Carnero

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

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

@kevinhectoring
@Spanish
 

@kevinhectoring
@Spanish
 

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.

Simon Jones at the Mail will be disappointed that his scoop came to nothing. Obviously Derby, Huddersfield, Hull and Barnsley, plus the interest from the MLS and Turkish Super League was never going to be exciting enough for Ryan who had set his heart on lower league football on the south coast. Who would be a journalist?

And we stay up on goal difference!

Nah... Italy are with Fra/Bel/Por/Cro/Spa
We have Ger followed by Swe/Ukr then Den/Ned/Cze ?

Their exact terminology was "at the very least ambiguous and in reality incomplete and inaccurate", but they never refer to it as "misleading". There's actually another point in the document where our side tried to argue that we hadn't intentionally tried to mislead the EFL, and that an "innocent submission of annual accounts" should not be punished as a breach of P&S rules. The DC found against that second point, but they seemed to accept that the submission of accounts in the manner we did was "innocent" in its intention.

Probably not I am shattered 

If I hadn't deleted the 52,487,365 posts from the argument that had entailed, I would except the criticism, but I should know I'm not an acception to any piss taking. 

If we ignore the noise and just look at the facts...
Our punishment for a very limited aspect of the original charges that the EFL raised is a fine of £100,000.
If it weren't for the snidey EFL suggestion that our fixtures are interchangeable with Wycombe's, coupled with the incoherent ramblings of the Wycombe owner & the usual clickbait headlines, then we would be seeing this as a bit of a win.
Ignore the noise.

This is what I don’t understand. Surely the EFL don’t have a leg to stand on given they approved the accounts when they were submitted. This then makes future losses void with the re-submitted accounts as we presumed what we were doing was ok. It’s like going 40mph in a 40 area and then 5 years later being done for speeding after they changed it to a 30. 
This is all over my head, since when did you have to have a degree in accounts to follow your football club. Duck the EFL! 

It isnt actually what accountants are all about. 

We didn't originally plan to sell the stadium when changing policy

86 Personal Insults?

86 Personal Insults?

Say it loud, say it proud. Take your licks and move on. 
*as many as fitted on a page

I’ll have him. I’ll give up my day job to make his life happy. 

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. 

Honestly, no. It always seems like some nonsense or other is rumbling on in the background at Derby.

If we ignore the noise and just look at the facts...
Our punishment for a very limited aspect of the original charges that the EFL raised is a fine of £100,000.
If it weren't for the snidey EFL suggestion that our fixtures are interchangeable with Wycombe's, coupled with the incoherent ramblings of the Wycombe owner & the usual clickbait headlines, then we would be seeing this as a bit of a win.
Ignore the noise.

But the problem is that we are competing with clubs with ludicrous parachute payments giving them an unfair advantage. Clubs have no choice but to gamble in some way in order to compete.

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

It allowed us to stretch our budget at that time - we covered that by Mel selling the stadium. Maybe we'd still have the stadium on the books if it'd worked.
Edit: what Indy said.