Carnero

Its sonething like this...
In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).
Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).
The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.
I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.
IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:
1) Sale price less historical cost
Or
2) Sale price less net book value
Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

Its sonething like this...
In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).
Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).
The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.
I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.
IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:
1) Sale price less historical cost
Or
2) Sale price less net book value
Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

It would be a nice touch if the EFL appeal, although won, has brought to light a different way for DCFC to ensure they remain within F&P guidelines. 
Cheers, EFL! 

Its sonething like this...
In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).
Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).
The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.
I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.
IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:
1) Sale price less historical cost
Or
2) Sale price less net book value
Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

Its sonething like this...
In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).
Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).
The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.
I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.
IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:
1) Sale price less historical cost
Or
2) Sale price less net book value
Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

Its sonething like this...
In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).
Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).
The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.
I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.
IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:
1) Sale price less historical cost
Or
2) Sale price less net book value
Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

Its sonething like this...
In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).
Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).
The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.
I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.
IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:
1) Sale price less historical cost
Or
2) Sale price less net book value
Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

Its sonething like this...
In 07/08 the stadium was revalued from a historical cost of £20odd million to a replacement cost valuation of £55m and a revaluation reserve created (under the old accounting rules, pre FRS102).
Over the years to 2017/18 the £55m was depreciated down to c£40m and then of course sold for c£80m. The accounting profit of £40m being included in our P&S submission (and of course is now accepted as being 100% valid).
The remaining revaluation reserve of c£30m transferred to the P&L reserve as the stadium had now been sold and the profit realised.
I believe it is suggested that the issue bought up during the various hearings is that rather than including a profit c£40m in our P&S submission, should our revised P&S submission actually include a stadium profit of c£70m, being the c£40m profit plus the c£30m unused revaluation reserve realised on the sale.
IE. Should profit on sale of stadium actually be:
1) Sale price less historical cost
Or
2) Sale price less net book value
Probably #1 but our original submission has used #2.

I think "found" is a bit of an unfortunate word.
I think in terms of FFP we only included some of the £80m Pride Park sale - but as a result of the hearings/decisions it's been clarified we can include more of that. Which seeing as we need to restate P&S, we can do. Presumably much to the annoyance of a certain member of Bristol Rovers superfan forum, Mp Pop of OTIB.

Unless that advantage was being one of the top 3 spenders on wages in each of the seasons being looked at we haven’t pished it anywhere.
We’ve ran an (unsustainable) wage bill that has probably ranged from top 4 to top 10 in the division and have more often than not been a top 6 team in that time period. Few unlucky defeats in play off games to teams that have spent more than us / have gamed the system to a greater extent than we have (delete as appropriate) has meant we haven’t gone up, so be it. When football comes down to one off games it can at times be luck based and that’s why we all love it. We’ve now tightened that wage bill, understandably, but I get the feeling that won’t or indeed hasn’t stopped you moaning that we will be less competitive in the league now.
Don’t think we are “victims” as such but it is curious that just winning one of those set of play offs would see our strategy highlighted as a great success story and have fans of other clubs saying “wow look how well Derby are run” like you see from some on here re. Leeds, Villa, Wolves, Bournemouth and so on.
Unfortunately by not going up due to these fine margins we have found ourselves in the cross hairs of the EFL who’s rules are so clear that they are now seeking to change or clarify the rules that supposedly found us guilty. We are not victims of other teams cheating, in my opinion, but we have been victim of the EFL going on a crusade after the football club and creating a narrative that we are the villains of football with their vindictive, unclear statements and obvious leaks to the press.
Yesterday’s news should have been celebrated across football, that no precedent was set to retrospectively relegate a team for off field matters that were signed off for three years by an organisation that didn’t understand their own rules. I get the feeling it wasn’t though, because a narrative has been created that if you push spending limits and do not get promoted, you are worse than those who push limits and do.

THIS case IS over.

The point was to address the narrative that has built up that we have somehow had this huge unfair advantage when more often than not we have been victims of others cheating or gaming the system.

I just went back in time and wanted to see how our spending stood up against other teams in the league. Surprisingly, in three of our last four posted accounts, the wage bill of Derby County was HALF of the team spending the most in the league. We have only ever been in the top 6 spending clubs in the division once - 15/16. 
Not bad for a club RUINING football with their reckless overspending, eh?
2014-15: Wage Bill - £21.8m - 33.5% of the wage bill of the highest spending team in the Championship
2015-16: Wage Bill - £32m - 78.04% of the wage bill of the highest spending team in the Championship (most competitive year, 5th highest in the league). 
2016-17: Wage Bill - £34.6m - 30.83% of the wage bill of the highest spending team in the Championship
2017-18: Wage Bill - £40.5m - 42.63% of the wage bill of the highest spending team in the Championship

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. 

For a laugh?

Err that would be an entirely new case, if it were to happen.
For which we'd have mitigation given the EFL left it years before challenging our amortisation policy.

Tonight's news that the EFL case has been resolved and the EFL are not going to appeal helps things move forward.
DCFC will be in the championship. This helps any potential takover.
DCFC will have to pay £100k fine and restate accounts from the years in question. And presumably can now submit accounts for the last two years (whch we haven't done) using a method acceptable to the EFL.
Submitting accounts will lift the transfer embargo (at least until and chages from the restated P&S figures are raised).
Clarity moving forward is at least on the horizon, if not here yet.
 

I hope we are one of the clubs who voted in favour of this. Boil a little more piss when other clubs see our name in the list.

Is that reliably estimating values though?
We nownhave the benefit of hindsight, knowing what our budgets for each season are. I'm sure we'll do everything we can to be as close to the limits as possible in each season, to increase our budget as much as possible for the current and future seasons ?

Not read the entire thread or reaction to this evening’s news, so this has probably already been said, but the EFL do come out of this - from their statement - as looking particularly graceless, petty and ever so slightly childish.
 
Don’t suppose we’re going to get away scot free as the resubmission of the accounts will probably open a new can of worms, but at least we know what division we’ll be in, which is a tiny bit of light in otherwise pitch dark days.

Err that would be an entirely new case, if it were to happen.
For which we'd have mitigation given the EFL left it years before challenging our amortisation policy.

Dont mess with Mel