Jump to content

EFL appeal


Sith Happens
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
On 22/11/2020 at 14:16, RadioactiveWaste said:

No idea, I think they were only appealing the amotisation points they lost and gave up on the stadium (but i might be wrong on that)

I think that’s right. But it was found that our accounts were misleading because the change in accounting policy was not disclosed. 
Personally I’m hoping the t/o will happen and that the new owners will have resolved all of this w the EFL. It could be messy otherwise, despite MM having won the argument on the stadium 

Edited by kevinhectoring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think that’s right. But it was found that our accounts were misleading because the change in accounting policy was not disclosed. 
Personally I’m hoping the t/o will happen and that the new owners will have resolved all of this w the EFL. It could be messy otherwise, despite MM having won the argument on the stadium 

It wasn't misleading. The only thing that we were found guilty on was that we didn't make it clear enough that we had changed our amortisation policy, and how it worked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

I thought it had been established that we can't get docked points based on this appeael. 

Technically, they reserve the right to do whatever they want to, so they could still deduct us points.

The most likely and fair option is that, if we are found guilty we'll have to resubmit the figures using straight line amortisation. According to @Ghost of Clough(and he's not often wrong), the new figures would see us within the P&S limits for the seasons stated in the charge. So, as long as the stadium sale remains 'OK', we wouldn't be due a points deduction for breaching FFP/P&S.

The slight hiccup is that we would probably fail P&S for the following season - but that would need a whole new charge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rynny said:

It wasn't misleading. The only thing that we were found guilty on was that we didn't make it clear enough that we had changed our amortisation policy, and how it worked. 

I agree with that but isn’t the change in policy required to be disclosed in order to ensure the accounts are not misleading when compared with those of the prior year 

Without the disclosure you think you’re looking at ‘like for like ‘ but you’re not 

In other words I think we’re both right 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Technically, they reserve the right to do whatever they want to, so they could still deduct us points.

The most likely and fair option is that, if we are found guilty we'll have to resubmit the figures using straight line amortisation. According to @Ghost of Clough(and he's not often wrong), the new figures would see us within the P&S limits for the seasons stated in the charge. So, as long as the stadium sale remains 'OK', we wouldn't be due a points deduction for breaching FFP/P&S.

The slight hiccup is that we would probably fail P&S for the following season - but that would need a whole new charge. 

Surely retrospectively applying straight line amortisation works better for us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I agree with that but isn’t the change in policy required to be disclosed in order to ensure the accounts are not misleading when compared with those of the prior year 

Without the disclosure you think you’re looking at ‘like for like ‘ but you’re not 

In other words I think we’re both right 🙂

We did disclose it but it wasn't clear enough for the EFL or the panel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, rynny said:

We did disclose it but it wasn't clear enough for the EFL or the panel. 

Not looked at the judgement again but I did read it some while ago. I believe that the Panel found that the disclosure did not comply with the FRS and it’s clear that the club’s auditor’s evidence on the point was an utter train wreck. The EFL I think went further and claimed the accounts breached the statute. But the Panel didn’t go so far as to confirm that. 

It’s worrying: the EFL might take the view that even if we squeak by on the numbers, we tried to avoid scrutiny of the change in policy by failing to disclose it (adequately) and so we need to be punished. I’m not sure what punishment they can impose though, given the limited way the Panel expressed the ‘uphold’. 
I do wonder whether a sale of the club on decent terms is possible without this being resolved with the EFL in advance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CornwallRam said:

Technically, they reserve the right to do whatever they want to, so they could still deduct us points.

The most likely and fair option is that, if we are found guilty we'll have to resubmit the figures using straight line amortisation. According to @Ghost of Clough(and he's not often wrong), the new figures would see us within the P&S limits for the seasons stated in the charge. So, as long as the stadium sale remains 'OK', we wouldn't be due a points deduction for breaching FFP/P&S.

The slight hiccup is that we would probably fail P&S for the following season - but that would need a whole new charge. 

2018 should be fine considering we had a £17.5m margin thanks to the stadium. I'd be concerned about 2019, but I assume this would require a new charge from the EFL, pushing any potential penalty into next season.

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Surely retrospectively applying straight line amortisation works better for us?

It does going forward, but not for seasons before 19/20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Not looked at the judgement again but I did read it some while ago. I believe that the Panel found that the disclosure did not comply with the FRS and it’s clear that the club’s auditor’s evidence on the point was an utter train wreck. The EFL I think went further and claimed the accounts breached the statute. But the Panel didn’t go so far as to confirm that. 

It’s worrying: the EFL might take the view that even if we squeak by on the numbers, we tried to avoid scrutiny of the change in policy by failing to disclose it (adequately) and so we need to be punished. I’m not sure what punishment they can impose though, given the limited way the Panel expressed the ‘uphold’. 
I do wonder whether a sale of the club on decent terms is possible without this being resolved with the EFL in advance 

This is what was reported.

The independent disciplinary tribunal did find that "the wording of the amortisation policy in Derby's financial statements could have been clearer".

We didn't have an expert on the amortisation part as the EFL added that on last minute, it was the EFL'S experts that were car crashes.

The EFL are contesting the whole of our amortisation policy, but, I don't think, it will be overturned as the rule is that amortisation has be systematic and ours is, as it is used throughout the world in accounting. Due to the ambiguous wording of the rule the EFL don't have a leg to stand on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.