Carnero

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

What you miss is the fact that the person best placed might not be the one deciding our appeal!
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Mel stretched the rules - the EFL knew but didn't get it - obviously it was done to gain an advantage. That is why people employ good accountants, not to break the rules but to use the lack of specific rules to their advantage. When the EFL decide they don't like it they change the rules.

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.

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

I wrote about this before …
amortisation works like this. A transfer fee for a 5 million pound player with a contract length of 5 years would “amortise” at 1 million pounds per year if you used a straight line method.
In simple terms that’s one million pound of loss per year for 5 years.
if you imagine that you might extend a contract or sell the player in years three four or five then you might decide to use a different method. So if you think you could sell the player for 4 million pounds after 4 years then the total balance you need to write off is only 1 million pounds. Which would be a loss of 250k per year over 4 years.
The problem in the original panel is that we changed policy without properly disclosing it in our accounts. So we might have changed for example from the straight line method to the residual value one above.
The appeal seems to now suggest that the new policy that we used was against accounting standards completely.
Either decision in my view is very much objective. The residual policy is ok in my view if you can predict the value of a player - and there are plenty of places now where you can predict a future value of a player. So I’m not sure it really is against accounting standards.
 
In the first panel that suggested we changed accounting policies without disclosing it, well i suspect that practicing accountants would be able to debate as to whether this really is a change of accounting standards or just a change to a part of the policy. For example you might argue in the case above that we were just changing the residual value from nil to 4 million pounds, but the underlying policy is still a a straight line method. So no need to disclose a change in accounting policy.
Im conclusion, I think Derby could easily appeal this decision again and win. Unless someone comes to the table with a compromise arrangement, the costs for the EFL and us will continue to rise until someone finally loses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the EFL that loses. I think that Mel has the deepest pockets.

If you say so.

If you say so.

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.

If you say so.

If you say so.

If you say so.

If you say so.

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

If you say so.

@kevinhectoring
@Spanish
 

If you say so.

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

@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.

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.

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?