San Fran Van Rams

The Reading penalty is a farce if true. Another example of inept and inconsistent governance. But of course, no one will hold them to account. Shambolic.

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.
If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

This thread sounds like the EFLs decisioning process then

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.
If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.
If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

Thank you - really appreciate your knowledge and expertise here!!

He's agreeing with your post he just used the wrong emoji buddy - he meant this ?
Was ruled non-compliant. It's an important distinction or least it was ?

What puzzles me is the second tribunal found that we did not comply with Fs102 which to everyone else we did. One side must be right and oneside wrong. Add to that our accounts were checked by the accountants ruling body who found nothing wrong. If what I post is correct a simple letter from the ruling body should have been a great lever for the administrators to use. Just because no other club did it out way means nothing because somehow we were found not to be complying with fs102

It's a fact that the EFL didn't prescribe what form of Amortisation clubs should use. It's reasonable to believe that DCFC should have had their change of Amortisation method approved officially by the EFL prior to applying it. But it's also reasonable to believe that because the method to be used was open to interpretation, the consequences for DCFC should have been more proportionate than 18 months of embargo, more than 2 years of uncertainty, denial of pandemic relief funds, loss of potential take-over transactions, and ultimately Administration and potential liquidation. 
Some posters are concerned about the lack of balance on here, fair enough, but where's the balance in the reporting of the issues outside of here? 

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.
If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

Not its not... the crux of amortization issue is that we didn't depreciate the same amount every year. No player was worth more at the end of their contract than at the start which is what you stated and all players had a residual value of 0 at the end of their contract.... 
If you can show me otherwise, please do.

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.
If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.
If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

I agree - it was to form an advantage. But that's not to say forming that advantage wasn't allowed... the rules are the rules and we did not break the rules other than to not properly disclose our method. I have seem no evidence that our policy contravenes FRS102 which is the charge that has resulted in this 9 point deduction and 3 point suspended deduction sanction. We've then been further punished for trying to prove our innocence.
If the EFL want a principles based regulation, they should implement a principle based regulation. They haven't. Its rules based, which they then flex and change based on their agenda. 

I wasn't aware this had happened - can you point to where Derby did this and for which players?

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

The Reading penalty is a farce if true. Another example of inept and inconsistent governance. But of course, no one will hold them to account. Shambolic.

Quite looking forward to watching the players play without any pressure. The expectations have dropped through the floor and I'm hoping that equates to our players just going out there and playing good football. Never know, may end up picking up another 50 points...

I completely agree that Morris and his team are responsible for Derby's financial situation. Morris, as captain, walked away from a sinking ship and that should be condemned.
However, just because no other club follows the same amortization method doesn't mean its wrong and done in bad faith. From my basic understanding (and no, I'm not an accountant), the method actually more closely resembles the value of a players contract as it assigns greater value at a point in time to those players who are harder to buy (i.e. those with more time on their contract, different types of players, their age etc.). In fact, clubs who used straight line amortization but sold players early in their contract would have taken a larger book profit than Derby. 
The point also remains that the residual value of zero also means that Derby would have taken the loss at some point, and likely in the last year of the contract unless they'd been able to sell the player. The benefit gained in one year would be taken out of another. Not sure where the unjustness or bad faith of that is? At best, it made our time horizon for a P&S breach push further out (which we were trying to manage through player sales - see Bogle and Lowe). 

Not its not... the crux of amortization issue is that we didn't depreciate the same amount every year. No player was worth more at the end of their contract than at the start which is what you stated and all players had a residual value of 0 at the end of their contract.... 
If you can show me otherwise, please do.

Not its not... the crux of amortization issue is that we didn't depreciate the same amount every year. No player was worth more at the end of their contract than at the start which is what you stated and all players had a residual value of 0 at the end of their contract.... 
If you can show me otherwise, please do.

I wasn't aware this had happened - can you point to where Derby did this and for which players?

I wasn't aware this had happened - can you point to where Derby did this and for which players?

So, not only did Reading sell their stadium to themselves, they also sold their training ground to themselves and received a grant of £10M for an unspecified purpose. Without these items, their losses would have been even greater. 
But, hey, they've been open and honest and are super super rich... ... ? 
 

I wasn't aware this had happened - can you point to where Derby did this and for which players?