LE_Ram

Yep, just bought my two (had to wait to get one for partner who isn't a STH) - there were plenty available, will be interesting to see how many end up going in the next few days.
As an aside, £37 to watch a game of football is ludicrous. I wonder how many we could get if tickets were reasonably priced?
 
 

Not sure - that was just the standard price for an adult in the East Stand.

Then the EFL need to make a decision as to whether they're just going to continue to outsource accounting competency (i.e. just keep with the single line rule that says clubs must comply with FRS102 and let the accountants deal with it), or whether they're going to take full control and write their own set of football-specific approved accounting standards. Obviously if they choose the later, it will need a proper vote by clubs, it will need an extensive process to decide what those rules are, it will need them to employ a bunch of accountancy experts to individually approve each clubs books, they will need proper enforcement processes in place, they'll need to deal with how it affects clubs being promoted/relegated in and out of the EFL, and it will obviously need the clubs to vote to pay for all of that.
What can't carry on is for the EFL to have that single line rule, and then every now and then arbitrarily decide it wants to enforce some fantasy accounting standard that doesn't seem to exist in the real world because one club did something it arbitrarily decided it didn't like.

I've really enjoyed both the Huddersfield and Boro home games so far. It's not fair to say that all those who stayed away are "fair weather" fans, or that they're all "moaners" - people will have genuine reasons for not coming back to PP yet and that's respectable.
However, just because not all fans who haven't come back are moaners, some of them are. Certainly from my corner of the East Stand there's a fair few who haven't come back who spent most of the previous seasons groaning and shouting at the players when a forward pass doesn't come off or we lose possession.
I've noticed a real togetherness over the last few home games - everyone seems to want to drive the team on and offer their support. We know we're under the cosh and it could be a long tough season but we can at least try our best to be supportive.

I've really enjoyed both the Huddersfield and Boro home games so far. It's not fair to say that all those who stayed away are "fair weather" fans, or that they're all "moaners" - people will have genuine reasons for not coming back to PP yet and that's respectable.
However, just because not all fans who haven't come back are moaners, some of them are. Certainly from my corner of the East Stand there's a fair few who haven't come back who spent most of the previous seasons groaning and shouting at the players when a forward pass doesn't come off or we lose possession.
I've noticed a real togetherness over the last few home games - everyone seems to want to drive the team on and offer their support. We know we're under the cosh and it could be a long tough season but we can at least try our best to be supportive.

Yep - typical, as soon as I post they release the unsold ST reservations...

It would certainly appear that between all the off-field drama in the last 18 months and the impact that's had on the on-field, expensive tickets, crap ticketing system, EFL battles, transfer embargoes, drink driving, Rooney's personal life, and losing every week; that DCFC seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.
And yet, I can't shake myself from going and supporting the lads. I can't influence anything off the field, and the only possible impact is could have is to go and show the lads some support in the hope that that drives them over the line and we start cobbling some results together. 
And hopefully when Morris's disastrous tenure finally wet farts itself out of its godforsaken existence, I hope that the fans who are rightly and understandably put off from expending their time, cash, and effort on a club which doesn't seem to want to respect them, will feel they want to come back.

It would certainly appear that between all the off-field drama in the last 18 months and the impact that's had on the on-field, expensive tickets, crap ticketing system, EFL battles, transfer embargoes, drink driving, Rooney's personal life, and losing every week; that DCFC seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.
And yet, I can't shake myself from going and supporting the lads. I can't influence anything off the field, and the only possible impact is could have is to go and show the lads some support in the hope that that drives them over the line and we start cobbling some results together. 
And hopefully when Morris's disastrous tenure finally wet farts itself out of its godforsaken existence, I hope that the fans who are rightly and understandably put off from expending their time, cash, and effort on a club which doesn't seem to want to respect them, will feel they want to come back.

It would certainly appear that between all the off-field drama in the last 18 months and the impact that's had on the on-field, expensive tickets, crap ticketing system, EFL battles, transfer embargoes, drink driving, Rooney's personal life, and losing every week; that DCFC seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.
And yet, I can't shake myself from going and supporting the lads. I can't influence anything off the field, and the only possible impact is could have is to go and show the lads some support in the hope that that drives them over the line and we start cobbling some results together. 
And hopefully when Morris's disastrous tenure finally wet farts itself out of its godforsaken existence, I hope that the fans who are rightly and understandably put off from expending their time, cash, and effort on a club which doesn't seem to want to respect them, will feel they want to come back.

It would certainly appear that between all the off-field drama in the last 18 months and the impact that's had on the on-field, expensive tickets, crap ticketing system, EFL battles, transfer embargoes, drink driving, Rooney's personal life, and losing every week; that DCFC seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.
And yet, I can't shake myself from going and supporting the lads. I can't influence anything off the field, and the only possible impact is could have is to go and show the lads some support in the hope that that drives them over the line and we start cobbling some results together. 
And hopefully when Morris's disastrous tenure finally wet farts itself out of its godforsaken existence, I hope that the fans who are rightly and understandably put off from expending their time, cash, and effort on a club which doesn't seem to want to respect them, will feel they want to come back.

It would certainly appear that between all the off-field drama in the last 18 months and the impact that's had on the on-field, expensive tickets, crap ticketing system, EFL battles, transfer embargoes, drink driving, Rooney's personal life, and losing every week; that DCFC seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.
And yet, I can't shake myself from going and supporting the lads. I can't influence anything off the field, and the only possible impact is could have is to go and show the lads some support in the hope that that drives them over the line and we start cobbling some results together. 
And hopefully when Morris's disastrous tenure finally wet farts itself out of its godforsaken existence, I hope that the fans who are rightly and understandably put off from expending their time, cash, and effort on a club which doesn't seem to want to respect them, will feel they want to come back.

It would certainly appear that between all the off-field drama in the last 18 months and the impact that's had on the on-field, expensive tickets, crap ticketing system, EFL battles, transfer embargoes, drink driving, Rooney's personal life, and losing every week; that DCFC seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.
And yet, I can't shake myself from going and supporting the lads. I can't influence anything off the field, and the only possible impact is could have is to go and show the lads some support in the hope that that drives them over the line and we start cobbling some results together. 
And hopefully when Morris's disastrous tenure finally wet farts itself out of its godforsaken existence, I hope that the fans who are rightly and understandably put off from expending their time, cash, and effort on a club which doesn't seem to want to respect them, will feel they want to come back.

As an external auditor myself, one of our key jobs in any financial audit is ensuring that the accounting policies comply with the applicable standards (as others have mentioned, FRS102).
I personally haven't ever audited a football club, but seeing as the intangible assets are such a material part of the balance sheet I'm sure that any auditor would be massively thorough in auditing that balance (and the amortisation to go along with it).
The auditors sign off to say that the accounts are prepared in line with the applicable standards, so surely they must be. How the EFL can go back now and say that they're not is beyond me.

You can allocate a residual value to an intangible asset under FRS102, provided that:
- There is a commitment by a third party to buy it at the end of its useful life, OR
- There is an active market for the asset, and its residual value can be determined by reference to the market, and the market will exist at the end of the asset's useful life.
 
So it looks like Derby are saying - there's clearly an active market for players, and we buy players with the expectation of selling them at the end of their contracts, so it's not fair to allocate a RV of nil because that's ultimately not representative of the true situation. But the EFL says, well at the end of the contract, the player can leave on a free, so you need to amortise down to a RV of nil.
Without looking at the detail for each player it's tough, because some players (probably someone like Jozwiak), DCFC will expect to sell before his contract is up, and so will have some sort of RV; but some like CKR will probably not be sold and should be amortised down to nil value.
There's ultimately a lot of judgment around it because the RV should be set at the amount that Derby will eventually get for the player - who knows how much we'll sell Joz for in a few years, there are so many factors. But in terms of whether it's allowable under FRS102 to allocate a non-nil residual value to an intangible, yes it is.

As an external auditor myself, one of our key jobs in any financial audit is ensuring that the accounting policies comply with the applicable standards (as others have mentioned, FRS102).
I personally haven't ever audited a football club, but seeing as the intangible assets are such a material part of the balance sheet I'm sure that any auditor would be massively thorough in auditing that balance (and the amortisation to go along with it).
The auditors sign off to say that the accounts are prepared in line with the applicable standards, so surely they must be. How the EFL can go back now and say that they're not is beyond me.

Yeah, exactly. Any accounting standards - be it FRS102 or anything else - can't possibly legislate for every possible transaction, or it would be impossibly long and unwieldy. Hence, the generic guidance, and the overarching principle that "Transactions and other events and conditions should be accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and not merely their legal form."
To me, it seems that Derby have accounted for the substance of the transaction by including the fact that they expect to sell any given player, and the EFL have simply argued for the legal form by saying that such a sale isn't guaranteed.

Yeah, exactly. Any accounting standards - be it FRS102 or anything else - can't possibly legislate for every possible transaction, or it would be impossibly long and unwieldy. Hence, the generic guidance, and the overarching principle that "Transactions and other events and conditions should be accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and not merely their legal form."
To me, it seems that Derby have accounted for the substance of the transaction by including the fact that they expect to sell any given player, and the EFL have simply argued for the legal form by saying that such a sale isn't guaranteed.

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. 

Having read that document, it seems that the EFL's appeal against the decision has succeeded based on one charge, which is that the future benefits from owning a player's registration extend only to their ability to play matches and their possible resale shouldn't be considered.
To me it's just silly - in the original decision, you have the DC going down point-by-point, referring to FRS102 and why DCFC's accounting treatment was compliant with this. In the appeal, you have "Professor Pope", explaining why he disagrees with that.
The whole point of accounting standards is to act as a guide, and overarching the whole shebang is the principle of "substance over form" - it's clear that the EFL's witness is an academic because his argument reads like such a conceptual interpretation rather than (as should be) an application of the standards, bearing in mind that the most crucial point is that the substance of a transaction is more important than the form of it.
You've got two different sets of people, both reading the same standards, and coming to different conclusions.

Yeah, exactly. Any accounting standards - be it FRS102 or anything else - can't possibly legislate for every possible transaction, or it would be impossibly long and unwieldy. Hence, the generic guidance, and the overarching principle that "Transactions and other events and conditions should be accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and not merely their legal form."
To me, it seems that Derby have accounted for the substance of the transaction by including the fact that they expect to sell any given player, and the EFL have simply argued for the legal form by saying that such a sale isn't guaranteed.

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. 

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. 

Having read that document, it seems that the EFL's appeal against the decision has succeeded based on one charge, which is that the future benefits from owning a player's registration extend only to their ability to play matches and their possible resale shouldn't be considered.
To me it's just silly - in the original decision, you have the DC going down point-by-point, referring to FRS102 and why DCFC's accounting treatment was compliant with this. In the appeal, you have "Professor Pope", explaining why he disagrees with that.
The whole point of accounting standards is to act as a guide, and overarching the whole shebang is the principle of "substance over form" - it's clear that the EFL's witness is an academic because his argument reads like such a conceptual interpretation rather than (as should be) an application of the standards, bearing in mind that the most crucial point is that the substance of a transaction is more important than the form of it.
You've got two different sets of people, both reading the same standards, and coming to different conclusions.

The standard isn't specific enough to cover every eventuality, so it is tested through interpretation. This is what all law is about, isn't it? 
In the end it often comes down to something interpreted or procedural rather than fact.
I find it a bit pathetic, but it's what drives the money machine.
 

Having read that document, it seems that the EFL's appeal against the decision has succeeded based on one charge, which is that the future benefits from owning a player's registration extend only to their ability to play matches and their possible resale shouldn't be considered.
To me it's just silly - in the original decision, you have the DC going down point-by-point, referring to FRS102 and why DCFC's accounting treatment was compliant with this. In the appeal, you have "Professor Pope", explaining why he disagrees with that.
The whole point of accounting standards is to act as a guide, and overarching the whole shebang is the principle of "substance over form" - it's clear that the EFL's witness is an academic because his argument reads like such a conceptual interpretation rather than (as should be) an application of the standards, bearing in mind that the most crucial point is that the substance of a transaction is more important than the form of it.
You've got two different sets of people, both reading the same standards, and coming to different conclusions.