kevinhectoring

9 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

I am taking it one game at a time.

Having watched France v Switzerland last night, I just can’t get excited about our chances yet.

I’ve not come away from a single game thinking we’ve played well. Got the job done, yes. Convincing performance, no.

Some will say the performances are immaterial if we get our hands on the trophy.

But unless we step things up, it’s quite easy to see us getting caught cold.

Well it’s getting better. Sweden (the better side) down to 10 men against Ukraine and running themselves into the ground 

20 minutes ago, Spanish said:

The euros are a marathon we have had a very easy run so far could be crucial

Yes. Long way to go. But we have ‘momentum’

Next thing we want is for Sweden and Ukraine to be drawn 4-4 after extra time, for one of them to win 21-20 on penalties and then the winners will be emotionally and physically drained  even before schlepping to Rome 

4 hours ago, Amberram said:

Nice inner tubes

Liquorice 

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

Luke Shaw was magnificent 

Later on he really was. Didn’t start well 

Was thinking before the game that Sterling, Kane and Maguire were a problem but Southgate got it right. 
 

Werner will be practising some dinks tho ...

Lineker has lost it. He’s shaking 

5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.

It also has to be stated that the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge.
Also, the original DC revealed that the EFL claimed to have only been made aware of the different amortisation policy shortly before bringing the charges in January 2020. Please also note that Kieran Maguire wrote to the EFL regarding the amortisation policy in June 2018.

Incompetence.

Sorry to go on. See my earlier post - I said the EFl should look for anomalies and I’d guess they do. But they will be looking for anomalies in everything that underlies the EDITD(A) number, not only the amortisation numbers 

you say: “the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge”. What about the meetings in 2019? The meeting notes? Part of the problem was they were told we were amortising as per the notes in the accounts

The LAP blamed the club for the misunderstanding. The DC blamed both the club and the EFl. You seem to blame just the EFL   (Im not saying the EFl should not have done better)

If we stick our heads in the sand we all look like fools and the club just gets more and more isolated 

8 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

This whole thing with the EFL and Mel is in my opinion, nothing to do with how to amortise your depreciation, they just want to remove him from the Football League

You say ‘the whole thing’. But surely there are a few things going on - some clubs out to get us,  the EFl itself being tired of Mel’s sniping, and our aggressive accounting  

But the view you put forward in this thread suggests we’d be better off if we moved on from the ‘bitter feud’. I wish we would. 

24 minutes ago, r4derby said:

Italy the new favourites…? England and Germany will think there’s a clear route to the final, whoever wins tomorrow!

I’d pick the winner of England and Germany before Italy. Think they are overrated 

42 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If it's something a novice with no accountancy background can pick up, then it's something the EFL should pick up too

You didn’t read my post.  It’s nothing to do with whether they CAN do it. It’s to do with whether it makes sense for the regulator to unpick everyone’s audited accounts 

6 minutes ago, Curtains said:

France out 

Great news for England or Germany 

9 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Game on, come on the Swiss ! What an evening of football 

Repeat of the early game 

2 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Great goal by Pogba 

3-1

Yes he is a genius when he can be arsed. 

funny game though, Swiss are now terrible and should have been 2 up! Would probably have won 

11 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If someone like Kieran Maguire has the spare time to look at every club's accounts in the top two divisions, I'm sure the EFL should have someone capable of doing so too.
If I get it, then any junior accountant fresh from Uni should be able too as well. If resources are tight, then the kid on a gap year placement should be capable of getting it - it's not difficult stuff ?

Sure the EFL can check the amortisation calculations. But that’s  just a small part of the P&sreturn. They can’t drill down into every line, where would they stop? They’d be doing a second audit. No, they should just check that the P&S return reconciles to the audited accounts. And question any obvious anomalies 
Not least because if they took wider responsibility, they would never be able to charge anyone for breach. The response would be: ‘charging us? what do you mean, you approved our accounts’   A familiar refrain on here 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

1-0 Switzerland

Not looked overawed in the first 15 mins either. France got some work to do...

Don’t like France any more than manU but I’d love to see pogba show just how good he can be 

10 hours ago, Curtains said:

The problem is the appeal from the EFL will return the appeal panel who think we are guilty 

Yep. Quite likely the DC was irritated that the LaP criticised them and the LAP might respond in kind 

45 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

We beat these

And Czech Republic - and both have looked good against big teams 

pleased that Marshall’s is not the biggest goalkeeper howler 

13 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Then you have contradicted yourself

Consistency is a sign of a closed mind 

1 hour ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

If such draconian measures are attached to any deviation from policy, it most definitely needs to be their responsibility and definitely shouldn't be revisited after 3 years. A firm and direct policy as to calculation should also have been in place from the get go.

Completely agree with your second point. The EFL should have a rule that tells clubs how player amortisation must work. The problem is, they didn’t actually realise what we were doing until just before the first hearing, so it would have come too late. Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Think you’re off beam on the first point though. One reason the rules require accounts to comply with the statute is so that the EFl does NOT have to worry about drilling down into them. Where would they stop if that were their responsibility?  Assessing recognition decisions ? Investigating contractual connections with owners ? Checking expense invoices? They can’t do it

14 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Which screams incompetence from those at the EFL.

Not just that that they "didn't get it" but because it took 3 years for them to notice, despite the noise from the likes of KM.

The terminology (residual values) and finer details (6 monthly reviews) were off and we may not have been certain. But, we 'got it' on this forum before they even started looking at it prior to the charge.

I'm sure you 'got it' before the EFL because it's your club and you're all over the numbers. Quite a different question is whether the EFL has the responsibility or the manpower to check the methodology underlying the numbers (which are presumably pulled from the audited accounts). I don't know the answer to that question 

1 hour ago, JfR said:

Can you point to this bit in the document? If I'm looking at the correct section (Section S), I read it differently to how you have. My interpretation is that the LAP do seem to accept that there are no documents formally evidencing the club's approach to ascertaining an ERV, but are critical of the non-existence of these documents. Their position, as far as I can see, is that this gave the EFL sufficient grounds to believe that the Club's approach was not "reliable and systematic", and that, had they been asked to hear the case de novo as the EFL requested, they may have come to a different conclusion to the original DC. However, the important thing to remember is that the the LAP declined the EFL's request to have the hearing held de novo, and that the original DC's decision on any factor that isn't overturned still stands as the definitive conclusion. Indeed, the LAP sets out the reasons for why this should be in their decision to decline the EFL's appeal to have the hearing held de novo. 

I think we are on slightly different points. I was on about disclosure and I was talking about this statement below. What the LAP is saying here (in their prissy code) is: it is inconceivable that the club has no documents relating to the accounting treatment. But they claimed they did not and that was a porky pie.

28. The DC made disclosure orders in relation to documents in the Club’s control relevant to the accounting treatment. However, the Club did not produce a single document evidencing or relating to the accounting treatment adopted and confirmed that none existed.

11 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

You say we should stop fighting the EFL…… but how? They will not let us stop fighting because they keep fighting and they are about to do it again. How do we stop this? The answer is that WE can’t only the efl can stop this fight by not appealing. 

you're absolutely right about the appeal - if other clubs insist on it, we can't persuade the EFL off it. But it's not just about the appeal, it is about the many other issues where the EFL has discretion as to how it deals with our club. EG the fixture list.

We read they are making an example of us, to show other clubs they should not exploit accounting loopholes. Well what a surprise that it's us: we issue club statements that attack the EFL  We make public pronouncements which contain thinly veiled threats of litigation. Pointless, unnecessary and inflammatory. We can protect our position in the litigation through private messages to the EFL, no need for this public bile. As a club we have never been so isolated, and it's because Mel won't say, OK call off the dogs, let's move on

It's no good being in the right if you just keep losing and inflicting self harm. It's like being run over on a pedestrian crossing. 

53 minutes ago, Coconut said:

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",

my continued insistence continues. To my considerable cost I am very familiar with the posh expensive politesse of the courtroom. The notes to our accounts were found to be misleading. I was wrong to say (if I did) that we were found to have misled the EFL re amortisation. I should have said the LAP believed we misled the EFL. That what i think is indicated by the words you quote. 

1 minute ago, Woodley Ram said:

how come you know so much about what was asked for and what was given or not given? Also that Derby were called liars?

I took the trouble to read the decision    As some other posters clearly have. Some obviously have not and it shows 

5 hours ago, angieram said:

say most supporters because I am well aware that there are one or two who persistently want to believe the EFL version rather than the club's,  although why any right minded supporter would want to do this when there is no actual regulation to back this up is totally beyond me! 

Angie Ram Angie Ram

there are 2 versions of this, one comes from the DC, one from the LAP. One version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on with our accounts and that’s the fault of the EFl. That version was (sort of) supported by the DC. The other version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on and that was because they were misled by the club. That was where the LAP ended up. 

what is not in doubt is that the EFL did not understand what we were doing. They hadn’t even ‘got it’ days before the DC hearing. So the suggestion they approved what we were doing is cloud cuckoo land. 
 

unfortunately the evidence indicates we misled them. Our auditor basically admitted the notes explaining the changes were non-compliant. An accident? Perhaps. This led to the DC finding us ‘guilty’ on a minor count. More troubling is that when the club was asked to disclose documents relating to the accounting issue, they claimed to have none - this was clearly incorrect and the word mincing LAP did not mince their words on this. They called us liars. 
 

We are very far from squeaky clean. 
 

I am guessing that I love our club just as much as you do. But the blind loyalty shown on this forum is foolish, not least because the club’s decision makers keep an eye on what we all think about these things. And the fans’ support of the club’s foolish squabble with the EFL perpetuates it. We will do better next season if we stop this fighting with them and focus on the squad and the pitch. 
 

it all comes back to Mel. He has spent a lot of his money to find that the deck is stacked against him, that the system is unfair. So he has pushed the envelope. We should thank him for that. But it has not worked so we need to take our medicine and focus on next season (in the championship). 
 

1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:

Is that so?  How come HMRC aren't chasing us?

I hasten to add, that is a genuine question by someone who knows the square root of FA.  I'm not trying to pretend I know the answer, or blatantly calling you out.

I think HMRC really focus on the tax return not the accounts but obviously there is a close link. The club made losses so I would guess none of this impacts on corporation tax payable (not even sure if amort of this kind is tax deductible, others will know). So I don’t think the tax aspects would be a big deal