G STAR RAM

Only had a quick glance through his posts, he sounds very bitter.
Apparently the reason he is not putting a bid in to buy the club is because he got no thanks the first time around.

Spot on.
I wonder if any of the people saying take the fine are will to pay it on behalf of the club? I doubt it.

Seriously where is all this talk of a points deduction come from?
Isnt the only thing being levelled at the club that they did not use the correct wording to explain the accounting policy used for amortisation?

Wouldnt we have sold players to cover the losses?

Wouldnt we have sold players to cover the losses?

Wouldnt we have sold players to cover the losses?

Everyone saying take the punishment and move on... basically saying let the Bully hit you and don’t fight back...
fight them for everything i say.

Wouldnt we have sold players to cover the losses?

Wouldnt we have sold players to cover the losses?

Wouldnt we have sold players to cover the losses?

Wouldnt we have sold players to cover the losses?

Seriously where is all this talk of a points deduction come from?
Isnt the only thing being levelled at the club that they did not use the correct wording to explain the accounting policy used for amortisation?

Seriously where is all this talk of a points deduction come from?
Isnt the only thing being levelled at the club that they did not use the correct wording to explain the accounting policy used for amortisation?

Seriously where is all this talk of a points deduction come from?
Isnt the only thing being levelled at the club that they did not use the correct wording to explain the accounting policy used for amortisation?

I said at the time that this was the only logical reason for it and that I would certainly view that as bending the rules, but then I thought I had read they were amortised down to £0 at the beginning of the last year of the contract.
Any competent auditor would insist they were written down to zero though because they played no further part and I would assume left for less than any potential residual value at the end of their contract. 

My understanding was that they went down to zero over the duration of the final year, and didn’t hit zero until they actually left the club.  So as long as they signed a contract extension at some point in that year, some of the amortisation would be shunted over. We don’t know for sure at what point they actually signed those deals - they were announced at the end of the season, but it could have been at any time.

Is this a fact? I am pretty sure I read that player values were amortised down to zero at the start of the final year of the contract.
See above.
This is nothing to do with HMRC. The accounts are late at Companies House. I doubt HMRC are too bothered about a company with £x millions of accumulated losses.
He/she is not confusing anything. There is no way you can deduce what is in a companies bank account by looking at the statement of capital.
What evidence do you have regarding your last sentence?
I am saying that is complete and utter guesswork by KL. Not saying his figure is not correct but there is no way on earth that he has calculated the correct figure, it would be right by pure fluke.
To calculate the figure, he would need to know transfer fee for each individual player, length of contract, residual value assigned to each player, sales proceeds for each individual player.
Cannot see if he has stated this in his assumptions or not as I have no interest in reading articles of someone masquerading as an expert.
Thats funny, as you said 3 points about 3 pages back. 
Think it was good work by whoever outed you as a WUM the other day.
But if the method was incorrect it would lead to huge losses every time a player was sold or contract expired.
In which case the auditors would be required to flag up that suitable accounting policies were not being used. 

A reminder of what the EFL are appealing...
The second charge (amortisation) was split up into 5 particulars.

1. The EFL withdraw the first particular,  so nothing to look into.
2. This is not in contradiction to the financial standard FRS102
3. As per the 2nd particular
4. Unreliability in estimating a player's value does not mean the policy contradicts FRS102. 
5. Inadequate disclosure is punishable. As it doesn't impact passing/failing P&S, it is impossible to receive a points penalty against this particular.

It was valued on an exisiting use basis.
Nothing wrong with that. 

I’d suggest that in this case, the right of appeal should only be allowed for the charged party if found guilty. 
For the EFL, if their rules are so unclear that:
1) a club is able to misinterpret them
2) an independent tribunal is satisfied that the club acted reasonably 
then the correct action is for the EFL to show some humility, to admit they got it wrong, and to focus all their efforts on changing the rules/guidance to be clearer. 

????? salty

Apparently not, they've told Nixon but not the club apparently 

Well I was jumping around like a ducking loon yesterday and if fans or players celebrating us staying up is such a massive embarrassment for you, then I'm delighted by your discomfort.  
COR

Apparently not, they've told Nixon but not the club apparently 

Apparently not, they've told Nixon but not the club apparently