RandomAccessMemory

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I for one will be extremely interested to see whether the EFL publish the justification of their assertion that the accounting treatment is non-compliant

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Probably been posted before but the below quote is from the original decision document. It makes sense that we haven’t filed any accounts since the ones under scrutiny because their claim was that we breached the rules just by filing the accounts with the ERV method of amortisation, as opposed to straight line amortisation. Had we submitted accounts for 2018/19 and 2019/20 and continued to use that method, and they won their appeal, as appears to be the case, we would likely also be in further trouble for that.
It also doesn’t mention breaching spending limits as a part of this charge, it was part of the first charge which we won and they didn’t appeal, so I’d have thought that would have to be a new charge, if we have breached the £39m limit on submission of restated accounts, a new decision panel, and surely therefore the ability to appeal any decision?
@Ghost of Clough has already mentioned, when you alter the amortisation, it may also alter the profit made on certain players. Off the top of my head this might affect the transfers of Ince, Vydra and Weimann, the first 2 could be quite a significant profit difference if their ERV at time of sale was high in the accounts submitted. I don’t know if Kieran Maguire has factored this into his figures.
The original forecast losses mentioned for the accounts not yet submitted in the decision document would also change. Partly because if players weren’t able to be sold for their ERV, then the difference between the ERV and zero was to be amortised in the final year, where with the straight line method this would be much smaller in that final year. Partly because it depends whether we were carrying on with the ERV method of amortisation for the players acquired after 2017/18, if yes, then their amortisation would have been low in the early years, if not, then it would be higher anyway.
Another thing, if we have gone over for any of the years between 2015/16 and 2017/18, once punishment is handed out, those years should be reset to the maximum for each year over the limit shouldn’t they? So £13m max for each one, I think that’s what happened before with Birmingham, so you’re not punished for that same year being over the limit twice, as it is included in every set of 3 years (now 4 with covid counting 2019/20 and 2020/21 as one) whether it is year 1, 2 or 3.

It’s difficult to know whether it’s good or bad in relation to each 3 year period, as we don’t know 1. what a player was actually bought/sold for (not including any add ons that you never pay/receive), and 2. what ERV’s have been given to who and when.
I think you can relatively safely suggest that every player will have a somewhat higher (than the straight line value last year norm) ERV given to them at the start, although it may be not too different for the older ones, as you’d expect a player to come in, do well and keep their value (dependent on their age at the time of purchase) otherwise why buy them. But when this changes with injuries/form, it’s difficult to calculate how much difference it has made.
Over the course of a contract or until a sale (generally 3-5 years + extensions) there is zero difference in the amount accounted for as we still have to account for it all at some point, it’s just back loading the amounts, rather than spreading them out equally.
As I understand it, any profit made from a sale firstly cancels out what is left to amortise and then what’s left after that is the profit, so when you back load with an ERV and it equals a higher value on the books it equals less profit on the books.
£4m player on a 4 year contract, sold for £4m at the beginning of Year 4.
Straight line basis:
Year 1 £1m
Year 2 £1m
Year 3 £1m
Year 4 £1m
Profit = £3m
ERV of £3m given at the start:
Year 1 £333k
Year 2 £333k
Year 3 £333k
Year 4 £3m
Profit = £1m

It’s difficult to know whether it’s good or bad in relation to each 3 year period, as we don’t know 1. what a player was actually bought/sold for (not including any add ons that you never pay/receive), and 2. what ERV’s have been given to who and when.
I think you can relatively safely suggest that every player will have a somewhat higher (than the straight line value last year norm) ERV given to them at the start, although it may be not too different for the older ones, as you’d expect a player to come in, do well and keep their value (dependent on their age at the time of purchase) otherwise why buy them. But when this changes with injuries/form, it’s difficult to calculate how much difference it has made.
Over the course of a contract or until a sale (generally 3-5 years + extensions) there is zero difference in the amount accounted for as we still have to account for it all at some point, it’s just back loading the amounts, rather than spreading them out equally.
As I understand it, any profit made from a sale firstly cancels out what is left to amortise and then what’s left after that is the profit, so when you back load with an ERV and it equals a higher value on the books it equals less profit on the books.
£4m player on a 4 year contract, sold for £4m at the beginning of Year 4.
Straight line basis:
Year 1 £1m
Year 2 £1m
Year 3 £1m
Year 4 £1m
Profit = £3m
ERV of £3m given at the start:
Year 1 £333k
Year 2 £333k
Year 3 £333k
Year 4 £3m
Profit = £1m

Probably been posted before but the below quote is from the original decision document. It makes sense that we haven’t filed any accounts since the ones under scrutiny because their claim was that we breached the rules just by filing the accounts with the ERV method of amortisation, as opposed to straight line amortisation. Had we submitted accounts for 2018/19 and 2019/20 and continued to use that method, and they won their appeal, as appears to be the case, we would likely also be in further trouble for that.
It also doesn’t mention breaching spending limits as a part of this charge, it was part of the first charge which we won and they didn’t appeal, so I’d have thought that would have to be a new charge, if we have breached the £39m limit on submission of restated accounts, a new decision panel, and surely therefore the ability to appeal any decision?
@Ghost of Clough has already mentioned, when you alter the amortisation, it may also alter the profit made on certain players. Off the top of my head this might affect the transfers of Ince, Vydra and Weimann, the first 2 could be quite a significant profit difference if their ERV at time of sale was high in the accounts submitted. I don’t know if Kieran Maguire has factored this into his figures.
The original forecast losses mentioned for the accounts not yet submitted in the decision document would also change. Partly because if players weren’t able to be sold for their ERV, then the difference between the ERV and zero was to be amortised in the final year, where with the straight line method this would be much smaller in that final year. Partly because it depends whether we were carrying on with the ERV method of amortisation for the players acquired after 2017/18, if yes, then their amortisation would have been low in the early years, if not, then it would be higher anyway.
Another thing, if we have gone over for any of the years between 2015/16 and 2017/18, once punishment is handed out, those years should be reset to the maximum for each year over the limit shouldn’t they? So £13m max for each one, I think that’s what happened before with Birmingham, so you’re not punished for that same year being over the limit twice, as it is included in every set of 3 years (now 4 with covid counting 2019/20 and 2020/21 as one) whether it is year 1, 2 or 3.

Another one, who won't be cheap, signed up down the A52 - and these frankly ridiculous stats
 

Shame to see Martin go, although if this Telegraph article from the end of April was right (it wasn't John Percy so not sure) it's hardly surprising that the club were wary about any new contract offer.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/04/28/Derby-county-players-agree-wage-deferrals-club/
From memory the only players whose contracts 'expired' were Anya, Huddlestone and Martin. If they were pulling in £10m a year between them then..yikes! ?

Buy cheap players, come close, sell those for large fees, rinse and repeat. 
They should be in a great financial position, but I would be hugely frustrated that we couldn’t just keep hold of our best players. 
Not sure I like the no academy decision either, watching come through and develop is great to see

I think people are presuming gross misconduct has to result in termination. That's at the discretion of the club.
If they offered a way that Keogh could avoid that, he had an option.
My experience was different but effectively I was brought in front of HR and told, your behaviour will be investigated and you could be found to have conduct resulting in gross misconduct. That has a potential result in termination. Alternatively you can take this money on offer and leave today.
I could have stayed and fought for the role but that would have been down to me to have argued my case. I had little confidence it wasn't just a stitch-up, so I took the money.
I'm sure any employer would have the right to offer something similar in terms of a different contract. Your conduct will be investigated and there is potential for it to be seen as gross misconduct, which may mean termination. Alternatively you can agree to new terms and we will not pursue the gross misconduct issue at all. Keogh chose the first option and, surprise surprise, it was a termination that resulted. 

If only they'd used their noggins.
They could have claimed they were all set to walk home when Keogh slipped on Mason's sick in the bogs (no CCTV in there to prove otherwise).
He came limping out, said his knee hurt badly, and would one of the lads be able to take him straight to Derby Royal.
Under duress of an injured teammate, the lads reluctantly agreed, then when Mason saw an approaching Paramedic at the junction, promptly reversed his car into Tom's car waiting patiently behind in order to assist his Captain getting the treatment he needed.
Heroes, the lot of them.

I think we're all forgetting one very important thing from the night in question... remember some sources initially reported the accident happened at a roundabout... a roundabout at the junction of Burley Lane & the A6... an invisible roundabout perhaps?  Or maybe a roundabout with mystical powers... unexplained phenomena... The Bermuda Roundabout, if you will!
A roundabout without exits perhaps... round and round we all go, where will it end?  Does anybody know!