Malty

It's time to think outside the box. For example: instead of 11 "players", how about we pick Wayne Rooney and 10 aggressive dogs? The dogs attack the other team, Rooney scores. Simple football. Cheap (dog food, kennels). 

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place if you are trying to build a sustainable business in the football league (which isn't what we are trying to do anyway). If you cut everything to the bone and go down you lose a crap ton of income anyway. You have to rely on player  sales to make the difference up if you still want to compete as well, but we are as good at selling players as we are at buying them. Its very difficult to get the balance right, but we're just getting rid of anything not nailed down anyway .

Sounds reasonable to me, 
Having read the relevant accounting rules I cannot understand how they come up with the opinion that we were in breach of them. I understand that it is not the done practice of a football club to immortalise that way but that's a different question.
We shot ourselves in the foot by not producing our own expert witness (was there a bit of Hubris there?)
The EFL are in a pickle but as you say they relied on honesty. If the EFL ask for accounts so that they can audit them, they should do so, in not finding this sooner they have not performed their duties properly, but we equally should have been more transparent about what we were doing.
I just want tis over and done with so we can move on, I also wish the other clubs supporters and indeed the clubs themselves would understand the facts and not jump to conclusions. 

So, here we are. Thanks to some very knowledgeable posters, we have, I think, unwrapped the lash-up the EFL have caused us, themselves an Wycombe.  It would be laughable it it wasn't so tragic but I just have a sneaking feeling DCFC Fans are more advanced than the EFL and the LAP on the matter. How did it come to this?

The one thing that dcfc is absolutely guilty of is completely squandering the short term P&S advantage gained from tweaking the amortisation approach by signing such a load of old tat and mismanaging them to be worthless. 
By incurring all these losses from anya, blackman, Butterfield et Al they rather illustrate the point that a cautious approach to player valuation is closer to our reality.... ?

Oh no. Please tell me you are one of those online crazies who buy dodgy certificates to make oneself look important or worthy, and you’re not an Accountant.

I wrote about this before …
amortisation works like this. A transfer fee for a 5 million pound player with a contract length of 5 years would “amortise” at 1 million pounds per year if you used a straight line method.
In simple terms that’s one million pound of loss per year for 5 years.
if you imagine that you might extend a contract or sell the player in years three four or five then you might decide to use a different method. So if you think you could sell the player for 4 million pounds after 4 years then the total balance you need to write off is only 1 million pounds. Which would be a loss of 250k per year over 4 years.
The problem in the original panel is that we changed policy without properly disclosing it in our accounts. So we might have changed for example from the straight line method to the residual value one above.
The appeal seems to now suggest that the new policy that we used was against accounting standards completely.
Either decision in my view is very much objective. The residual policy is ok in my view if you can predict the value of a player - and there are plenty of places now where you can predict a future value of a player. So I’m not sure it really is against accounting standards.
 
In the first panel that suggested we changed accounting policies without disclosing it, well i suspect that practicing accountants would be able to debate as to whether this really is a change of accounting standards or just a change to a part of the policy. For example you might argue in the case above that we were just changing the residual value from nil to 4 million pounds, but the underlying policy is still a a straight line method. So no need to disclose a change in accounting policy.
Im conclusion, I think Derby could easily appeal this decision again and win. Unless someone comes to the table with a compromise arrangement, the costs for the EFL and us will continue to rise until someone finally loses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the EFL that loses. I think that Mel has the deepest pockets.

I agree with what you have written, but I think you mean subjective, not objective.
If it was objective we wouldn't be having all this debate! 

I wrote about this before …
amortisation works like this. A transfer fee for a 5 million pound player with a contract length of 5 years would “amortise” at 1 million pounds per year if you used a straight line method.
In simple terms that’s one million pound of loss per year for 5 years.
if you imagine that you might extend a contract or sell the player in years three four or five then you might decide to use a different method. So if you think you could sell the player for 4 million pounds after 4 years then the total balance you need to write off is only 1 million pounds. Which would be a loss of 250k per year over 4 years.
The problem in the original panel is that we changed policy without properly disclosing it in our accounts. So we might have changed for example from the straight line method to the residual value one above.
The appeal seems to now suggest that the new policy that we used was against accounting standards completely.
Either decision in my view is very much objective. The residual policy is ok in my view if you can predict the value of a player - and there are plenty of places now where you can predict a future value of a player. So I’m not sure it really is against accounting standards.
 
In the first panel that suggested we changed accounting policies without disclosing it, well i suspect that practicing accountants would be able to debate as to whether this really is a change of accounting standards or just a change to a part of the policy. For example you might argue in the case above that we were just changing the residual value from nil to 4 million pounds, but the underlying policy is still a a straight line method. So no need to disclose a change in accounting policy.
Im conclusion, I think Derby could easily appeal this decision again and win. Unless someone comes to the table with a compromise arrangement, the costs for the EFL and us will continue to rise until someone finally loses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the EFL that loses. I think that Mel has the deepest pockets.

I wrote about this before …
amortisation works like this. A transfer fee for a 5 million pound player with a contract length of 5 years would “amortise” at 1 million pounds per year if you used a straight line method.
In simple terms that’s one million pound of loss per year for 5 years.
if you imagine that you might extend a contract or sell the player in years three four or five then you might decide to use a different method. So if you think you could sell the player for 4 million pounds after 4 years then the total balance you need to write off is only 1 million pounds. Which would be a loss of 250k per year over 4 years.
The problem in the original panel is that we changed policy without properly disclosing it in our accounts. So we might have changed for example from the straight line method to the residual value one above.
The appeal seems to now suggest that the new policy that we used was against accounting standards completely.
Either decision in my view is very much objective. The residual policy is ok in my view if you can predict the value of a player - and there are plenty of places now where you can predict a future value of a player. So I’m not sure it really is against accounting standards.
 
In the first panel that suggested we changed accounting policies without disclosing it, well i suspect that practicing accountants would be able to debate as to whether this really is a change of accounting standards or just a change to a part of the policy. For example you might argue in the case above that we were just changing the residual value from nil to 4 million pounds, but the underlying policy is still a a straight line method. So no need to disclose a change in accounting policy.
Im conclusion, I think Derby could easily appeal this decision again and win. Unless someone comes to the table with a compromise arrangement, the costs for the EFL and us will continue to rise until someone finally loses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the EFL that loses. I think that Mel has the deepest pockets.

I wrote about this before …
amortisation works like this. A transfer fee for a 5 million pound player with a contract length of 5 years would “amortise” at 1 million pounds per year if you used a straight line method.
In simple terms that’s one million pound of loss per year for 5 years.
if you imagine that you might extend a contract or sell the player in years three four or five then you might decide to use a different method. So if you think you could sell the player for 4 million pounds after 4 years then the total balance you need to write off is only 1 million pounds. Which would be a loss of 250k per year over 4 years.
The problem in the original panel is that we changed policy without properly disclosing it in our accounts. So we might have changed for example from the straight line method to the residual value one above.
The appeal seems to now suggest that the new policy that we used was against accounting standards completely.
Either decision in my view is very much objective. The residual policy is ok in my view if you can predict the value of a player - and there are plenty of places now where you can predict a future value of a player. So I’m not sure it really is against accounting standards.
 
In the first panel that suggested we changed accounting policies without disclosing it, well i suspect that practicing accountants would be able to debate as to whether this really is a change of accounting standards or just a change to a part of the policy. For example you might argue in the case above that we were just changing the residual value from nil to 4 million pounds, but the underlying policy is still a a straight line method. So no need to disclose a change in accounting policy.
Im conclusion, I think Derby could easily appeal this decision again and win. Unless someone comes to the table with a compromise arrangement, the costs for the EFL and us will continue to rise until someone finally loses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the EFL that loses. I think that Mel has the deepest pockets.

No, it's the people who audited the accounts and signed an unqualified audit report to that end, as per my original response ?

What you miss is the fact that the person best placed might not be the one deciding our appeal!
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Mel stretched the rules - the EFL knew but didn't get it - obviously it was done to gain an advantage. That is why people employ good accountants, not to break the rules but to use the lack of specific rules to their advantage. When the EFL decide they don't like it they change the rules.

I wrote about this before …
amortisation works like this. A transfer fee for a 5 million pound player with a contract length of 5 years would “amortise” at 1 million pounds per year if you used a straight line method.
In simple terms that’s one million pound of loss per year for 5 years.
if you imagine that you might extend a contract or sell the player in years three four or five then you might decide to use a different method. So if you think you could sell the player for 4 million pounds after 4 years then the total balance you need to write off is only 1 million pounds. Which would be a loss of 250k per year over 4 years.
The problem in the original panel is that we changed policy without properly disclosing it in our accounts. So we might have changed for example from the straight line method to the residual value one above.
The appeal seems to now suggest that the new policy that we used was against accounting standards completely.
Either decision in my view is very much objective. The residual policy is ok in my view if you can predict the value of a player - and there are plenty of places now where you can predict a future value of a player. So I’m not sure it really is against accounting standards.
 
In the first panel that suggested we changed accounting policies without disclosing it, well i suspect that practicing accountants would be able to debate as to whether this really is a change of accounting standards or just a change to a part of the policy. For example you might argue in the case above that we were just changing the residual value from nil to 4 million pounds, but the underlying policy is still a a straight line method. So no need to disclose a change in accounting policy.
Im conclusion, I think Derby could easily appeal this decision again and win. Unless someone comes to the table with a compromise arrangement, the costs for the EFL and us will continue to rise until someone finally loses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the EFL that loses. I think that Mel has the deepest pockets.

Probably not then, but still small world...

Well keilia lives in Ilkeston, which is where my Nan used to live. So that’s interesting.

Well keilia lives in Ilkeston, which is where my Nan used to live. So that’s interesting.

So after all that’s been said over the last few hours, it feels like the EFL have very little chance of actually successfully deducting any points from us for last season.
DCFC will certainly not make anything easy for them before the season kicks off.
So nothing will happen until the championship kicks off …. we can stop panicking and start to love our club again. Right?
COYR!! (Still feel like I need to whisper it!)

They're really taking the piss now ?

Now.

The time to panic was a while ago. This has been written in the stars for the past 12 months. Players aren't going to want to come to a club with no secure ownership, potentially a points deduction hanging over their head, with little to no players - IF they have other options on the table. 
We will sign players, we will have a team for the first game of the season, but I always said that I would imagine that all our work will go into the final 2 weeks before the season starts. I'd imagine a lot of them will be loan players to just keep the club ticking on without any long-term commitment. We face a mountainous task to even remain a Championship club. 

So we are waiting for the result of the DC panel (or whatever it’s called) and simultaneously waiting for a potential takeover announcement.
Both seem imminent, but in honesty, both seem to have been kicked down the road so many times you just wonder when and if we will ever see the end of them. 
 
Meanwhile DCFC seem in complete limbo …. armed with a selection of academy graduates and a handful of championship or near championship level players, a team which many think are barely capable of staying in the league and a squad that just is simply way to thin.
Our manager has barely kept us up and was very clear a month ago that he needed action immediately to prepare for next season … after which nothing has happened. How much patience does he have?
Our best youth players are not signing contracts and even mediocre players in our squad are being snapped up by rivals.
So as fans, do we continue to sit and wait and play the patience game … or do we panic?

So we are waiting for the result of the DC panel (or whatever it’s called) and simultaneously waiting for a potential takeover announcement.
Both seem imminent, but in honesty, both seem to have been kicked down the road so many times you just wonder when and if we will ever see the end of them. 
 
Meanwhile DCFC seem in complete limbo …. armed with a selection of academy graduates and a handful of championship or near championship level players, a team which many think are barely capable of staying in the league and a squad that just is simply way to thin.
Our manager has barely kept us up and was very clear a month ago that he needed action immediately to prepare for next season … after which nothing has happened. How much patience does he have?
Our best youth players are not signing contracts and even mediocre players in our squad are being snapped up by rivals.
So as fans, do we continue to sit and wait and play the patience game … or do we panic?

Just me then!