Elwood P Dowd

A 3 point deduction with a 3 points suspended would be an excellent result.
 
 

I read in The Accountancy Today magazine that basicaly there are only three types of accountants those that can count and those that cannot count ?

I maybe wrong but I think we could appeal against the punishment the EFL give us but not the verdict.
It makes sense to agree the punishment as it brings the issue to a close for both parties and removes the need for further appeals
If Percy is right it looks like we really breached the FFP in a number of seasons ???
9 points ????

I read in The Accountancy Today magazine that basicaly there are only three types of accountants those that can count and those that cannot count ?

I read in The Accountancy Today magazine that basicaly there are only three types of accountants those that can count and those that cannot count ?

I read in The Accountancy Today magazine that basicaly there are only three types of accountants those that can count and those that cannot count ?

I read in The Accountancy Today magazine that basicaly there are only three types of accountants those that can count and those that cannot count ?

Salah and 10 million or they can do one.
Hey B4, I’m learning. ?

It doesnt realy matter how we got here, the £100k fine and the slap on the wrist are not the real issue here they are only a minor anoyance, its the outcome of the instruction to, submit restated accounts for financial years ending 30 June 2016, 2017 and 2018 that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations if necessary, that may come back to bite us
Although, in June we were issued  sanctions for not meeting standard FRS102 the real issue is the amortisation policy the club used in 30 June 2016, 2017 and 2018 accounts. Perhaps the EFL have been quite clever here in that they have used the Disciplinary Commission to open up and force the club to restate the accounts, probably in the hope we have breached FFP.
The Disciplinary Commission's findings in June only added to our issues with the EFL.
from June 2021
In May, an Independent League Arbitration Panel ruled that the Disciplinary Commission was wrong to dismiss the League’s expert accountancy evidence, which demonstrated that the Club’s policy regarding the amortisation of player registrations was contrary to standard accounting rules. 
More specifically, the panel determined that the Club’s policy was not in accordance with accounting standard FRS102 because it failed to accurately reflect the manner in which the Club takes the benefit of player registrations over the lifetime of a player’s contract. 
Tonight, the Disciplinary Commission has announced that the sanction to be imposed in respect of those breaches, is a financial penalty of £100,000 to be paid to the EFL and a reprimand for the Club as to its future conduct regarding the preparation of its Annual Accounts.
In addition, the Club has also been ordered to file restated accounts for financial years ending 30 June 2016, 2017 and 2018 that meet the requirements of FRS102, together with updated Profit & Sustainability calculations if necessary.
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/june/-Derby-county/
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/69f7d814-c806-4ccc-b451-aba50d6e8de2/FRS-102-FRS-applicable-in-the-UK-and-Republic-of-Ireland-(March-2018).pdf
 
 
 

I agree with the above but the issue does go a little deeper than just not flagging our different amortisation policy clearly enough. We were not instructed by the Disciplinary Pannel to just provide clearer notes for our different amortisation policy we were instructed to "redo" the accounts and resubmitt them. In redoing the accounts there is, as we know, a possiblity that the accounts might show that we have breached FFP. 

I agree with the above but the issue does go a little deeper than just not flagging our different amortisation policy clearly enough. We were not instructed by the Disciplinary Pannel to just provide clearer notes for our different amortisation policy we were instructed to "redo" the accounts and resubmitt them. In redoing the accounts there is, as we know, a possiblity that the accounts might show that we have breached FFP. 

I agree with the above but the issue does go a little deeper than just not flagging our different amortisation policy clearly enough. We were not instructed by the Disciplinary Pannel to just provide clearer notes for our different amortisation policy we were instructed to "redo" the accounts and resubmitt them. In redoing the accounts there is, as we know, a possiblity that the accounts might show that we have breached FFP. 

My take on that is that the accounts were submitted last week on the original deadline
then “after constructive discussions” we were asked to clarify something or provide documentation to support what we have submitted… which we have now done 

She may be older or younger remember she couldn’t add up?

I'm a Tom Lawrence fan, I confess, but I think we really need to establish a meritocracy here and stick with it. Unless fitness or injuries force our hand, I can't see any reason to change the side at all. The Tom Lawrence we saw when he returned for the last 9 games or so last season would obviously get a start, but there's no harm in letting him earn his slot back. He's not quite operating at that level yet, so let's not fix what isn't broken and give last night's side a chance to show their performance was no fluke.
More importantly though, I'd stick with the style of play. Can we please NOT revert to simply trying not to lose games? We look a different side when we look to get forward at pace and I'd rather see us losing games trying to play football the right way than the alternative. 
As last thought on the newbies...I've touted Jags and Morrison enough already, much to the chagrin of some on here, but I wasn't so sure about Sam Baldock. Suffice to say I thought he was excellent last night. Seems an intelligent lad too and I'm hopeful he could prove something of a steal if his debut goal has breathed a little confidence back into him. Have to say, all three look good given their lack of football and you'd have to think there's a deal more to come yet too once they've got some games into their legs.
COYR

Best football for a long time

Best football for a long time

Best football for a long time

That is true, but evey club could argue " we could have won the game if we have been able to field the players in the Man City side.? All Derby can do is follow the regulation and field the best team from the players they have under their control

No business sense though, who in their right mind would give good money for milk teeth ?‍♂️

If Derby want to further alienate their fans then selling anyone to the Trees is the best way to do it

If Derby want to further alienate their fans then selling anyone to the Trees is the best way to do it

If Derby want to further alienate their fans then selling anyone to the Trees is the best way to do it

Isnt Tom too busy supporting the Church of Scientology and its associated social programs!

I agree it is normal to lodge funds in an escrow account and the deposit of such funds is a step closer to completion than is POF.