Indy

So essentially our player amortisation policies were examined and found to be FRS102 compliant by a DC including an accounting expert. Subsequently and under appeal, a panel devoid of any accounting specialist, has decided otherwise.
In true EFL fashion, the 'expert analysis' could be appealed, but the decision made without any such input, can't be. 
Welcome to modern football folks! 

I thought a few bits of the panels report were unnecessary.
 
Like the bit where they confirmed that they would not be allowing the consideration of the accounts filed after the judgement as new evidence, and then summarised the argument the EFL wanted to make by asking for the new evidence. Surely this amounts to the same thing, by putting on record the EFL argument but without supporting evidence. 
Also: referring to the original commission disputing Pope’s assertion that disposal of assets wasn’t a benefit, when the regs specifically say it is many times. Referring to it as an appeal to common sense (ie subjective) when it’s there in the text is ridiculous. 
 
Also: saying the fact that Pope has zero practical experience of preparing accounts, or knowledge of the football industry isn’t relevant. As part of his argument is based on assumptions about the football industry (ie the likelihood that an agreement to sell a player will be blocked by a third party, meaning we can’t guarantee a sale so can’t account for it), then his lack of industry knowledge is totally relevant. 
 
Also: saying the regs allow them to form a panel with no specialist accounting experience, so inferring they are allowed to overturn the commission’s decision. I’d argue that commissions consider matters that may not need accounting knowledge (eg the date of when Wednesday actually sold their stadium), so a non-expert panel could reconsider things like that. As the appeal on ours was about the accountancy aspects (ie compliance with accountancy standards) then it should be considered by people with expertise. 
 
It also looks like the list of possible punishments in para 89 (including fines, contract enforcement etc) doesn’t include a points deduction.
Would be useful to know when the EFL have to agree who decides the punishment (the panel has only recommended it be handled by the original commission if agreed by all parties), as I presume we can’t file accounts (and are therefore on a transfer embargo) until that is sorted. 
 
Sorry for the long post!!!

I thought a few bits of the panels report were unnecessary.
 
Like the bit where they confirmed that they would not be allowing the consideration of the accounts filed after the judgement as new evidence, and then summarised the argument the EFL wanted to make by asking for the new evidence. Surely this amounts to the same thing, by putting on record the EFL argument but without supporting evidence. 
Also: referring to the original commission disputing Pope’s assertion that disposal of assets wasn’t a benefit, when the regs specifically say it is many times. Referring to it as an appeal to common sense (ie subjective) when it’s there in the text is ridiculous. 
 
Also: saying the fact that Pope has zero practical experience of preparing accounts, or knowledge of the football industry isn’t relevant. As part of his argument is based on assumptions about the football industry (ie the likelihood that an agreement to sell a player will be blocked by a third party, meaning we can’t guarantee a sale so can’t account for it), then his lack of industry knowledge is totally relevant. 
 
Also: saying the regs allow them to form a panel with no specialist accounting experience, so inferring they are allowed to overturn the commission’s decision. I’d argue that commissions consider matters that may not need accounting knowledge (eg the date of when Wednesday actually sold their stadium), so a non-expert panel could reconsider things like that. As the appeal on ours was about the accountancy aspects (ie compliance with accountancy standards) then it should be considered by people with expertise. 
 
It also looks like the list of possible punishments in para 89 (including fines, contract enforcement etc) doesn’t include a points deduction.
Would be useful to know when the EFL have to agree who decides the punishment (the panel has only recommended it be handled by the original commission if agreed by all parties), as I presume we can’t file accounts (and are therefore on a transfer embargo) until that is sorted. 
 
Sorry for the long post!!!

I thought a few bits of the panels report were unnecessary.
 
Like the bit where they confirmed that they would not be allowing the consideration of the accounts filed after the judgement as new evidence, and then summarised the argument the EFL wanted to make by asking for the new evidence. Surely this amounts to the same thing, by putting on record the EFL argument but without supporting evidence. 
Also: referring to the original commission disputing Pope’s assertion that disposal of assets wasn’t a benefit, when the regs specifically say it is many times. Referring to it as an appeal to common sense (ie subjective) when it’s there in the text is ridiculous. 
 
Also: saying the fact that Pope has zero practical experience of preparing accounts, or knowledge of the football industry isn’t relevant. As part of his argument is based on assumptions about the football industry (ie the likelihood that an agreement to sell a player will be blocked by a third party, meaning we can’t guarantee a sale so can’t account for it), then his lack of industry knowledge is totally relevant. 
 
Also: saying the regs allow them to form a panel with no specialist accounting experience, so inferring they are allowed to overturn the commission’s decision. I’d argue that commissions consider matters that may not need accounting knowledge (eg the date of when Wednesday actually sold their stadium), so a non-expert panel could reconsider things like that. As the appeal on ours was about the accountancy aspects (ie compliance with accountancy standards) then it should be considered by people with expertise. 
 
It also looks like the list of possible punishments in para 89 (including fines, contract enforcement etc) doesn’t include a points deduction.
Would be useful to know when the EFL have to agree who decides the punishment (the panel has only recommended it be handled by the original commission if agreed by all parties), as I presume we can’t file accounts (and are therefore on a transfer embargo) until that is sorted. 
 
Sorry for the long post!!!

No, I don't think you are. The whole tone of the report is judgemental, in my opinion.

The pathetic part of the whole judgement is that they don’t specify the approach that should be used but then object to any club not using the straight line method. Surely you can only be found to be in breach of the rules if the rules clearly define what you can and can’t do…..
We’ve exploited a number of loopholes to meet FFP (which is what happens when regulations aren’t carefully enough defined) - they’re embarrassed that they’ve been shown to be lax and so they want to make an example of us….the EFL are completely unfit to govern

I thought that I read somewhere that it was shown that other clubs in the Premier league and efl were not using straight line amortisation. 
So how many different approaches to the subject can there be which aren't "remotely similar"? 
Amortising an asset is a fairly tightly defined concept. Is this not unnecessarily inflammatory language? 

Yes, but we’ve still managed to make one play off final and two play off semis since Mel took over.
Football is a game of incredibly fine margins. If Bryson had got on the end of that cross against Hull, we might have gone up in Mel’s first season. If Roos had caught the ball at Wembley, we might have gone up slightly later than planned.
As it happens, those things didn’t happen, and we’re left in 21st place and worried about our club’s future.
Mel has made some terrible mistakes, and his last act might well be to sell us to someone who destroys the club. His tenure has undoubtedly been a failure.
But if one or two tiny things had happened differently, he’d have been a club legend.
Such is football eh?

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.