RandomAccessMemory

Can I just point out the factual error from the article that was posted, it said one point would send us down, it would not as our goal difference is better than Wycombe’s.

rules is rules though.
I haven't read anywhere that they would have like to appeal charge 1 and couldn't due to the powers of the appeal?

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal
Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have
Huh?
It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.
 

We also didn’t know that their witness would try and make a case that the accounts were not compliant. Given that the accounts had been audited and cleared, and the witness’s evidence including saying things like the disposal of assets shouldn’t be included (when the regulations clearly state they can), then I’m not sure why we would think we needed to prepare to counter claims that are obviously wrong. 
 
The original commission, with accountancy expertise, thought the same thing which is why they dismissed his evidence. 

The offer was to adjourn just for the second charge. We could have got the stadium one sorted and dealt with the second one when we were ready.  There are no excuses for it
(For clarity, I still think the decision is wrong we should not be charged or punished for it. But it's seemingly mostly down to us screwing up that we didn't win, which is incredibly frustrating.)

I get what you’re saying, but isn’t that a technicality?
Did we know it would go to an appeal in front of a panel without an accountant and can we put forward a new witness once we know this?
The EFL’s expert put forward an example which includes a tangible asset which doesn’t use amortisation, not an intangible one which does, that’s not relevant to the issue at hand, yet they reference it because it’s come from the expert. So just because he is the only expert witness anything he says goes even if it’s irrelevant, how does that work?

Has anyone seen Gibson recently?

I get what you’re saying, but isn’t that a technicality?
Did we know it would go to an appeal in front of a panel without an accountant and can we put forward a new witness once we know this?
The EFL’s expert put forward an example which includes a tangible asset which doesn’t use amortisation, not an intangible one which does, that’s not relevant to the issue at hand, yet they reference it because it’s come from the expert. So just because he is the only expert witness anything he says goes even if it’s irrelevant, how does that work?

The EFL had more time to find someone as they knew we were getting charged for it in advance.
Their 'expert' was basically saying straight-line is better, not arguing why ERV isn't suitable. This means the basics was al that was needed. Our policy goes into a lot more detail meaning it more time would be required.
Delays in the charge? There was no prior notice of a possible charge against amortisation.

Because the EFL had longer than us to bring in their expert, as they knew before we did that they were going to charge us with it. 

I get what you’re saying, but isn’t that a technicality?
Did we know it would go to an appeal in front of a panel without an accountant and can we put forward a new witness once we know this?
The EFL’s expert put forward an example which includes a tangible asset which doesn’t use amortisation, not an intangible one which does, that’s not relevant to the issue at hand, yet they reference it because it’s come from the expert. So just because he is the only expert witness anything he says goes even if it’s irrelevant, how does that work?

However, from the original IDC report, by Pope’s own admission, it does appear some clubs are using methods other than straight-line amortisation, so there must be other methods that are seen as permissible?

They seem to be implying that because no one else has ‘ever’ done it, or thought to do it, then we shouldn’t either. One of the problems with that is that numerous accountants have thought it was an ok method to use, one academic didn’t, and they, a trio of lawyers, decided to go with the academics view, rather than that of the actual accountants.
Also, surely everything anyone ever does had a starting point somewhere, someone had to be the first to do it, otherwise things would never have happened and things will never evolve any further if everyone takes that stance.

Point 74 doesn’t make any sense, does it? It states many times in FRS 102 that consumption of future economic benefits includes both its use and its disposal, this isn’t ‘an appeal to common sense’ it is written plainly in black and white, how else are you supposed to take it?
Point 75, again I’m confused and feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s more that he couldn’t have done otherwise because there was evidence of other clubs financial statements apparently using different methods? Isn’t this because the wording of 18.22 makes it permissible? Why would you want him to be able to have done otherwise if it wasn’t right?

However, from the original IDC report, by Pope’s own admission, it does appear some clubs are using methods other than straight-line amortisation, so there must be other methods that are seen as permissible?

They seem to be implying that because no one else has ‘ever’ done it, or thought to do it, then we shouldn’t either. One of the problems with that is that numerous accountants have thought it was an ok method to use, one academic didn’t, and they, a trio of lawyers, decided to go with the academics view, rather than that of the actual accountants.
Also, surely everything anyone ever does had a starting point somewhere, someone had to be the first to do it, otherwise things would never have happened and things will never evolve any further if everyone takes that stance.

Point 74 doesn’t make any sense, does it? It states many times in FRS 102 that consumption of future economic benefits includes both its use and its disposal, this isn’t ‘an appeal to common sense’ it is written plainly in black and white, how else are you supposed to take it?
Point 75, again I’m confused and feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s more that he couldn’t have done otherwise because there was evidence of other clubs financial statements apparently using different methods? Isn’t this because the wording of 18.22 makes it permissible? Why would you want him to be able to have done otherwise if it wasn’t right?

However, from the original IDC report, by Pope’s own admission, it does appear some clubs are using methods other than straight-line amortisation, so there must be other methods that are seen as permissible?

They seem to be implying that because no one else has ‘ever’ done it, or thought to do it, then we shouldn’t either. One of the problems with that is that numerous accountants have thought it was an ok method to use, one academic didn’t, and they, a trio of lawyers, decided to go with the academics view, rather than that of the actual accountants.
Also, surely everything anyone ever does had a starting point somewhere, someone had to be the first to do it, otherwise things would never have happened and things will never evolve any further if everyone takes that stance.

Point 74 doesn’t make any sense, does it? It states many times in FRS 102 that consumption of future economic benefits includes both its use and its disposal, this isn’t ‘an appeal to common sense’ it is written plainly in black and white, how else are you supposed to take it?
Point 75, again I’m confused and feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s more that he couldn’t have done otherwise because there was evidence of other clubs financial statements apparently using different methods? Isn’t this because the wording of 18.22 makes it permissible? Why would you want him to be able to have done otherwise if it wasn’t right?

However, from the original IDC report, by Pope’s own admission, it does appear some clubs are using methods other than straight-line amortisation, so there must be other methods that are seen as permissible?

They seem to be implying that because no one else has ‘ever’ done it, or thought to do it, then we shouldn’t either. One of the problems with that is that numerous accountants have thought it was an ok method to use, one academic didn’t, and they, a trio of lawyers, decided to go with the academics view, rather than that of the actual accountants.
Also, surely everything anyone ever does had a starting point somewhere, someone had to be the first to do it, otherwise things would never have happened and things will never evolve any further if everyone takes that stance.

Point 74 doesn’t make any sense, does it? It states many times in FRS 102 that consumption of future economic benefits includes both its use and its disposal, this isn’t ‘an appeal to common sense’ it is written plainly in black and white, how else are you supposed to take it?
Point 75, again I’m confused and feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s more that he couldn’t have done otherwise because there was evidence of other clubs financial statements apparently using different methods? Isn’t this because the wording of 18.22 makes it permissible? Why would you want him to be able to have done otherwise if it wasn’t right?

Also, appears to be a shame that the DCs decision to exclude Pope's evidence was overturned by the LAP.
Them pointing out that he sounds a bit dense and the metaphors weren't anywhere near the same thing as football players wasn't enough of a reason.

And he didn’t understand the role of an expert witness 

Well, that went well...

Found it! 
 

Maybe it's my black and white tinted glasses, but that comes across as a little bit passive aggressive. "...playing within the rules. We expect our opponents to do the same."

Undoubtedly. Even with the amortisation, we would have failed P&S without the stadium sale.
Absolutely
 

This tweet references this being said on Radio Derby
 

My suspicion is that the EFL believe we would fail which is why they are pursuing it so forcefully.
The club are quoted as saying they believe we won’t.
Could the stadium profit prove crucial? Does the fact that it also includes itself as a year in the new P&S rules due to the 4-year Covid rule situation where 2019/20 and 2020/21 are calculated as an average of the two also prove crucial? Where 2017/18 wouldn’t normally be included with 2020/21?
Interestingly, I think of the figures included in the original IDC the latest ones were March or April 2019(?) what we didn’t know by then was that we would end up in the playoffs and get the income associated with that. I assume we got the gate receipts as usual being the loser of the final? Nor did we know at that point that we would ‘sell’ Lampard and the coaching staff for apparently £4m.
Let’s see what happens.

My suspicion is that the EFL believe we would fail which is why they are pursuing it so forcefully.
The club are quoted as saying they believe we won’t.
Could the stadium profit prove crucial? Does the fact that it also includes itself as a year in the new P&S rules due to the 4-year Covid rule situation where 2019/20 and 2020/21 are calculated as an average of the two also prove crucial? Where 2017/18 wouldn’t normally be included with 2020/21?
Interestingly, I think of the figures included in the original IDC the latest ones were March or April 2019(?) what we didn’t know by then was that we would end up in the playoffs and get the income associated with that. I assume we got the gate receipts as usual being the loser of the final? Nor did we know at that point that we would ‘sell’ Lampard and the coaching staff for apparently £4m.
Let’s see what happens.

Brilliant. Thanks that’s exactly it .