Eatonram

Would it be to much to ask of our Auditors that they issue a statement along the lines of "We stand by our decision to sign-off the accounts of DCFC as both accurate and compliant with FRS 102"
I mean their professionalism and competency has been seriously called into question here.
 

Would it be to much to ask of our Auditors that they issue a statement along the lines of "We stand by our decision to sign-off the accounts of DCFC as both accurate and compliant with FRS 102"
I mean their professionalism and competency has been seriously called into question here.
 

Here is what I don’t get. The financial jeopardy at the club has not just appeared in the last few weeks or months. We have to assume Mel has always been aware of the financial position. And yet conscious decisions have been made in the last 9 months to sign Jozwiak and to sack Coccu and to incur the costs of extra loans in January. Surely if we were genuinely on a financial precipice you would stop spending and therefore making it worse? So perhaps naively I believe the situation is surviveable. Of course I may be wrong. 

Here is what I don’t get. The financial jeopardy at the club has not just appeared in the last few weeks or months. We have to assume Mel has always been aware of the financial position. And yet conscious decisions have been made in the last 9 months to sign Jozwiak and to sack Coccu and to incur the costs of extra loans in January. Surely if we were genuinely on a financial precipice you would stop spending and therefore making it worse? So perhaps naively I believe the situation is surviveable. Of course I may be wrong. 

Here is what I don’t get. The financial jeopardy at the club has not just appeared in the last few weeks or months. We have to assume Mel has always been aware of the financial position. And yet conscious decisions have been made in the last 9 months to sign Jozwiak and to sack Coccu and to incur the costs of extra loans in January. Surely if we were genuinely on a financial precipice you would stop spending and therefore making it worse? So perhaps naively I believe the situation is surviveable. Of course I may be wrong. 

Here is what I don’t get. The financial jeopardy at the club has not just appeared in the last few weeks or months. We have to assume Mel has always been aware of the financial position. And yet conscious decisions have been made in the last 9 months to sign Jozwiak and to sack Coccu and to incur the costs of extra loans in January. Surely if we were genuinely on a financial precipice you would stop spending and therefore making it worse? So perhaps naively I believe the situation is surviveable. Of course I may be wrong. 

I genuinely swear, even if this was happening to Forest, a part of me would be thinking that this is starting to look like a vendetta........Leeds on the other hand.

I genuinely swear, even if this was happening to Forest, a part of me would be thinking that this is starting to look like a vendetta........Leeds on the other hand.

I genuinely swear, even if this was happening to Forest, a part of me would be thinking that this is starting to look like a vendetta........Leeds on the other hand.

I’m not quite sure why there is so much furore about this particular snippet today on social media, all of this has been known since the IDC decision.
It made comment to the club referencing Transfermarkt and it wasn’t the only way they calculated values, it’s not new news.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

Mel did actually say on Sunday there would be more information from the club very soon including on the ownership issue didn't he?
 
I assume from that he sort of knows how he intends to take the issue forward.

Mel did actually say on Sunday there would be more information from the club very soon including on the ownership issue didn't he?
 
I assume from that he sort of knows how he intends to take the issue forward.

Just spotted this tweet from Alan Nixon, it appears he has a copy of the decision report. I wonder how he has that as they've not released it yet?
So, it appears it was the second particular, and that ONLY which the EFL won on appeal.
I don't understand how it can be impermissible to take into account the possible resale value of players when it clearly states in FRS 102, as mentioned in the original decision, that future economic benefits from the intangible asset include use OR disposal?
From the original report
So if it wasn't an unreliable pattern for the years under scrutiny, why do we have to use the straight-line method?
If we don't have to use the straight-line method, given the expected consumption of future economic benefits includes disposal, it shouldn't be impermissible to take into account the resale value, and it being the 'cost model' should make no difference.

Well you've got me confused. Please fill in the following form, I'm sure it will help us all .
Things I want to protest against:
1
2
3
Things I want the Club to do in response to our/my protest:
1
2
3
Thanks in anticipation.

We did it to try and compete at the top where Derby County fans in the main expect us to be. The thought of midtable mediocrity doesn't excite me much. As such I'm not criticising Mel Morris with hindsight. 

A view point.
It is clear that this is a complicated issue and open to interpretation of complex accountancy practices and confusing rules. An independent tribunal, with some expertise in the field, have studied this and found in the Club's favour. Another group of three independent "experts" look likely to reach the opposite conclusion. This in itself surely shows there is a level of doubt and definitely differing possible interpretations, both of the rules (which clearly lack clarity) and also what is acceptable accountancy practice within those rules.
Surely the doubt involved must be taken into account with the level of punishment? These are not "matters of Fact" they are "matters of opinion". If it was being heard as a criminal case it would not stand a chance of passing the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test. It isn't of course a criminal court case.
All I think we can reasonably hope for is that the punishment "fits the crime" and takes account of the doubt and interpretation issues, rather than the Club and it's supporters being made an example of to satisfy a despotic governing body.
 

Well you've got me confused. Please fill in the following form, I'm sure it will help us all .
Things I want to protest against:
1
2
3
Things I want the Club to do in response to our/my protest:
1
2
3
Thanks in anticipation.

Well you've got me confused. Please fill in the following form, I'm sure it will help us all .
Things I want to protest against:
1
2
3
Things I want the Club to do in response to our/my protest:
1
2
3
Thanks in anticipation.

Youve said that we will get a points deduction which is complete speculation. The matter is being referred back to the DC who initially pretty much ruled most things in our favour. 
Im not exactly sure what I am fighting for?
Didnt the club put out a statement after the final match and again today regarding the EFL announcement? What exactly are you wanting them to say?

A view point.
It is clear that this is a complicated issue and open to interpretation of complex accountancy practices and confusing rules. An independent tribunal, with some expertise in the field, have studied this and found in the Club's favour. Another group of three independent "experts" look likely to reach the opposite conclusion. This in itself surely shows there is a level of doubt and definitely differing possible interpretations, both of the rules (which clearly lack clarity) and also what is acceptable accountancy practice within those rules.
Surely the doubt involved must be taken into account with the level of punishment? These are not "matters of Fact" they are "matters of opinion". If it was being heard as a criminal case it would not stand a chance of passing the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test. It isn't of course a criminal court case.
All I think we can reasonably hope for is that the punishment "fits the crime" and takes account of the doubt and interpretation issues, rather than the Club and it's supporters being made an example of to satisfy a despotic governing body.
 

A view point.
It is clear that this is a complicated issue and open to interpretation of complex accountancy practices and confusing rules. An independent tribunal, with some expertise in the field, have studied this and found in the Club's favour. Another group of three independent "experts" look likely to reach the opposite conclusion. This in itself surely shows there is a level of doubt and definitely differing possible interpretations, both of the rules (which clearly lack clarity) and also what is acceptable accountancy practice within those rules.
Surely the doubt involved must be taken into account with the level of punishment? These are not "matters of Fact" they are "matters of opinion". If it was being heard as a criminal case it would not stand a chance of passing the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test. It isn't of course a criminal court case.
All I think we can reasonably hope for is that the punishment "fits the crime" and takes account of the doubt and interpretation issues, rather than the Club and it's supporters being made an example of to satisfy a despotic governing body.
 

A view point.
It is clear that this is a complicated issue and open to interpretation of complex accountancy practices and confusing rules. An independent tribunal, with some expertise in the field, have studied this and found in the Club's favour. Another group of three independent "experts" look likely to reach the opposite conclusion. This in itself surely shows there is a level of doubt and definitely differing possible interpretations, both of the rules (which clearly lack clarity) and also what is acceptable accountancy practice within those rules.
Surely the doubt involved must be taken into account with the level of punishment? These are not "matters of Fact" they are "matters of opinion". If it was being heard as a criminal case it would not stand a chance of passing the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test. It isn't of course a criminal court case.
All I think we can reasonably hope for is that the punishment "fits the crime" and takes account of the doubt and interpretation issues, rather than the Club and it's supporters being made an example of to satisfy a despotic governing body.
 

A view point.
It is clear that this is a complicated issue and open to interpretation of complex accountancy practices and confusing rules. An independent tribunal, with some expertise in the field, have studied this and found in the Club's favour. Another group of three independent "experts" look likely to reach the opposite conclusion. This in itself surely shows there is a level of doubt and definitely differing possible interpretations, both of the rules (which clearly lack clarity) and also what is acceptable accountancy practice within those rules.
Surely the doubt involved must be taken into account with the level of punishment? These are not "matters of Fact" they are "matters of opinion". If it was being heard as a criminal case it would not stand a chance of passing the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test. It isn't of course a criminal court case.
All I think we can reasonably hope for is that the punishment "fits the crime" and takes account of the doubt and interpretation issues, rather than the Club and it's supporters being made an example of to satisfy a despotic governing body.
 

A view point.
It is clear that this is a complicated issue and open to interpretation of complex accountancy practices and confusing rules. An independent tribunal, with some expertise in the field, have studied this and found in the Club's favour. Another group of three independent "experts" look likely to reach the opposite conclusion. This in itself surely shows there is a level of doubt and definitely differing possible interpretations, both of the rules (which clearly lack clarity) and also what is acceptable accountancy practice within those rules.
Surely the doubt involved must be taken into account with the level of punishment? These are not "matters of Fact" they are "matters of opinion". If it was being heard as a criminal case it would not stand a chance of passing the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test. It isn't of course a criminal court case.
All I think we can reasonably hope for is that the punishment "fits the crime" and takes account of the doubt and interpretation issues, rather than the Club and it's supporters being made an example of to satisfy a despotic governing body.