San Fran Van Rams

Would love to see this. Cant really go wrong with it either. Here's to hoping the new kit is a 50th anniversary celebration of our title winning kit too - would be ace.

We are all COVID affected clubs, Reading average what 10-12000 per game so that’s £8mish lost to COVID, we average about 26,000 so that would be a loss of £20mish if you add food, drink and hospitality then the loss comparison gets even bigger. COVID affected the clubs with bigger fan bases more. 
 
I don’t agree with Maguire on this, the EFL should deduct what they judge clubs have lost due to Covid-19 and then treat everyone the same. They should have come up with a formula for this by now. Clubs like Stoke and Reading who have huge losses should be treated in the same way as SWFC and DCFC

It’s our history and we should be extremely proud of their achievement. So for me I would love to see the images of our 1971-72 squad all around the ground.
It seems fitting on the 50th anniversary of the success of those legends, I strongly believe they should be at pride of place above the main entrance to PP in view of the Taylor/Clough statue.
This is so important, now more than ever. Because of the ongoing turmoil we are having to endure right now this for me means we should celebrate those lads of yesteryear far more than we have done as a club to date.
History is something that no one can take away from us, no matter who they are or who they think they are.
COYR ? ????

I missed the word overall in front of running. 
My post was in support of Mel Morris who according to many document leaks on the internet had very serious health issues over the past 12 months including in one document which was headed as an "offer for sale memorandum"  which contained the statement that he was suffering from cancer earlier last year and undergoing treatment, I therefore get angry and take exception to assertions that he has gone missing has lost interest and is lacking in communication with a very hostile subset of supporters, all of whom appear to pile on without quoting anything other than their opinions which invariably are suppositions about conjecture.
Give the guy a break.
 

So, here we are. Thanks to some very knowledgeable posters, we have, I think, unwrapped the lash-up the EFL have caused us, themselves an Wycombe.  It would be laughable it it wasn't so tragic but I just have a sneaking feeling DCFC Fans are more advanced than the EFL and the LAP on the matter. How did it come to this?

It honestly feels like the DC, the LAP, the EFL and the Club are all talking across each other, using the same terms to mean different things and quoting different bits of FRS102 at each other out of context.  And I'm really not an expert on any of this, so I'm basically going by a surface reading of the written reasons and regs, so I may well be wrong on everything here too.  So...
It does seems to be taken as fact by everyone that there is no "active market" and hence we have to use the cost model. Even the club agrees with that with their statements to the DC and say they are using the cost model.  And going by my reading of the regs, I agree.
The EFL/LAP/ProfPope etc claimed we were using the cost model but were revaluing players, which is a feature of (and only of) the revaluation model. That's the root of their appeal win.
We claim we were doing no such thing. We claim we were using the cost model, but we were factoring potential sales into the future economic benefits of the asset. So for someone like Jozwiak, his future economic benefits might only be 20% in actually playing for the club, and 80% in what we think we can sell him for in a year or 2.  Obviously if his form dropped or he got injured, that balance would shift and we'd readjust.
The LAP reasons are really weird, they go on for pages and pages quoting FRS102 about things we weren't claiming we were doing, and saying we can't do them (well, so what?). And then there's just a few statements that basically boil down ProfPope's opinion about future economic benefits without any real legal analysis about whether they're correct or not.  What analysis there is doesn't seem to tally with the regs either. The regs say future economic benefits can include that from the disposal of an asset, but the LAP decision is clear that they believe they can only come from the clubs use of an asset.  The regs say you can amend your amortisation model, useful life (or residual value) if your use of an asset or market conditions changes, the LAP decision makes it clear they they believe you can only do that for the revaluation model.  The LAP's understanding of the regs really doesn't seem right to me.
From what I can tell, the entire issue is that they think we were doing something that we weren't (cost model + revaluing players).  They claim in the LAP reasons that ProfPope's lack of experience in practical accountancy and football finances was irrelevant because the issue came down to a matter of fact (the regs so you can't do X and we did X). But to my reading, ProfPrope's lack of experience is exactly what's lead him to this erroneous conclusion about what were doing. He didn't have the experience or knowledge to see if what we were doing is appropriate or not.
Sorry for the long post...

B) would appear to be the most arguable by virtue of imposing transfer windows. 
But I'll wager that implication was never thought through at the time. 
The whole thing stinks though. As a regulatory authority the EFL should be trying to provide guidance and interpretation ex-ante, not coming along ex-post and working backwards to find small print to fit their retrospectively determined desired outcome. 
This is why they are not fit for purpose. 

I don't think it would have made any difference at all.  The first step was proving that we were even allowed to do what we were doing - having failed to do that, whether we were doing it well or not is irrelevant.  If we'd found a random accountant to stand up in the DC and say that what we were doing is perfectly normal, then that would have probably been enough.  The "error in law" was ignoring the expert in the room - if we'd had competing experts and the DC had found ours more credible, then there would have been no error. The DC were already convinced what we were doing was okay, so getting an expert witness to agree to it should have been a rubber-stamping exercise.
Beyond that, the DC were satisfied our methods for calculating ERVs were OK (despite the shoddy record-keeping etc), and the LAP found no grounds to overrule that.  So keeping better records would have made no difference.  The screwup the club is responsible for is not getting our own expert witness.  That's what ultimately cost us.
Obviously that doesn't excuse the poor record-keeping, it's quite frankly pathetic and embarrassing for the club to be admitting that in a legal proceeding

If you say so.

I think qualified accountants and auditors are better placed to judge than 3 lawyers and a professor don't you?

Wrong. The auditors job is to check that the accounts show a true and fair view and that they comply with the requirements of The Companies Act. The auditors signed off that they do.
To say that our accounts do not comply with the Companies Act is plainly false, they may not comply with P&S rules but it seems that there is a difference between complying with Companies House/HMRC rules and complying with the EFL P&S rules. Stop confusing the two.

Why are some folk so unable, unwilling or both, to assimilate a few simple facts concerning these charges? It's no small wonder that fans from other clubs have a poor opinion of us now, when some of our own fans, who ought to be better informed, are themselves the first to jump on any sniff of perceived wrongdoing. What possible benefit is there in wilfully ignoring what we know to be true in favour presupposing guilt at every corner? We've even got folk using the fact that we've not submitted the new accounts inside 48 hours as the latest stick with which to thrash the club. It simply beggars belief.
For the umpteenth time, there were two charges; one related to the valuation of our stadium and was summarily dismissed by the DC; the other related to our amortisation policy which was signed off on and approved under legal accounting standards by independent auditors, the auditors regulatory body, the DC and the ducking EFL themselves, the latter several times over a period of years. The amortisation policy charge was also initially dismissed by the DC for the aforementioned reasons. This left the EFL so desperate to save face that they appealed the decision, the outcome of which was predicted by myself and numerous others on this very thread: a small fine in order to secure the token win they need to maintain any ducking credibility at all AND NO POINTS DEDUCTION. 
At this point, I very much doubt that even the EFL will be willing to risk further embarrassment. They can kid themselves this paltry fine vindicates two years of unwarranted charges and appeals and get back to their principal role as lapdogs to Sky and the Premiership whilst paying themselves inflated salaries for doing so. As for the DC, I strongly suspect that they only agreed to what is a nominal fine in order to save the EFL from falling into further disrepute and to allow us to finally emerge from under an endless series of unfair and damaging embargos and to prevent the EFL from continuing what has become a spiteful and unwarranted campaign against a club whose chairman quite rightly questioned their business acumen. In doing so, they have vindicated Mel's opinion in spades, though the crushing irony of this has unsurprisingly escaped the EFL's notice and who will doubtless be celebrating spending millions to secure a £100k fine for their members' coffers.
If, as I strongly suspect, the EFL do not appeal this sanction, I think we will 'be the bigger man' and simply take the £100k hit in order to allow us to return to football matters rather than spending every waking hour addressing the embittered ramblings and actions of a so-called professional body that seems more intent on undermining its membership than serving it. 

I would think it's the other way around. Worst case scenario being that they appeal the original verdict and that results in a retroactive relegation, and then when the redone accounts are submitted they charge us again for further breaches in the hopes of an additional points deduction. Of course, this would require the original sanction to be overturned as an inadequate punishment for the offence committed (not particularly likely, this would require the DC to have significantly messed up in their judgment) and for the resubmitted accounts to show an overspend beyond the accepted limits (no idea if this is the case or not, though the likes of Kieran Maguire believe we'll probably just about be OK).

According to a post I read on OTIB (the Bristol City forum) they can do exactly that. Rule 28:2 I believe it was quoted.
They have a thread dedicated to our trials and tribulations. A couple of people on there are quite enthusiastic about our downfall, one in particular.
Check it out if you ever have trouble sleeping. ?

Eaton Ram's reference to Rams Trust has made me wonder whether we could get something out of the EFL through a letter along the lines of the one sent to the Club recently signed by Rams Trust, Punjabi Rams, Ryan Hills etc.  The letter could ask the EFL:
How their approach meets with their stated aim of protecting clubs, particularly in respect of Derby.  Can they give any examples of where they have acted in good faith towards the club? What reassurances they can offer to DCFC staff whose jobs are under threat through the continued uncertainty Can they explain why an accounting technicality should lead to people losing their livelihoods, even when those people have had nothing to do with accounting procedures etc Is it their intention to continually appeal against any decision that does not go their way?  If so, can the explain the moral justification for such an approach? Can they also provide justification for deciding to reject an accounting practice that they had previously accepted when signing off the accounts?  Do they feel any responsibility for having made what they now seem to consider an error, and if so what redress are they making as a result? what, if any responsibility, do they feel towards the fans of DCFC, and do they understand the effect their actions are having on at least some of them? They have been reported to be keen to see Derby relegated.  Can they explain to the Derby fanbase whether this is in fact the case, and if so, their justification for acting in such a way? Etc Etc I think a letter coming from specific groups rather than an individual stands a better chance of getting a response.  That response is very likely to be that it's all Derby's fault, and that people will lose their jobs etc due to the clubs actions etc, they have to be fair to the other clubs blah blah.  However, it may be worth a try?

This for me is the question - if we do fail the FRS rules based on the resubmission, could we argue that spending decisions taken during that time period were based on a methodology that hadn't been questioned and we had assumed to be correct, and that we weren't acting in a subversive manner in when doing so? 
I'm not sure if there is any precedent in other walks of life on this but I guess its like being given a speeding fine when your speedo is 10mph out

If 4000 supporters donate the price of one match ticket £25 we would raise the 100k. I would gladly do it. Think it would say a lot and raise a lot of positive publicity if paid with an open letter to the press stating our disgust at the way the efl are behaving. Any money raised over the target sum to be donated to breast and prostrate cancer research. I would gladly pay. 

Let’s see this for what it is, a vendetta against Mel Morris and Derby County from the EFL for having the audacity to stand up to them over the TV money and threaten a Premier League 2 which other club owners backed him on, and a vendetta from Steve Gibson and Boro because we beat them to the playoffs (despite Boro having a BIGGER BUDGET THAN WE DID that season!!) 
Rather than try to sort out the issues on wages and make the championship a level playing field they just want to wage war against Derby and won’t back down to save face and appease other championship owners who are self interested to the point of being vindicative. We have been screwed over more than any other club because of the ongoing transfer embargoes due to this process and vindictive statements like saying the fixtures are interchangeable. It is beyond shameful.
There is no way we get a points deduction for this breach as there is no precedent.
There is no way a points deduction would be applied retrospectively as again - no precedent
Any deduction will result from new accounts submissions which will be a new charge and hopefully much more simple to determine. That could only apply next season. And it is by no means clear we would breach the limits anyway. 
Time to back the club, Mel Morris and Stephen Pearce on this issue 
 

Actually it's like the police telling you it's ok that your speedo is 10mph out and then the police fining you for it a year later.

This for me is the question - if we do fail the FRS rules based on the resubmission, could we argue that spending decisions taken during that time period were based on a methodology that hadn't been questioned and we had assumed to be correct, and that we weren't acting in a subversive manner in when doing so? 
I'm not sure if there is any precedent in other walks of life on this but I guess its like being given a speeding fine when your speedo is 10mph out

This for me is the question - if we do fail the FRS rules based on the resubmission, could we argue that spending decisions taken during that time period were based on a methodology that hadn't been questioned and we had assumed to be correct, and that we weren't acting in a subversive manner in when doing so? 
I'm not sure if there is any precedent in other walks of life on this but I guess its like being given a speeding fine when your speedo is 10mph out

This for me is the question - if we do fail the FRS rules based on the resubmission, could we argue that spending decisions taken during that time period were based on a methodology that hadn't been questioned and we had assumed to be correct, and that we weren't acting in a subversive manner in when doing so? 
I'm not sure if there is any precedent in other walks of life on this but I guess its like being given a speeding fine when your speedo is 10mph out

I got an interesting response from the club when I cancelled:
'Unfortunately, this price increase has come from the EFL and not a decision made by DCFC.
I completely understand and share your frustration on this matter'
In my view, this is not the EFL acting in the interests of clubs, this is an anti-competitive price gauging matter to force clubs to use i-follow. Joke. Wouldn't be surprised if we see legal action. 

I got an interesting response from the club when I cancelled:
'Unfortunately, this price increase has come from the EFL and not a decision made by DCFC.
I completely understand and share your frustration on this matter'
In my view, this is not the EFL acting in the interests of clubs, this is an anti-competitive price gauging matter to force clubs to use i-follow. Joke. Wouldn't be surprised if we see legal action.