Indy

Yes. That was the opinion of the panel (no accountancy expertise). The original ruling from the commission (including an accountant) went into great detail on this and concluded we were compliant (as did three years of auditors signing off accounts). And it’s going back to the same commission (and accountant) to determine the punishment and by implication admit to their own incompetence in the original ruling. 

Yes. That was the opinion of the panel (no accountancy expertise). The original ruling from the commission (including an accountant) went into great detail on this and concluded we were compliant (as did three years of auditors signing off accounts). And it’s going back to the same commission (and accountant) to determine the punishment and by implication admit to their own incompetence in the original ruling. 

I think that’s harsh. The club statement puts a lot in context about the original ruling and who has been involved in this one. If the media (and the public) relied on the EFL statement they’d think we broke the law, and have no knowledge of the discrepancy in accountancy expertise, or Boro’s determination to insert themselves into another club’s proceedings. I think the EFL statement is pretty misleading with omissions and implied wrongdoing. 

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

Who nicked it off me (post on here earlier)!!
?

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

I think that’s harsh. The club statement puts a lot in context about the original ruling and who has been involved in this one. If the media (and the public) relied on the EFL statement they’d think we broke the law, and have no knowledge of the discrepancy in accountancy expertise, or Boro’s determination to insert themselves into another club’s proceedings. I think the EFL statement is pretty misleading with omissions and implied wrongdoing. 

That would be my assumption. Otherwise it would mean a panel with accountancy expertise, adjudicating on accounts that have been cleared by auditors, would give priority over their own expertise and that of auditors, to a new panel with zero accountancy expertise. That’s why I think this makes no sense. To levy a large punishment (or any punishment really) would mean accepting that their original ruling was incorrect as determined by non-experts. 

Who nicked it off me (post on here earlier)!!
?

Who nicked it off me (post on here earlier)!!
?

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

I've said this before but straight-line amortisation is not appropriate for intangible assets like players' contracts; it skews true balance sheet value.
Buy player X as a promising 21 year old from Man United's reserves for £4m on a four year contract; said Player X signs a new contract in the third year of his stint with a book value of £1m, shortly before being called up for his country and is now worth considerably more.
Any FFP protocol has to allow for gains as well as losses, otherwise it's just a stick to beat clubs with.

I thought we wrote the value down to 0 at the end of the contract the same as the straight line method because at the end of the contract they do not have a value to club, the issue was how much we said their contract was worth in between the start and end points?
Effectivly, the EFL argument is that this cannot be know, so the only viable option is to writ it down evenly over the course of the contract (it is impossible to justify anything else), DCFC's argument is, yes, you can based on how good they are and what other similar players transfer for. It's harder to justify from the DCFC side, but the orginal hearing dtermined that we did that.

I dont think what can be in doubt is the appalling way the news was leaked to the press.

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

As an external auditor myself, one of our key jobs in any financial audit is ensuring that the accounting policies comply with the applicable standards (as others have mentioned, FRS102).
I personally haven't ever audited a football club, but seeing as the intangible assets are such a material part of the balance sheet I'm sure that any auditor would be massively thorough in auditing that balance (and the amortisation to go along with it).
The auditors sign off to say that the accounts are prepared in line with the applicable standards, so surely they must be. How the EFL can go back now and say that they're not is beyond me.

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense. 

Yet the accountants on the DC found nothing wrong with the policy itself. Only lawyers on the LAP think it's improper for the intended purpose. In fact, the LAP praised the club's honesty.

My reading of the 2 staements (EFL vs DCFC) based on zero knowledge of the actually facts:
The EFL needed a win for it's own credibility as much as anything else and are being pretty triumphalist about it.
DCFC also needed a win to get out of the poo.
The result is actually somewhere in between. It's a qualified win for the EFL, but given the orginal panel's pretty scathing verdict of the EFL's case, I don't think they will be inclined to go all guns blazing at us, especially as the part that the appeal overturned was one the original panel were detailed in why they found in our favor.
It's a win for the EFL, but not the big one they want everyone to believe. There's going to be some consiquences for DCFC, but yet to see what. Almost certainly won't be applied this season.

The highlighted part beggars belief. In the absence of a prescribed amortisation model, the club, like most other companies, is obliged to follow financial reporting standards, in this case FRS102. The club's auditors, by definition qualified accountants, were clearly satisfied that they did, so how on earth can someone who is not an accountant say that they didn't. It is almost as if they deliberately chose not to have an accountant on the panel so that they could get the decision they wanted without having to let the facts get in the way of their disgusting face-saving ploy.
 

On the basis that the EFL clearly act when threatened by member clubs, would it be possible for us to threaten them if they do not retrospectively investigate Middlesbrough for selling their tax losses to a group company?