Carnero

Any deduction is dependant on the outcome of recalculating the amortisation in the accounts.
Any deduction would have to be in the 21/22 season.
Any deduction can be reduced due to mitigating factors.
Any deduction will not be increased due to extenuating circumstances.
 
My estimate suggests we don't fail P&S in 17/18.
KM's estimate of £30m amortisation vs £21m for mine, suggests failing P&S by about £7.2m.
Based on KM's figure (worst case), we would be due a 6 point deduction.
Given the precedent set in the SW case of halving the penalty, it becomes 3 points instead.
Given the EFL's incompetence, that's reduced to 2 points.
Given the accountants on the DC panel thought we were compliant, reduced further to 1 point
Given we did not deliberately exceed the limits, rather we did everything we could to stay within them, 0 points deducted

I'm pretty sure DCFC said that too, I think it was when we expressed our disappointment at the EFL appealing the original decision @Philmycock

This tweet references this being said on Radio Derby
 

Yep, and even if you discard the merits of each party's argument/interpretation, it's a bit pathetic that it's come to this really.
Derby could potentially be punished based on the fact that we interpreted a standard one way, and the witness the EFL found interpreted it another.
How does any of this help English Football? Why does the EFL find it necessary to appeal against the initial decision? Quite simply the EFL isn't fit for purpose. 

I'm pretty sure DCFC said that too, I think it was when we expressed our disappointment at the EFL appealing the original decision @Philmycock

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.

In the midst of all the effort the EFL have used to investigate us, what have they actually done that's useful to protect the 72 member clubs during the pandemic ?
 
I am astonished that we've reached the end of the season with none of the members going bust & that's no thanks to the EFL

What about the auditors regulator?
That quote is from the original decision.
I find it astonishing that the club, its auditors, their regulators and the original IDC (which included an actual accountant - imagine that!) can be under the impression it's all fine and dandy, totally in line with FRS 102. But a new panel, none of which are accountants, can apparently say it's not, and their decision is final...
Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

Yep CKR & Bucko.
Oh, and Theo Robinson.

The guy that has been involved in 6 of our last 9 goals, but with all of our creativity and attacking threat who needs him ?

This is an exercise in the EFL saving face, self justification, and placating bitter football clubs looking to do one over on each other. It is not about protecting football clubs from Portsmouth scenarios or the integrity of the competition. 
The EFL is quite happy to overlook Watford and Forest’s unique methods of circumventing FFP (switch/loan players between clubs for fee values to help their compliance with rules), not penalise the overspending of the likes Villa Bournemouth Leicester QPR Wolves, and overlook the dodgy practices of Steve Gibson and the use of his haulage company to help circumvent rules. 
 
They are choosing to follow this grotesque charade and to ruin the integrity of competition with league positions being decided by arbitration panels instead of addressing the fundamental issue, that parachute payments are creating a grossly unfair competition, creating spiralling wages and resulting in clubs needing to spend beyond their means just to compete. Much has been made of Derby’s spending, yet it’s been dwarfed by the clubs that have come down by the premier league, highlighted by the spending and wages disparity between Derby and both clubs they have lost playoff finals to. The irony of all of this is the main club fighting this - Boro - are doing it because we beat them to the playoffs. Did we have an advantage over them? No. They had a bigger budget than we did due to parachute payments!! They blew it on Assombalonga and others and failed. 
 
How are clubs without parachute payments supposed to compete. Eventually the majority of those that do try and compete will eventually come into problems unless they have luck ie. they somehow get promoted. These clubs don’t want to spend over the odds on wages, they are forced to by the parachute funded clubs that set the market rate, like Boro giving Assombalonga £50k per week.
If they try to apply FFP for the past two seasons (average of 19/20 and 20/21) as has been suggested, half the clubs will fail it, they must do, they’ve had massive revenue cuts so how can they comply? Only the clubs who are parachute funded could possibly comply.
 
We will probably be punished to make a point and then FFP will be scrapped because half the league failing it will be ridiculous. It’s not working, it’s not making clubs more sustainable. How about fixing the distribution of money in the game and introducing salary caps either on players or in line with turnover if player salary caps is too difficult,  it would be far more effective and help level things up.
But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the EFL and Derby. I’m tired. I’m tired of reading about ERVs and FRS102, I’m tired Mel’s war with the other football clubs, I’m tired of all these jokers trying to take over our football club. When can it be just about Football again?! 

 

I understand your sentiment but please don’t forget the fans. We ARE the football club. I remember Clough on ITV, speaking in front of fans protesting against Maxwell, saying that we would be here long after Maxwell was gone. He was right.
Maxwell, Morris, Keogh, Glenn Skivington...we have and will see them all off and will be left standing. We are Derby. We are here because we care and all the mud and poo being thrown at us from all sides can slide off as far as I am concerned because, as much as I dislike it at the moment, I am bonded to and love this football club. So Gibson, EFL, bitter Leeds fans and the twitterati can all sod off. 

Yep so assuming Derby chose to amortise the players contract over the length of their contract, they would have nil residual value at the end of their contract.
For example, take a scenario where Derby sign a player for £4m on a 4 year contract.
The EFL argue that the only economic benefit a club gets from the player is them playing matches, and at the end of their contract they can leave for £nil - so you would amortise in line with that economic benefit - the player is expected to play over their contract so you would amortise their registration fee over the 4 years on a straight line - £1m per year gets expensed and increases your loss/decreases the profit. If they leave on a free at the end of their contract, you’ve already amortised down to £nil so there’s no impact to your profit - the carrying amount is £nil and your proceeds on the sale are £nil so there’s no profit or loss.
In that situation, if a player leaves at the end of year 3 for £3m, they’d have had 3 years of amortisation so be carried in the accounts at £1m, and you’d recognise a profit on the sale of the player of £2m.
Derby however say that they get more than just the benefit of the player playing matches, in that they also expect them to be sold before contract expiry. So your economic benefits are the player playing matches and the cash you get in from selling them. This is where ERV comes in - expected recoverable value - this is the amount Derby expects to be able to sell a given player for. Some players won’t be given an ERV if Derby don’t expect to sell them - for example, if our player above was 34 and expected to retire after playing at Derby, the treatment would be the same - £1m charged every year and no value at the end.
However, if it was someone like, say Joz, well DCFC would argue that if he plays well they’ll sell him on - so they decide when and for how much do we think we’ll sell. For example, if they think they’ll sell the player for £3m in three years, they will only charge £333k per year amortisation because you’d expect that by the time they’re sold for £3m, they’re carried in your accounts for £3m.
In both situations, the net P&L impact is the same over the whole contract - it’s just using Derby’s method the profits you make on a transfer are smaller, because your player is valued higher in your accounts, because you’ve charged less total amortisation.
It’ll be interesting to read why the EFL have won this appeal, because as far as I’m aware, both are compliant with the accounting standard.

Well we have no cash and our only assets worth £2.4m+ are Bielik, Joswiak, Lawrence and the youngsters. What exactly are bailiffs going supposed do, stick Joswiak in their van and sell him at auction?

Well we have no cash and our only assets worth £2.4m+ are Bielik, Joswiak, Lawrence and the youngsters. What exactly are bailiffs going supposed do, stick Joswiak in their van and sell him at auction?

Wrong!  he would need to sue in a court of law for breach of contract to get a high court judgement, also the EFL cannot force a club into liquidation as they are not a creditor and therefore cannot issue a winding up order

Just to clarify the Keogh position, this was not an employment tribunal and definitely not employment law, this is a civil case for breach of contract. 
Please note the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal from an employment tribunal – £86,444, whereas contract law is open ended.
My position if I was Mel would be,  I am not paying f'off, so sue me and that position can be kicked down the road for many years.

Plenty of other clubs have been more than creative in recent years Boro , Leicester , QPR ( which affected us directly) , Wolves , Reading , Sheff Wed , Leeds , Wolves , Forest , Watford , Villa , Bournemouth come to mind without even thinking hard about it. 

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. 

All this talk about retrospective retribution going around, with penalties applied to this season is rubbish. If its retrospective it needs to be applied to the season when the transgression occurred, not when the efl got its act together. And if we're in to retrospective penalties less see them for the breaches of FFP by Wolves and Leeds in their promotion season. 
Personally, I'd take retrospective to the relevant season - we finished top 10 each year, failed to get promoted, so just as there were no real benefits there will be no real penalty. 

The problem here is going to be the optics of getting shot of Keogh, but not Lawrence and Bennett.......even through Keogh couldn’t play and the others could, it gives the EFL the gap they need to hammer us!
I don’t see why there’s criticism of Mel here:
- Keogh wasn’t fired on the spot
- Keogh was offered rehab
- Keogh was offered a new contract at a lower wage to reflect the fact that the injury was “career threatening”, but give the player some security.
What else could the club really have done for a player, who at that stage had potentially destroyed their own career?????????

Personally, I’d actually like him to be dropped or out injured in any future encounter, so I never have to set eyes on him again.
Set aside the clubs judgement in a) the actual evening and b) handling Keogh afterwards, for all that he was a professional footballer and supposed leader of our team getting a lucrative salary for it; his actions absolutely stink. He’s just everything wrong with the worst stereotype of a professional footballer to me.

Purely based on EFL on Quest highlights over recent months but a couple of young flare players who've caught my eye are Carlos Mendes Gomes (Morcambe) & Scott Twine (Swindon)

Ronan Curtis at Portsmouth looks like he had something about him. Ellis Simms from Everton (suggested him in Jan too). Accrington keeper Toby Sabin.