May Contain Nuts

Ignoring 'poppa pumps his own because nobody else will', I had to laugh at this one
 

Literally the opposite of what happened. There was no exam until someone outside of the process called foul, besides even if there were any questions they were written in invisible ink.
We wrote down some answers, they poured some lemon juice on the invisible ink and then decreed that our answers were wrong and tried to punish us for writing whatever it was we wrote, and demanded that we state in great depth why we answered the questions (which we couldn't predict) in the way that we chose to. They weren't asked to explain in anywhere near the same detail  why they wrote the rules in invisible ink in the first place.
One set of adjudicators decided that we had no real case to answer and that if rules were supposed to be followed, they should have been written down.
The examination board reviewed it and claimed that we should have been able to assume the correct answers based on the subject of the quiz,
On a second hearing the first set of adjudicators better explained their position, so the examination board weren't called into action.

The most concerning part of all of this really does come down to the IQ of the average football fan. I've seen no end of people, and by no end I mean at least 90%, not able to understand WHY we were even in court against the EFL. 
In fact, I would say at least 80% believe it was the EFL that has let us off lightly. It's quite concerning how quickly people will jump on something without even reading any of the actual story. Wycombe fans were demanding their owner to sue the EFL and Derby for letting us off. I mean, you would think Wycombe with their investment in this case would at least read the story (some did, and were quick to point it out) but the large majority didn't. 
It's honestly baffled me and made me wonder exactly what things do we hear, where we don't have this level of investment and do similar things? For the Forest and Leeds fans, I just assumed they can't read. It was at least 98% of their comments which still believe we're up against the EFL for the stadium. I'm surprised the daft twits can even conjure the intelligence to open their eyes in the morning. 

We should check with Bris. 

Ignoring 'poppa pumps his own because nobody else will', I had to laugh at this one
 

Literally the opposite of what happened. There was no exam until someone outside of the process called foul, besides even if there were any questions they were written in invisible ink.
We wrote down some answers, they poured some lemon juice on the invisible ink and then decreed that our answers were wrong and tried to punish us for writing whatever it was we wrote, and demanded that we state in great depth why we answered the questions (which we couldn't predict) in the way that we chose to. They weren't asked to explain in anywhere near the same detail  why they wrote the rules in invisible ink in the first place.
One set of adjudicators decided that we had no real case to answer and that if rules were supposed to be followed, they should have been written down.
The examination board reviewed it and claimed that we should have been able to assume the correct answers based on the subject of the quiz,
On a second hearing the first set of adjudicators better explained their position, so the examination board weren't called into action.

Ignoring 'poppa pumps his own because nobody else will', I had to laugh at this one
 

Literally the opposite of what happened. There was no exam until someone outside of the process called foul, besides even if there were any questions they were written in invisible ink.
We wrote down some answers, they poured some lemon juice on the invisible ink and then decreed that our answers were wrong and tried to punish us for writing whatever it was we wrote, and demanded that we state in great depth why we answered the questions (which we couldn't predict) in the way that we chose to. They weren't asked to explain in anywhere near the same detail  why they wrote the rules in invisible ink in the first place.
One set of adjudicators decided that we had no real case to answer and that if rules were supposed to be followed, they should have been written down.
The examination board reviewed it and claimed that we should have been able to assume the correct answers based on the subject of the quiz,
On a second hearing the first set of adjudicators better explained their position, so the examination board weren't called into action.

Spare a thought for Morecambe, who are now unable to sell their £80mil stadium. They should have taken the opportunity quickly when it was revealed that the EFL's 'expert' valued it the same last year.

I think it was more down to him being only half fit, 34, and in some squads at the time our only recognised centre forward.
I disagree with it tactically, but could understand why it might be being done, it's just that when half fit he was losing a lot of the physical battles he'd previously been winning, his actual heading ability is not the the greatest so playing as a target man didn't really work, and it meant he stopped being of much use outside the box as well.
However that was probably better than asking him to do too much and ending up with nobody to play there at all!
Knight and Sibley are both players who if played centrally are a threat when running with it and playing a 1-2 with a deep lying forward, as we saw when they played with Martin, Shinnie too but he's less likely to be a goal threat.

Even more good news! #COYR

The "we only have 10 men" chant, just got a little too real ?

Excellent wok, you should be proud....

TamworthRam,
No, it hasn't. You said keeping Rotherham up would be the maddest thing. Really? I pointed out that the entire football industry is bizarre then. We could get relegated - retrospective unlikely - in the next month yet elite clubs can bend/break rules, or accrue loses in the hundreds of millions (Juventus).
I'm focusing on the final round because - as said already - three sides had a realistic chance to survive the drop and one of them wasn't Wycombe unless they scored 13 goals. Yes, 13 goal away wins are the norm, you see them every week on Quest. They were as good as relegated in name by Matchday 45. And yet that is the side who may be ultimately reprieved. I've already explained myself at length. 
I've pointed out to you how Wycombe won 5 games in 35? Does that sound competitive to you taking into account a whole season?  Rotherham lost to Wycombe at home, so they only have themselves to blame, but this is a side who allegedly created as many chances as Watford (flagged up on Quest). My main bone of contention is that one side was affected by Covid, rightly or wrongly calling games off, (no further action taken by the EFL), another was not. This is a factor not taken into account by a league table.
I've given you examples about how a backlog of games can affect sides, or rest between games can help footballers recovery time.
Don't you think sides, like Wycombe, knew through the football grapevine that Derby could still be relegated,? The whole farce is also tinged with cynicism. 'We're all in it together, one big football family, the Championship.' No, it isn't if you can find a way, any way to circumvent things. 
Why is it madness? I think it's mad that you don't seem to be taking into account the fact that this season has not been like any normal season in recent history. 46 games played between mid Sep to early May?  Really?  Where was the provision for any possible Covid outbreaks to be rescheduled? There were none because the EFL happily wended on their way because they have to keep tv companies & the public happy & entertained, the former, in particular, as its paymaster, a source of revenue to clubs . Why do you think the government were happy to have football back rather than arts & culture? Because it kept a restive public entertained in a time of crisis. 'The show must go on'.
Football without fans - which, to be honest, I found as pointless as the point about Rotherham, in fairness,  some posters seem to think I am making. Broadcasters putting artificial effects/crowd noises to generate atmosphere in games that looked liked glorified friendlies. You don't think that's odd? 
 

I do always think it's funny our poor results were put down Cocu's methods leaving the players confused, the methods too difficult for them to grasp, too complicated, boring etc 
These very same players (baring a couple of swap-outs) seemed perfectly able to grasp the methods from January to July when we won ten and drew 4 of 17 games (we night even have scored in every one of those games, I can't remember exactly), with the inclusion of Martin & a fitter Rooney.
I also find the talk of Cocu being unwilling to listen and being too stubborn funny when it was him doing the complete opposite of that which lead directly to his downfall.
The change in approach from the Norwich game... yes I know we won it, but it was 1 game... based on listening to the players caused more problems then it solved, really Cocu should have stuck to his guns - changing it up only added to the confusion and he kind of undermined himself at a time others were perfectly happy to do it for him.
Rooney is praised for simplifying things, but that had already started - by the end of the season we were so dumbed down that, well, I don't even need to say anything further, the results speak for themselves.

Is there any way an appeal by us could be seen as frivolous (seeing as we've been found guilty, even if it's of very little) and see the punishment go up, like how red card appeals can get games added onto the ban?
I can't imagine us appealing a 100k fine would be looked upon too favourable when the opinion of some is that we're lucky to get away with that as it is.

Would the LAP need to find that there was some fault in the original disciplinary panel's decision making process for any punishment to be overruled/increased, like they did when saying they shouldn't have ruled out the EFL's expert witness the first time around?
Assuming the original panel have covered their own arses better this time, is there even anything for the LAP to contest?
It can't just come down to... well our opinion trumps yours, can it? There has to be some legal founding, beyond mere professional disagreement.

I do always think it's funny our poor results were put down Cocu's methods leaving the players confused, the methods too difficult for them to grasp, too complicated, boring etc 
These very same players (baring a couple of swap-outs) seemed perfectly able to grasp the methods from January to July when we won ten and drew 4 of 17 games (we night even have scored in every one of those games, I can't remember exactly), with the inclusion of Martin & a fitter Rooney.
I also find the talk of Cocu being unwilling to listen and being too stubborn funny when it was him doing the complete opposite of that which lead directly to his downfall.
The change in approach from the Norwich game... yes I know we won it, but it was 1 game... based on listening to the players caused more problems then it solved, really Cocu should have stuck to his guns - changing it up only added to the confusion and he kind of undermined himself at a time others were perfectly happy to do it for him.
Rooney is praised for simplifying things, but that had already started - by the end of the season we were so dumbed down that, well, I don't even need to say anything further, the results speak for themselves.

I do always think it's funny our poor results were put down Cocu's methods leaving the players confused, the methods too difficult for them to grasp, too complicated, boring etc 
These very same players (baring a couple of swap-outs) seemed perfectly able to grasp the methods from January to July when we won ten and drew 4 of 17 games (we night even have scored in every one of those games, I can't remember exactly), with the inclusion of Martin & a fitter Rooney.
I also find the talk of Cocu being unwilling to listen and being too stubborn funny when it was him doing the complete opposite of that which lead directly to his downfall.
The change in approach from the Norwich game... yes I know we won it, but it was 1 game... based on listening to the players caused more problems then it solved, really Cocu should have stuck to his guns - changing it up only added to the confusion and he kind of undermined himself at a time others were perfectly happy to do it for him.
Rooney is praised for simplifying things, but that had already started - by the end of the season we were so dumbed down that, well, I don't even need to say anything further, the results speak for themselves.

I do always think it's funny our poor results were put down Cocu's methods leaving the players confused, the methods too difficult for them to grasp, too complicated, boring etc 
These very same players (baring a couple of swap-outs) seemed perfectly able to grasp the methods from January to July when we won ten and drew 4 of 17 games (we night even have scored in every one of those games, I can't remember exactly), with the inclusion of Martin & a fitter Rooney.
I also find the talk of Cocu being unwilling to listen and being too stubborn funny when it was him doing the complete opposite of that which lead directly to his downfall.
The change in approach from the Norwich game... yes I know we won it, but it was 1 game... based on listening to the players caused more problems then it solved, really Cocu should have stuck to his guns - changing it up only added to the confusion and he kind of undermined himself at a time others were perfectly happy to do it for him.
Rooney is praised for simplifying things, but that had already started - by the end of the season we were so dumbed down that, well, I don't even need to say anything further, the results speak for themselves.

I do always think it's funny our poor results were put down Cocu's methods leaving the players confused, the methods too difficult for them to grasp, too complicated, boring etc 
These very same players (baring a couple of swap-outs) seemed perfectly able to grasp the methods from January to July when we won ten and drew 4 of 17 games (we night even have scored in every one of those games, I can't remember exactly), with the inclusion of Martin & a fitter Rooney.
I also find the talk of Cocu being unwilling to listen and being too stubborn funny when it was him doing the complete opposite of that which lead directly to his downfall.
The change in approach from the Norwich game... yes I know we won it, but it was 1 game... based on listening to the players caused more problems then it solved, really Cocu should have stuck to his guns - changing it up only added to the confusion and he kind of undermined himself at a time others were perfectly happy to do it for him.
Rooney is praised for simplifying things, but that had already started - by the end of the season we were so dumbed down that, well, I don't even need to say anything further, the results speak for themselves.

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

Is there any way an appeal by us could be seen as frivolous (seeing as we've been found guilty, even if it's of very little) and see the punishment go up, like how red card appeals can get games added onto the ban?
I can't imagine us appealing a 100k fine would be looked upon too favourable when the opinion of some is that we're lucky to get away with that as it is.

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

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...

Do you treat the world as it is, or as you expect it to be? Because those are two different things.
I'm a teacher working in a deprived area of inner city London. I'd love it if parents 'did their job' and sat down with their kids and read with them, but some won't and many can't. Do I just let those kids sit there struggling in my English lessons? Or do I do everything I can to help them catch up?
Exactly the same applies here. It would be great if parents could parent their children, but given there's so much obesity in adults anyway, it's hardly like our general population is educated on the subject in the first instance. We could let kids stuff their faces with a bargain bucket and shrug our shoulders and say that's their parents fault, but they're too young to make their own decisions and it's a ticking time bomb for the NHS, which affects us all in the long run.
This obviously won't fix the problem, but it's a start.

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 really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.