jono

Pickford ?. Great save

Pickford ?. Great save

Pickford ?. Great save

Or if FRS102 is inadequate (not prescriptive enough) to submit P&S returns.

The way the rules are written, with just a blanket "you must comply with FRS 102", it basically feels like the EFL have decided to outsource that particular competence to the people that actually have expertise on it.  They know they don't have the manpower or knowledge to properly audit every clubs accounts, so they decided to just leave a requirement to comply and trust HMRC/auditors etc to do it properly.  Which honestly seems a fairly sensible way of doing things to me.
That's why it feels so weird and wrong that they're suddenly making very specific requests about how accounts are to be submitted, and they're passing judgments on things that they have no legal authority to pass judgements on.  To my knowledge, no legal body has ever bestowed on the EFL the power to determine whether accounts are compliant with FRS102 or not.

It's good to touch base on this now and again. Currently we are only guilty after appeal of not flagging up a different amortisation policy to everyone else. Not an illegal one just a different one. 
Now, in time, due to the acceptance of the charge, we may be guilty of failing P&S BUT only if in time our resubmissions fail. So, to repeat, at this time we are only guilty of not flagging up a DIFFERENT BUT NOT illegal amortisation policy. BIG DEAL! 
I have to keep reminding myself incase I'm going mad. 

Mel and Derby county were one of the ring leaders along with Villa and Leeds in terms of telling the EFL they could not negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag.
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-sky-tv-Derby-leeds-2209661
Looking at the fall out of a clearly bad TV deal, the media said "Morris is the only chairman of a Football League club to lift his head above the parapet and suggest that the Football League should have negotiated a better deal for its clubs, but those pleas appear to have fallen on deaf ears."   Mel's view was that SKY should have paid £300million not the £120million that they eventually negotiated.
The championship is an exciting league, I would argue more exciting than who will finish second to Man City
This whole thing with the EFL and Mel is in my opinion, nothing to do with how to amortise your depreciation, they just want to remove him from the Football League as they regard him as a trouble maker who questions their competence to run the third most popular league in the world, DCFC will be just collateral damage
 

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

A good, well reasoned post. It’s unlikely to be noticed.

If such draconian measures are attached to any deviation from policy, it most definitely needs to be their responsibility and definitely shouldn't be revisited after 3 years. A firm and direct policy as to calculation should also have been in place from the get go.

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

That midfield is good enough, on their day. The full backs are good enough. Dare I say it, the goalie is good enough. We know where we’re short, let’s hope we can get in some reinforcements soon!

Obviously we hope this changes when we are allowed to make signings, but for now it's...
                                Marshall
Byrne           Davies              Forsyth        Buchanan
                    Knight               Shinnie
Jozwiak                 SIbley                     Lawrence
                                CKR
 
Subs - Roos Ebosele Cashin Bird Watson Stretton Ibe McDonald Brown (j) 
Bielik to add at some point.   

Mate, this lot couldn't find the hole in a doughnut ?‍♂️

I thought it was "ambiguous" and "not sufficently clear" rather than "misleading"? We did get found guilty on that part of the charge in the original hearing.
In terms of was the policy iliegal - no of course it wasn't, no auditor would sign off on it if it was. Was it not appropreate to use it in this context (specifically on professional football contracts) - that was not stated in the rules as written, so was only deemed unsuitable by the result of this process. So there is a pretty ligitimate argument that what we did in terms of the policy wasn't that bad a thing to do (hence the fine).
The massive beef everyone seems to have is "did using this policy allow DCFC to make losses over the allowable limits?" Well, that question will be resolved by the resubmitted P&S statements. We'll be punished if they show we did for the breach, and presumably get addition aggrivated points because of the accounting issue.
SO, we didn't get away with £100k fine. We get the fine, we have to resubmit P&S, and we get whtever is coming as a result of the new figures.
 
 

I still can't get my head round why we're the ones in the dock when our accounts were approved, our accounting process was approved, the sale was approved, we referred everything for scrutiny and approval i.e. were fully transparent yet here we are being called cheats, being fined, threatened with relegation.   If I typed how I really felt about the EFL I'm pretty sure I'd be banned from this forum. 

I think Mel underestimated the pettiness and egotistical nature of the EFL board when he wrote to all the EFL member clubs to gather support for an increased share of the media monies pot. They've waited a long time to get their pound of flesh but even they must be beginning to understand that they are now starting to look a tad foolish and vindictive.
I totally agree that the highlighted section above is still a possibility but they will be on a sticky wicket if they do bring further charges unless their case is copper-bottomed as I believe were they again to fail, the club would then be in a very strong position to sue them for damages. I'd also be 99% certain that were we to do so, given civil courts would asses the case rather than the kangaroo court that is the EFL, not only would we win the case, but we would also be entitled to substantial compensation. 
It's also questionable whether other member clubs really want to continue footing the bill for these endless charges and appeal processes. By now, only the likes of Gibson will be evaluating the evidence and surmising we've done anything wrong. With times as tough as they are, why throw good money after bad? I hope and believe that this is finally over but as you say, this is the EFL we're dealing with so we will have to wait a little longer before we get to raise and glasses with a 'duck you very much' toast to the EFL.

I think you are 100% right and your earlier post was absolutely top drawer. It is what should happen, both morally and with the application of common sense.
I just have my reservations as there is clearly a grouping within the EFL that wants some sort of twisted revenge. I can see the no appeal but I can also see “further investigations following the re submitted accounts” leading to an umpteenth bite at the dogs hind leg that they are determined grind into powdered residue. It’s politics, not rules, fair play logic or rationality. 

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. 

Do you really think anybody would actually want this job