Tribunal Update

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

37 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Exactly. That’s why it all evens itself out in the long run and is only a short fix.

It’s only a problem if you allow the original contract that a player joins on to run down to nothing.
Just read part of the report again and it seems to me that our policy was actually more in keeping with reality than real life where players values hold until the final year of the contract and then drops drastically. Most clubs look to sell before this happens and realise the value. 

 

[Wolfie20]

Well the Club has now put it's view on the EFL appeal into the public domain. A simple statement which, at this juncture, needs no further explanation.

I like It!

[i-Ram]

54 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I'm honestly not sure what they hope to achieve here?

The third person on the original Disciplinary Commission was James Stanbury, a forensic accountant.

https://www.bakertilly.com/contact/directory/james-stanbury

I mean if he doesn't think our amortisation policy for intangible assets was against accounting rules, then who else would?

It also mentions in the report that for a year since the change in amortisation policy in question the Smith Cooper audit file was picked for a review by the ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) and was found to be compliant.

If both of these things don't tell the EFL that it is compliant and they are wrong in claiming it isn't, what will?

If you read through the outcome the decision was very well explained, well reasoned, and completely logical. It seemed the EFL's witness, Professor Pope, put a huge amount of focus on one word 'systematic' and he even tried to tell them the dictionary definition of the word, like they couldn't look for themselves.

Good post. I suspect that the appeal is not now so much about winning or turning over the decision (and therefore further penalising the club) but more about giving themselves further breathing space to establish a tighter set of rules on amortisation policy. The club’s statement alludes to that point: if the EFL is concerned about the wider implications of the ruling then it has always been open to it to recommend a rule change requiring defined amortisation policies, but it has not done so.

Not surprised by the appeal on this point. It was necessary for them to use this case as a trigger for a potential rule change to have some consistency.

[Gaspode]

17 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

.....Not surprised by the appeal on this point. It was necessary for them to use this case as a trigger for a potential rule change to have some consistency.

Really? Couldn't they just have issued a statement saying that they didn't agree with the tribunal decision and that they were going to change the rules to prevent any future confusion?

Seems to me that they already have the power to change things as they see fit yet are appealing as they still want to punish us....

[mrdave85]

 

[lagavulinram]

Come on Mel, you got this !

 

[i-Ram]

47 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Really? Couldn't they just have issued a statement saying that they didn't agree with the tribunal decision and that they were going to change the rules to prevent any future confusion?

Seems to me that they already have the power to change things as they see fit yet are appealing as they still want to punish us....

Perhaps, but I suspect they want to in some way use the fullest review of the case to support and inform any rule change. I think they will want to argue that the lack of transparency as to the notes in the club’s accounts, and therefore what the underlying policy was, was in effect new to them. Not that it probably was, but I suspect that is the line they may want to take (or have been advised to take to avoid possible legal action from Boro or other clubs). I think the EFL are in to arse covering mode now, and that any sanction on us arising out of the appeal will be minimal.

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Perhaps, but I suspect they want to in some way use the fullest review of the case to support and inform any rule change. I think they will want to argue that the lack of transparency as to the notes in the club’s accounts, and therefore what the underlying policy was, was in effect new to them. Not that it probably was, but I suspect that is the line they may want to take (or have been advised to take to avoid possible legal action from Boro or other clubs). I think the EFL are in to arse covering mode now, and that any sanction on us arising out of the appeal will be minimal.

if they are in arse covering mode,  given the comments of IDC, where are they going to hide their arses when they lose the appeal.  That will be a very big hole to dig out  from

[RadioactiveWaste]

"Surprised and disappointed" is professional email language for "dukin raging about this'

[Woodley Ram]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Good post. I suspect that the appeal is not now so much about winning or turning over the decision (and therefore further penalising the club) but more about giving themselves further breathing space to establish a tighter set of rules on amortisation policy. The club’s statement alludes to that point: if the EFL is concerned about the wider implications of the ruling then it has always been open to it to recommend a rule change requiring defined amortisation policies, but it has not done so.

Not surprised by the appeal on this point. It was necessary for them to use this case as a trigger for a potential rule change to have some consistency.

It’s the lack of clarity on the amortisation that I think they are after, I think they want the appeal to give us a penalty for it as the independent tribunal didn’t.

if they accept as the independent tribunal did that the way we did our amortisation as ok, then I’m not sure how hard we could be penalised for our communication of it being unclear.  It would seem a bit picky but if we got a one point deduction then the EFL would save face which is what they and Gibson et al are trying to do

[Reggie Greenwood]

5 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

It’s the lack of clarity on the amortisation that I think they are after, I think they want the appeal to give us a penalty for it as the independent tribunal didn’t.

if they accept as the independent tribunal did that the way we did our amortisation as ok, then I’m not sure how hard we could be penalised for our communication of it being unclear.  It would seem a bit picky but if we got a one point deduction then the EFL would save face which is what they and Gibson et al are trying to do

Can’t see us being found guilty but would think any punishment would be a fine not points or maybe a slap on the wrist like Brum got 

[Ramslaar]

6 hours ago, Spanish said:

oh dear

 

Yep couldn't have got that anymore wrong if I had of tryed lol

[Abu Dhabi Ram]

If we lose the appeal? Can we appeal the appeal? Best two out of three right? 

[Ghost of Clough]

Based on the figures provided in the Decision Document, a worst-case scenario of us being guilty of using an unsuitable policy would still mean we do not fail P&S for 2018. The appeal from the EFL can only be in relation to pursuing a financial penalty for not adequately disclosing the policy. I don't think we can get a points deduction for 'aggravating factors' (deliberately misleading the EFL) as we wouldn't have failed P&S, so no case to answer - just a change of policy and an outside change of restating historical figures.

[Woodley Ram]

Agreed in the criminal courts they would ask if a prosecution was in the public interest and would the outcome be appropriate for the cost of the prosecution. I would say that the EFL would fail on both counts. I have no doubt they are being pushed by other interested  parties but I would love to be in the room for the next EFL championship meeting, ☃️ frosty 

[MaltRam]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Based on the figures provided in the Decision Document, a worst-case scenario of us being guilty of using an unsuitable policy would still mean we do not fail P&S for 2018. The appeal from the EFL can only be in relation to pursuing a financial penalty for not adequately disclosing the policy. I don't think we can get a points deduction for 'aggravating factors' (deliberately misleading the EFL) as we wouldn't have failed P&S, so no case to answer - just a change of policy and an outside change of restating historical figures.

Wouldn't that mean that more of our losses occurred further back in time so we'd have more room in P&S right now?!

[MidWalesRam]

24 minutes ago, Abu Dhabi Ram said:

If we lose the appeal? Can we appeal the appeal? Best two out of three right? 

No, the appeal decision is final and will bring the matter to a conclusion.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

Wouldn't that mean that more of our losses occurred further back in time so we'd have more room in P&S right now?!

That's right. I estimate a £10-15m improvement for the current period, meaning we wouldn't have had to sell Lowe and Bogle to stay within limits.

[harwich ram]

is there a time limit on this or can the efl drag it out for another  6 months 

[Millenniumram]

So basically the EFL is spending a load of championship clubs much needed money chasing what will probably only be a fine against us, purely because of some sort of vendetta against us. Surprised there aren’t more clubs pissed off about this decision.