Indy

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?

And he didn’t understand the role of an expert witness 

Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch!
Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation. 

Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch!
Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation. 

And he didn’t understand the role of an expert witness 

Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch!
Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation. 

Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch!
Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation. 

Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch!
Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation. 

Their argument is that you can't guarantee that you can sell a player, because another club might not want to buy, or the player might not want to leave, so you can't assume he has any value at all.  But that literally rules out future economic benefits from disposal for anything at all ever, so I don't understand how it makes any sense.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-wednesday-Derby-erik-alonso-20575830.amp
What concerns me is that alonso has form of doing this before.
Also why remove his twitter account.
For me its a non starter.
I would recommend to mel that he pays for a consultancy service like KPMG or deloitte to source a good buyer for the club, they can audit the buyer to make sure they are of good character and have the funds they are experts at handling business issues and would definately be able to find interested people to buy the club.
I'm confident of this as someone who has worked over the years for a number of consultancy firms.
It would be a fairly quick turn around.

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.
I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?
Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?
So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?
If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

Don't  forget, the lateness of being notified of the 2nd charge resulted in inadequate time to prepare an expert witness

They're trying to compare standard depreciation policies with amortisation. All they're saying is "this is the standard way of doing things". What they have failed to prove is our policy is not an acceptable alternative, as far as I can tell (they're looking at the problem backwards)

People seem to have missed that Derby can appeal the final sanction given by DC but the EFL can’t appeal it 

From page 42 of the document. I could be misunderstanding, but are they really saying that if you buy a house you have no expectation of being able to sell it at all?  And after 40 years a house is effectively worthless? And then saying players are basically the same? Because that's an insane position to take.

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 
 
IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether our approach was legally compliant and reasonable - and all accountants involved have agreed that it was. 

Why would anyone want to resign? More likely they would want to protect their professional reputation by responding with another lengthy legal justification and giving the minimum possible sanction. Which the EFL will then presumably appeal against.
We are now down to various legal professionals posturing (for large sums of money) in my opinion. 

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 
 
IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether our approach was legally compliant and reasonable - and all accountants involved have agreed that it was. 

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 
 
IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether our approach was legally compliant and reasonable - and all accountants involved have agreed that it was. 

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 
 
IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether our approach was legally compliant and reasonable - and all accountants involved have agreed that it was. 

Seems bizarre that a set of lawyers can essentially say we can't use our amortisation method, whereas a set of accountants say we can. Even more bizarre that our accounts now have to do what the lawyers say!

I also think there has been a lot of signals over the way in which the club has been praised for its honesty etc and that will also mitigate the penalty

It's confused me greatly. It's why I'm wondering if the club's method can still be used but only based upon usage and not on resale. I'm not sure what that would look like, though.
Referring to the original panel's conclusions, it seems the second particular will have only been partially ruled in the EFL's favour:
"i) the fact that the Club’s amortisation policy during the relevant financial years did not amortise on straight line basis is not contrary to FRS 102" - Still true. Not using a straight line method is not, in itself, a breach of FRS 102.
"ii) the amortisation schedule does reflect the Club’s expected pattern of consumption of future economic benefits from players’ registrations" - The appeal panel finds this inaccurate, but one would assume that there would be a substantial amount of mitigation in punishment seeing as, like you said, it seems the club, the auditors, the auditor's regulators, and the panel themselves all thought that it did do so.
It will be interesting to see if the club are forced to move to a straight line method, or if they'll be allowed to use their current method solely based around "use" and not "disposal."

Just spotted this tweet from Alan Nixon, it appears he has a copy of the decision report. I wonder how he has that as they've not released it yet?
So, it appears it was the second particular, and that ONLY which the EFL won on appeal.
I don't understand how it can be impermissible to take into account the possible resale value of players when it clearly states in FRS 102, as mentioned in the original decision, that future economic benefits from the intangible asset include use OR disposal?
From the original report
So if it wasn't an unreliable pattern for the years under scrutiny, why do we have to use the straight-line method?
If we don't have to use the straight-line method, given the expected consumption of future economic benefits includes disposal, it shouldn't be impermissible to take into account the resale value, and it being the 'cost model' should make no difference.

In the midst of all the effort the EFL have used to investigate us, what have they actually done that's useful to protect the 72 member clubs during the pandemic ?
 
I am astonished that we've reached the end of the season with none of the members going bust & that's no thanks to the EFL