RandomAccessMemory

It sounds like we won't even get a slap on the wrist if that's the case. Hopefully it's all just a big storm in a teacup.

Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch!
Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation. 

But Professor Plum is the expert, so has to be correct when he says entitlement

This tweet references this being said on Radio Derby
 

This tweet references this being said on Radio Derby
 

This tweet references this being said on Radio Derby
 

This tweet references this being said on Radio Derby
 

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.
I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?
Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?
So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?
If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

I also don’t understand Pope’s point here

It is referenced all the way through FRS 102 that disposal of an asset is consuming a future economic benefit, so how has he come to the conclusion above and how have they completely ignored what FRS 102 says to come to the conclusion that Pope is right because he’s the ‘expert’?
Isn’t it better to conclude that Pope’s ‘expert’ evidence doesn’t reflect how FRS 102 is supposed to work and is therefore inadmissible, which appears to be what the IDC are being told they did wrong?

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.
I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?
Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?
So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?
If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

This is it in a nutshell. The EFL only acted after three years because Middlesbrough FC said they would sue them for not protecting the division from nasty DCFC who were gaining an unfair advantage by selling the stadium etc. The case was heard and found in Derby's favour apart from one minor technicality. Middlesbrough FC still didn't accept that and instigated their own appeals (three separate points we are told) all of which failed. The EFL also appealed the technicality and staggeringly won that appeal based it seems on very strange accounting conclusions being drawn. The case has been agreed to be passed back to the original committee who will now decide any sanction.
Its noteworthy that the appeal panel found DCFC to be open & honest in providing evidence throughout this process. 

Their argument is that you can't guarantee that you can sell a player, because another club might not want to buy, or the player might not want to leave, so you can't assume he has any value at all.  But that literally rules out future economic benefits from disposal for anything at all ever, so I don't understand how it makes any sense.

I also don’t understand Pope’s point here

It is referenced all the way through FRS 102 that disposal of an asset is consuming a future economic benefit, so how has he come to the conclusion above and how have they completely ignored what FRS 102 says to come to the conclusion that Pope is right because he’s the ‘expert’?
Isn’t it better to conclude that Pope’s ‘expert’ evidence doesn’t reflect how FRS 102 is supposed to work and is therefore inadmissible, which appears to be what the IDC are being told they did wrong?

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.
I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?
Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?
So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?
If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

This is the actions of a proper captain...
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-curtis-davies-injury-5403447

That's something that struck me as odd.  The rules are very clear that the original tribunal had to contain an accountant for matters like this.  But the appeals panel have basically ignored that expertise and decided the only expert present was the EFL's witness so they have to take his opinion as fact.  So why even have an accountant on the panel in the first place?

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.

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.
I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?
Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?
So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?
If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

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.
 

Just spotted this tweet from Alan Nixon, it appears he has a copy of the decision report. I wonder how he has that as they've not released it yet?
So, it appears it was the second particular, and that ONLY which the EFL won on appeal.
I don't understand how it can be impermissible to take into account the possible resale value of players when it clearly states in FRS 102, as mentioned in the original decision, that future economic benefits from the intangible asset include use OR disposal?
From the original report
So if it wasn't an unreliable pattern for the years under scrutiny, why do we have to use the straight-line method?
If we don't have to use the straight-line method, given the expected consumption of future economic benefits includes disposal, it shouldn't be impermissible to take into account the resale value, and it being the 'cost model' should make no difference.

From page 42 of the document. I could be misunderstanding, but are they really saying that if you buy a house you have no expectation of being able to sell it at all?  And after 40 years a house is effectively worthless? And then saying players are basically the same? Because that's an insane position to take.

Seems bizarre that a set of lawyers can essentially say we can't use our amortisation method, whereas a set of accountants say we can. Even more bizarre that our accounts now have to do what the lawyers say!

The second report is available, I downloaded a copy yesterday.
It's too big a file to add on here.

Just spotted this tweet from Alan Nixon, it appears he has a copy of the decision report. I wonder how he has that as they've not released it yet?
So, it appears it was the second particular, and that ONLY which the EFL won on appeal.
I don't understand how it can be impermissible to take into account the possible resale value of players when it clearly states in FRS 102, as mentioned in the original decision, that future economic benefits from the intangible asset include use OR disposal?
From the original report
So if it wasn't an unreliable pattern for the years under scrutiny, why do we have to use the straight-line method?
If we don't have to use the straight-line method, given the expected consumption of future economic benefits includes disposal, it shouldn't be impermissible to take into account the resale value, and it being the 'cost model' should make no difference.

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.