Indy

No. In the face of an uneven playing field in the form of grossly unfair parachute payments we have been creative in competing. 

He clearly likes the sound of his own voice and is clearly making a name for himself out of this.
The crazy thing is, he openly admitted he was the one who wrote to the EFL and flagged up our accounting practices. The EFL dismissed his concerns and Maguire wrote back again and insisted they looked into it.
Derby fans and the media should be blocking him out best they can, he is not on our side in the slightest.

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. 

My other half scrolls down and only reads the last paragraph of Daily Mail articles. The rest is clickbait. 

Without knowing the full detail (and to be honest, little intention of digging it) it's still not clear from either statement what the actual fallout is going to be. EFL has triumphantly announced we are in breach and will be punished, DCFC has said a partial part of the appeal was successful which, whilst not mutually contradictory the DCFC statement contains a lot more detail and implies it's not really as simple as the EFL statement reads.
In the context though, the EFL "needed" a win from this, hence the triumphant statement, leaking the story to the press, allowing it to be put around within the game that we're done for, I feel the EFL want everyone to believe thier narrative of events - and given the press coverage and apparent fan reactions on twitter they'v achieved that.
In terms of going back to the Disciplinary Commision, I think it's the case they can't change what the LAP decided (which was the EFL won part of the ammortisation charge) and therefore can only decide on the sanctions accoring to the rule book on sanctions. If it's the same panel, I don't think they'll like having been told they are wrong, but will be acting within a set out proceedure.

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. 

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. 

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.