Carnero

Oh don't get me wrong, over the season i agree that we were lucky to stay up on such a low points total.
But to say we couldn't do the job ourselves I still disagree with, we did do the job by drawing when we knew the Rotherham result.
Who's to say we wouldn't have won in the last 10-15 mins had we known Rotherham had won? For a start we wouldn't have put Davies on for Waghorn would we! Mind with this manager maybe we would have... 

Oh don't get me wrong, over the season i agree that we were lucky to stay up on such a low points total.
But to say we couldn't do the job ourselves I still disagree with, we did do the job by drawing when we knew the Rotherham result.
Who's to say we wouldn't have won in the last 10-15 mins had we known Rotherham had won? For a start we wouldn't have put Davies on for Waghorn would we! Mind with this manager maybe we would have... 

For all anyone knows, we could have gone on to win the game in the last 10-15 mins if we didn't already know the Rotherham result.
We didn't need to win at that point so concentrated on not conceding for the final portion of the game.
Nobody knows what would have happened if we'd NEEDED to win so to say we couldn't get the job done ourselves is not quite right.

For all anyone knows, we could have gone on to win the game in the last 10-15 mins if we didn't already know the Rotherham result.
We didn't need to win at that point so concentrated on not conceding for the final portion of the game.
Nobody knows what would have happened if we'd NEEDED to win so to say we couldn't get the job done ourselves is not quite right.

Stayed to get his vaccine quicker? LOL

Genuinely think he'll be a good shout for the Holland job when de Boer gets the boot in about a week
Absolute class and dignity when he was given a disaster of a club to run at the time. Hope he doesn't get tarnished by the clubs /Mel's name

Whatever his future intentions are he conducted himself with dignity and class whilst at our club …our first ever foreign manager and for me never really got the backing that other managers got like Clement buying poo ? 
had a lot to put up with it seems with the whole Keogh fiasco and a squad short of top quality when he took over but think he helped our youngsters a lot 
really wanted him to succeed here but think the whole Rooney thing helped derail things ….I wish the bloke every success in the future 

"difficult to have sympathy for Derby given their indiscretions" - indiscretions originally approved by the EFL for 3 consecutive accounting periods.
"independent body has now opted to dole out a fine alone and not a points deduction like the twelve points Sheffield Wednesday were docked last year" - yeah, that's probably because the charge wasn't related to overspending ?
"clear examples of points being an appropriate sanction for such rule breaks and that should happen" - really? I don't think any club has ever been charged for using an improper amortisation policy. 
"that should mean the penalty being applied for last season which would see Derby relegated to League One" - based on what exactly? Because a verdict for SWFC was arrived at just after the end of last season and had their penalty applied to 20/21?
 
The problem is the perception of us "cheating P&S", which automatically means points deduction in people's minds.

Then that would be a double punishment in the event of overspending.
This is 'charge 1', essentially relating to using an improper amortisation policy. Punishment should be suitable to that and not have any bearing on whether we have overspent or not. You're either guilty or you're not. It can't be a case of being guilty IF you're also guilty of something else.
'Charge 2' would be relating to possible overspending. Penalties are already well defined, although mitigations and aggravating factors are not which could decrease of increase the basic penalty.

If you say so.

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

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.

Then you have contradicted yourself, given the imprecise nature of accounting standards. 
If you accept compliance with the law of accounting then you have to accept the occasional practice that makes you think "that's not what I meant" the EFL have decided not to here. 
If you want to interpret and then ensure compliance with said interpretation then you have to provide the resources. 
What you cannot do is what is happening here, which is to say that the EFL, having not provided any meaningful guidance, has decided there's been a breach of something that they wanted to happen, and is therefore desperate to portray this as a breach of accounting law - which it is not. 
 

No one is saying we are squeaky clean. We have bent the rules and we have got a sanction. What’s the correct punishment to fit the crime? If we submit our accounts and are within the spending limits we haven’t gained an advantage. So on that basis why should we be further penalised.
The fair and just way to proceed here is for the EFL to accept the sanction, and if on re-submission we’ve breached spending limits then we should be deducted points. At that point blame should be very much pointed at Mel and Stephen Pearce on this specific issue. But right now it seems like a witch hunt and we continue to be put at a disadvantage to our competitors by the actions of the EFL.
Yes there are many things Mel needs to answer for but on this the EFL are bang out of order so far. 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

If you say so.

No, it's the people who audited the accounts and signed an unqualified audit report to that end, as per my original response ?