RandomAccessMemory

The club statement said they have agreed to that

The club statement said they have agreed to that

I think maybe people are taking what Nixon is saying a bit too literally. I personally think that he is implying that the EFL will be more favourably disposed towards us generally once Mel is gone.
This might mean pressing less about the punishment, which could in turn influence the DC's decision; or just agreeing to the DC setting the punishment rather than the LAP (which I am not sure if they have done as yet?)
I don't think it's right that there is this issue between the EFL and Mel,  but people would be naive to think that it is not there, or that it hasn't influenced the EFL's recent behaviour.

I completely agree with you.

I completely agree with you.

Well, the appeal has just found us guilty, so yes we are. We know what of.
 

That's still not an appropriate stance for a regulator to have, and effectively that's what the EFL are in terms of the football league. It implies that the relationship between the club and the EFL will change how the rules apply to you.
 

Was stood outside the reception area with Appleby before a game, think it was against Wednesday where we threw a two goal lead away, some old lady came over and whacked him with her handbag for “selling John Shackell”! ??
in fairness Appleby said “we’ve bought Keogh and he’s better!”

When I was about fifteen I jokingly emailed GSE telling them to sign somebody and actually received a polite reply ?

If there's any truth in those rumours then the EFL are publicly showing that there is a vendetta against Mel - what a steaming pile of horse droppings that organisation is.....

I can't see any realistic way how that could possibly be true. If the multiple bidders part is true, then that's good news, I just hope Mel is able to get a credible buyer this time.
However I really cannot see the EFL even being able to hint at reducing whatever punishment we receive if Mel sells up quickly. Firstly, there is no indication that we would definitely get a points deduction, it's just one of numerous possibilities. Secondly, the points deduction is not something that can, or should, be made up on the spot. As much as they may like to, the EFL Gods cannot sit in their Ivory tower and think "hmm, Mel Morris? We'll hit him with the maximum penalty!" purely because he's caused a stir in the past and there's ill feeling. Penalties are based on facts. It can't be impacted by having a favourable, or unfavourable owner.
The Club should be sold for the good of the Club. I really hope being stung twice publicly will encourage Mel to really want to choose the best person for our future, however the indication that he could almost be blackmailed into rushing a sale through so we only get deducted 3 points rather than 9 for example, is absolutely farcical and sounds like it should be illegal.

EFL source tacitly admits "get Mel" was a part of it......the only legitimate line is either"no comment, it's ongoing" or "that is a separate issue, the DC must judge the case in front of them"

There is an article that quotes a Sun article by Alan Nixon today, which infers that the EFL will be kinder to us if Mel can sell quickly, and that talks are underway again.
Shouldn't think it's any more or less reliable than the Daily Mail stuff.
I Don't think it's been posted on here, but there are so many different threads springing up it's hard to tell! 
 

Spot on.
So much has happened over the past couple of years that I completely forgot about this point. I had assumed, like charge 1, that the EFL were arguing we would have failed P&S without it.
Baswd on the Decision Document from the original hearing, charge 1 specifically claims the stadium sale meant we avoided failing P&S.
However, charge 2 only claims that by having non-compliant accounts, we have breached P&S rules.
 
The LAP have concluded that the accounts are non-compliant so a punishment is required for breaching rules.
The logical punishment to me is a fine and resubmission of the P&S figures using a striaght-line method. The reason a points deduction isn't warranted is because no on field benefit was achieved.

This sounds spot on, has anything to the contrary been said in the posts after it?

Just so we’re clear, these were the original 5 respects in which the EFL said our amortisation was contrary to FRS 102.

1. Was dropped before the IDC when the EFL realised they had misunderstood our approach and that we didn’t have a non-zero value at the end of their contracts, ie. when they are worth zero because of Bosman.
2. IDC dismissed, LAP substituted their decision below.

3 and 4. Dismissed by both the IDC and the LAP.
5. IDC original decision stands.

These are the two things the IDC have to decide on ‘punishment’ (from the list I posted before) for.
What happens next is anyone’s guess, but this is not (at least at this point) about us having overspent in that 3 year period.
The way I understand it is if the IDC simply says we need to restate our accounts for that period, as our ‘punishment’ for the 2 decisions above, to make them compliant, only then (if we have gone over the P&S limit) is the point at which a new charge would be bought for that.
So, I guess this is about what punishment we should get for having non compliant accounts for those years, and what, if any, mitigating factors there are for that.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

What about the auditors regulator?
That quote is from the original decision.
I find it astonishing that the club, its auditors, their regulators and the original IDC (which included an actual accountant - imagine that!) can be under the impression it's all fine and dandy, totally in line with FRS 102. But a new panel, none of which are accountants, can apparently say it's not, and their decision is final...
Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

I’m not quite sure why there is so much furore about this particular snippet today on social media, all of this has been known since the IDC decision.
It made comment to the club referencing Transfermarkt and it wasn’t the only way they calculated values, it’s not new news.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

I’m not quite sure why there is so much furore about this particular snippet today on social media, all of this has been known since the IDC decision.
It made comment to the club referencing Transfermarkt and it wasn’t the only way they calculated values, it’s not new news.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.
Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.