BucksRam

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

I like the Tomori analogy, spot on.  Mengi seemed to get better and better each game, as he adjusted to a new level of football.  I think he could end up being a great addition and be a name we're regularly calling out in the same way we did with Tomori. We do however need to give him a bit of leeway and accept he's bound to make mistakes as he learns and improves. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Maybe not a great comparison, so apologies, but when I look at how the EFL has conducted itself over the last few years and in particular with Derby they remind me of FIFA, or in particular Sepp Blatter.  Someone who orchestrated things to his benefit.  For decades he abused his position and it took years for him to finally be called out, eventually being done for a "breach of rules concerning duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest and offering or accepting gifts or other benefits". I think his buddy Valcke did similar. I also think this was the tip of the iceberg and many officials go away scot-free.  Now I'm not saying the EFL are doing exactly the same, but in principle, from everything I see, they're abusing their power, they're showing zero duty of loyalty to their members and appear to be on some sort of personal crusade to destroy one of the league's member clubs, for not making absolutely clear in their accounting notes what they had done, despite what they had done having been sanctioned by the EFL themselves so in theory they should have known what they were looking at in the first place.
Mel instigated a challenge to their power by seeking to unite all 72 clubs in asking the EFL to address a view that they weren't representing their clubs in the best way.  He also challenged the money flow for TV rights, again with the view this wasn't in the best interests of the member clubs. I believe that this, more than anything else totally riled the pompous buffoons at the EFL, who, like Blatter no doubt live a great lifestyle and don't want their power challenged to the extent they've made it a personal goal to see Mel, and unfortunately Derby destroyed. The irony is Mel was probably demonstrating the values the EFL should be following, but aren't.  Love him or hate him I do believe he's always had the best interests of this club at heart.
If we can sell, meaning Mel moves off the scene, they maybe, just maybe, some status quo will be achieved and we can go back to focusing on playing football, re-building this club, making news for what we do on the pitch, not off it, and maybe one day, in the not too distant future, getting back into the PL. 

Dear Mr Pop,
Thank you for taking the trouble to screenshot a post of mine last night to include on the OTIB forum, I feel blessed.
Despite all your guff and gnashing of teeth, the only  discrepancy The EFL ever had on us was the explanation of our amortisation could have been clearer which is regrettable.
Everything else was approved by them.
 What  I am having trouble comprehending though, is why it’s so difficult for you and your cohorts to understand that though The EFL, aided by the goon at Middlesbrough FC, wanted us hammered and were determined to do so, doesn’t the fact they couldn’t hammer us, even slightly give you the impression they had nothing to hammer us for? ?‍♂️
Give it up old son, you’ve made yourself look a bit silly over this, I mean, you obsess with us yet not a peep out of you regarding Bournemouth, Villa, Leeds or Leicester who have all benefitted far more than us by wandering from the straight and narrow.
And now your work with us is now done, keep your minces on Stoke and Reading, they might give you something else to get your teeth into. Don’t forget to say hello when you visit the cathedral of football on the 23rd of March.
Good grief, imagine if you come here needing points to stay up and we tonk you and send you down...? Karma can be a good thing you know.
Best Regards, 
? 

That para is pretty hilarious. Basically a chartered accountant with much relvant experience and another accountant sitting on the panel did not think this was wrong, but the LAP, who were not accountants, did.

I’m worried as well mate 
It’s all about the  perception of what other people think  Derby have done or not done. 
 
Being as I posted the original story I need to post this. 
 
Sorry Prisoner ?
https://planetswans.co.uk/2021/06/29/Derby-county-fans-hit-back-after-our-farce-story/
PS Don’t miss David B comments at the end of article 

It honestly feels like the DC, the LAP, the EFL and the Club are all talking across each other, using the same terms to mean different things and quoting different bits of FRS102 at each other out of context.  And I'm really not an expert on any of this, so I'm basically going by a surface reading of the written reasons and regs, so I may well be wrong on everything here too.  So...
It does seems to be taken as fact by everyone that there is no "active market" and hence we have to use the cost model. Even the club agrees with that with their statements to the DC and say they are using the cost model.  And going by my reading of the regs, I agree.
The EFL/LAP/ProfPope etc claimed we were using the cost model but were revaluing players, which is a feature of (and only of) the revaluation model. That's the root of their appeal win.
We claim we were doing no such thing. We claim we were using the cost model, but we were factoring potential sales into the future economic benefits of the asset. So for someone like Jozwiak, his future economic benefits might only be 20% in actually playing for the club, and 80% in what we think we can sell him for in a year or 2.  Obviously if his form dropped or he got injured, that balance would shift and we'd readjust.
The LAP reasons are really weird, they go on for pages and pages quoting FRS102 about things we weren't claiming we were doing, and saying we can't do them (well, so what?). And then there's just a few statements that basically boil down ProfPope's opinion about future economic benefits without any real legal analysis about whether they're correct or not.  What analysis there is doesn't seem to tally with the regs either. The regs say future economic benefits can include that from the disposal of an asset, but the LAP decision is clear that they believe they can only come from the clubs use of an asset.  The regs say you can amend your amortisation model, useful life (or residual value) if your use of an asset or market conditions changes, the LAP decision makes it clear they they believe you can only do that for the revaluation model.  The LAP's understanding of the regs really doesn't seem right to me.
From what I can tell, the entire issue is that they think we were doing something that we weren't (cost model + revaluing players).  They claim in the LAP reasons that ProfPope's lack of experience in practical accountancy and football finances was irrelevant because the issue came down to a matter of fact (the regs so you can't do X and we did X). But to my reading, ProfPrope's lack of experience is exactly what's lead him to this erroneous conclusion about what were doing. He didn't have the experience or knowledge to see if what we were doing is appropriate or not.
Sorry for the long post...

Well that's cheered a lot of us up.  Pickford, Maguire and Sterling I'd have left out from this tournament plus Kane would have been subbed way before he scored. Shows what I know about football.  Kudos Southgate.  ???????

Southgate masterclass

I think if anyone wants to go away, go - so long as you accept any risk, and stick to the rules applying to wherever you're going, and also when you return.  What annoys me is people going away to countries that are borderline, then moan like hell when the rules change whilst they're away - travel abroad is very much risk based at the moment so you have to accept whatever happens as part of your decision to go.  Not moan if our, or a foreign Government decides you need a test or now need to quarantine. 
On a personal level, we've chosen not to go abroad - our choice, but I don't judge others for doing so.  The only thing I do judge is if they then blatantly ignore guidelines, and put others at risk, but that's more general anyway and not confined to travel abroad.  I've just spent a couple of days working in London - first time in 15 months.  Was weird, but great to see some of my colleagues face to face however, in consideration of my family, and others, I've done a flow test just to make sure I'm still negative, in acknowledgement I had increased my risk of exposure by a commute into London. 

I think if anyone wants to go away, go - so long as you accept any risk, and stick to the rules applying to wherever you're going, and also when you return.  What annoys me is people going away to countries that are borderline, then moan like hell when the rules change whilst they're away - travel abroad is very much risk based at the moment so you have to accept whatever happens as part of your decision to go.  Not moan if our, or a foreign Government decides you need a test or now need to quarantine. 
On a personal level, we've chosen not to go abroad - our choice, but I don't judge others for doing so.  The only thing I do judge is if they then blatantly ignore guidelines, and put others at risk, but that's more general anyway and not confined to travel abroad.  I've just spent a couple of days working in London - first time in 15 months.  Was weird, but great to see some of my colleagues face to face however, in consideration of my family, and others, I've done a flow test just to make sure I'm still negative, in acknowledgement I had increased my risk of exposure by a commute into London. 

I think if anyone wants to go away, go - so long as you accept any risk, and stick to the rules applying to wherever you're going, and also when you return.  What annoys me is people going away to countries that are borderline, then moan like hell when the rules change whilst they're away - travel abroad is very much risk based at the moment so you have to accept whatever happens as part of your decision to go.  Not moan if our, or a foreign Government decides you need a test or now need to quarantine. 
On a personal level, we've chosen not to go abroad - our choice, but I don't judge others for doing so.  The only thing I do judge is if they then blatantly ignore guidelines, and put others at risk, but that's more general anyway and not confined to travel abroad.  I've just spent a couple of days working in London - first time in 15 months.  Was weird, but great to see some of my colleagues face to face however, in consideration of my family, and others, I've done a flow test just to make sure I'm still negative, in acknowledgement I had increased my risk of exposure by a commute into London. 

I think if anyone wants to go away, go - so long as you accept any risk, and stick to the rules applying to wherever you're going, and also when you return.  What annoys me is people going away to countries that are borderline, then moan like hell when the rules change whilst they're away - travel abroad is very much risk based at the moment so you have to accept whatever happens as part of your decision to go.  Not moan if our, or a foreign Government decides you need a test or now need to quarantine. 
On a personal level, we've chosen not to go abroad - our choice, but I don't judge others for doing so.  The only thing I do judge is if they then blatantly ignore guidelines, and put others at risk, but that's more general anyway and not confined to travel abroad.  I've just spent a couple of days working in London - first time in 15 months.  Was weird, but great to see some of my colleagues face to face however, in consideration of my family, and others, I've done a flow test just to make sure I'm still negative, in acknowledgement I had increased my risk of exposure by a commute into London. 

I think if anyone wants to go away, go - so long as you accept any risk, and stick to the rules applying to wherever you're going, and also when you return.  What annoys me is people going away to countries that are borderline, then moan like hell when the rules change whilst they're away - travel abroad is very much risk based at the moment so you have to accept whatever happens as part of your decision to go.  Not moan if our, or a foreign Government decides you need a test or now need to quarantine. 
On a personal level, we've chosen not to go abroad - our choice, but I don't judge others for doing so.  The only thing I do judge is if they then blatantly ignore guidelines, and put others at risk, but that's more general anyway and not confined to travel abroad.  I've just spent a couple of days working in London - first time in 15 months.  Was weird, but great to see some of my colleagues face to face however, in consideration of my family, and others, I've done a flow test just to make sure I'm still negative, in acknowledgement I had increased my risk of exposure by a commute into London.