the Club 32 ii) We placed weight on the fact that the Draft Audit Findings Reports also confirmed that Smith Cooper had ‘no issues with the application of [the Club’s amortisation policy]’ iii) We placed weight on the records of the description of the Club’s amortisation policy given to the EFL in April/May 2019.
While that description might not have been fully understood by the EFL at that time, the contemporaneous emails are consistent with the Club having endeavoured to communicate to the EFL that it was applying an amortisation policy (1) That applied an ERV to players (2) That amortised capitalised costs of players registrations down to that ERV over a period reflecting all but 1 season of the player’s contract (3) That then amortised values down to zero over the course of the final year of the player’s contract

the accounts need to be filed as step 1

Agreed. I’d take Andy Appleby’s offer to help find a suitable buyer. He has the expertise, knowledge and contacts. Also experience of the competitive and regulatory environment of the English Championship. Plus an affection for DCFC. I’d put a lot of trust in any potential solution he put together. 

Agreed. I’d take Andy Appleby’s offer to help find a suitable buyer. He has the expertise, knowledge and contacts. Also experience of the competitive and regulatory environment of the English Championship. Plus an affection for DCFC. I’d put a lot of trust in any potential solution he put together. 

FFP/P&S tries to link clubs' expenditure to their incomes. It could have been effective in stopping clubs getting into financial difficulty and gradually reduced costs if it wasn't for the incentive of promotion and the inbuilt advantage given to clubs related from the Premier League. Even without those issues, I personally don't like the idea because it reduces competition. If FFP worked, Derby, Forest and Wednesday would be untouchable by Wycombe, Rotherham and Brentford. Eventually, you could predict the final league table on the first day of the season.
But it doesn't even work in its primary goal because everyone wants to get promoted and that means competing with clubs able to spend £50m more per season. That money cannot come from owners - which is sustainable if the owners have the will and the means, so clubs have to find schemes to get around the rules. 
FFP in the Championship was the worst idea ever in football...and I said that a long time before it bit Derby County.

I may be misunderstanding but i have always had the feeling if it wasnt for the restraints of FFP/P&s Mel would continue to fund and actively still be trying to secure promotion.
Its the shackles the EFL have implemented in an attempt to protect clubs that are actually causing damage, and potentially putting clubs at risk, not because owners dont have the funds, but because they wont let the owners spend it.
Do the EFL actually want clubs to go out of business? It actually seems that way with the rules they have in place. They are very poor custodians of the football league and really need to take a step back and decide what it is they are trying to do.
When it comes down to appealing over the way something is written on paper then for me it shows they do no have the best interests of the game in mind.