EFL appeal

[Rab a dab doo]

So in layman's terms the whole exercise is another waste of time and money by the EFL AGAIN.

[cool_as_custard]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

.......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. 

Not at all, the partner from the club's auditors took the EFL's "expert" on this point to the cleaners. He was an academic with very little experience in the real world and the only finding against the club was that the written explanation in the accounts of how the amortisation had been applied could have been clearer, not that the policy was against the rules.

The EFL are appealing this when they should be re-drafting their rules if they don't like what clubs are able to do within the current ones.

They were embarrassed because they had to admit they had misunderstood the full ramifications of the club's accounting policy and this emerged in the hearing. Not able to take that on the chin, obviously they allege they were misled by our accounts. Cannot see how this gets overturned, but we are dealing with the EFL.....

[kevinhectoring]

27 minutes ago, rynny said:

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. 

It’s too technical to rely on reports - you have to read the judgement to know what went on. I’m pretty sure the ruling was as I said above. If you do read it and find I’m wrong, I’ll certainly put my hand up not to mention apologise for wasting your time 

The EFL expert was indeed ridiculed by the Panel, as you say. Pilloried. But the club’s auditor gave evidence on the disclosure point and if I recall it was damning - so there were two train wrecks 

The Panel was quite strongly in our favour on the amortisation point so agreed an overrule seems unlikely on that. My worry is  what the EFL may try to do with the uphold they have already got on the disclosure point. (My understanding is we have not appealed that but not certain. But given what our auditor said there’d be no point) 

If you were the Sheikh, with the appeal ongoing would you shrug your shoulders and say, ok that seems fine I’ll take the risk??

[kevinhectoring]

9 minutes ago, cool_as_custard said:

Not at all, the partner from the club's auditors took the EFL's "expert" on this point to the cleaners. He was an academic with very little experience in the real world and the only finding against the club was that the written explanation in the accounts of how the amortisation had been applied could have been clearer, not that the policy was against the rules.

The EFL are appealing this when they should be re-drafting their rules if they don't like what clubs are able to do within the current ones.

They were embarrassed because they had to admit they had misunderstood the full ramifications of the club's accounting policy and this emerged in the hearing. Not able to take that on the chin, obviously they allege they were misled by our accounts. Cannot see how this gets overturned, but we are dealing with the EFL.....

Hi, see my response to rynny- I saw his message before I read yours. I think I sort of replied to your points in that response. My main issue is: the position is uncertain because the EFL has an uphold. And given MM is not top of their Xmas card list it’s hard to know where it all ends up 

[Van der MoodHoover]

14 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s too technical to rely on reports - you have to read the judgement to know what went on. I’m pretty sure the ruling was as I said above. If you do read it and find I’m wrong, I’ll certainly put my hand up not to mention apologise for wasting your time 

The EFL expert was indeed ridiculed by the Panel, as you say. Pilloried. But the club’s auditor gave evidence on the disclosure point and if I recall it was damning - so there were two train wrecks 

The Panel was quite strongly in our favour on the amortisation point so agreed an overrule seems unlikely on that. My worry is  what the EFL may try to do with the uphold they have already got on the disclosure point. (My understanding is we have not appealed that but not certain. But given what our auditor said there’d be no point) 

If you were the Sheikh, with the appeal ongoing would you shrug your shoulders and say, ok that seems fine I’ll take the risk??

Looks like a classic example of something to put into the Reps and Warranties that go along with the sale. If something subsequently goes wrong, the sheikh can come back to Mel for recompense.

[rynny]

36 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s too technical to rely on reports - you have to read the judgement to know what went on. I’m pretty sure the ruling was as I said above. If you do read it and find I’m wrong, I’ll certainly put my hand up not to mention apologise for wasting your time 

The EFL expert was indeed ridiculed by the Panel, as you say. Pilloried. But the club’s auditor gave evidence on the disclosure point and if I recall it was damning - so there were two train wrecks 

The Panel was quite strongly in our favour on the amortisation point so agreed an overrule seems unlikely on that. My worry is  what the EFL may try to do with the uphold they have already got on the disclosure point. (My understanding is we have not appealed that but not certain. But given what our auditor said there’d be no point) 

If you were the Sheikh, with the appeal ongoing would you shrug your shoulders and say, ok that seems fine I’ll take the risk??

I read all 123 pages when it was released and have just read the last 23 (the 2nd charge) we didn't have an "expert" as the EFL did. We had giving evidence on our behalf;

Andrew Delve. Mr Delve was (until 2016) Managing Partner and (until 2018) Group Chairman of 
Smith Cooper, a firm of accountants and auditors. His evidence related to the adoption, implementation and operation of the Club’s approach to amortisation of the capitalised costs of player registrations.

28) Before we leave this section, we record that the Club did not serve a report from or call evidence 
from an expert accountant, despite having been granted permission to do so on 13 February 2020. 
It took the decision not to call any such expert evidence having seen the factual evidence served by 
the EFL, and it stood by that decision even after the EFL served Professor Pope’s report.

This is what the panel said on their expert. 

while we have no doubt that Professor Pope was at all times giving his genuinely-held opinion on the issues that he was asked to address, it became clear in his cross-examination that he was unfamiliar with the role and duties of an individual in his position tasked with giving advisedexpert to a Disciplinary Commission or other tribunal. By way of example, he was unaware that  

(1) where a range of views existed on an issue on which he was opining, and (2) there were views in that range that differed from his own, his duties required him to recognise that. While we ultimately concluded that that did not materially impact the substance of his evidence in any adverse way, experts instructed to prepare a report for the purpose of disciplinary charges or to give evidence before a Disciplinary Commission must take care to familiarise themselves with their duties, and to ensure that they take the steps necessary to comply with those duties.

*all wording in italics is taken directly from the released document from the panel's decision. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by rynny

[kevinhectoring]

30 minutes ago, rynny said:

I read all 123 pages when it was released and have just read the last 23 (the 2nd charge) we didn't have an "expert" as the EFL did. We had giving evidence on our behalf;

Andrew Delve. Mr Delve was (until 2016) Managing Partner and (until 2018) Group Chairman of 
Smith Cooper, a firm of accountants and auditors. His evidence related to the adoption, implementation and operation of the Club’s approach to amortisation of the capitalised costs of player registrations.

28) Before we leave this section, we record that the Club did not serve a report from or call evidence 
from an expert accountant, despite having been granted permission to do so on 13 February 2020. 
It took the decision not to call any such expert evidence having seen the factual evidence served by 
the EFL, and it stood by that decision even after the EFL served Professor Pope’s report.

This is what the panel said on their expert. 

while we have no doubt that Professor Pope was at all times giving his genuinely-held opinion on the issues that he was asked to address, it became clear in his cross-examination that he was unfamiliar with the role and duties of an individual in his position tasked with giving advisedexpert to a Disciplinary Commission or other tribunal. By way of example, he was unaware that  

(1) where a range of views existed on an issue on which he was opining, and (2) there were views in that range that differed from his own, his duties required him to recognise that. While we ultimately concluded that that did not materially impact the substance of his evidence in any adverse way, experts instructed to prepare a report for the purpose of disciplinary charges or to give evidence before a Disciplinary Commission must take care to familiarise themselves with their duties, and to ensure that they take the steps necessary to comply with those duties.

*all wording in italics is taken directly from the released document from the panel's decision. 

I think we're at cross purposes. I know that Pope, one of the several EFL experts,  was ridiculed and that Delve gave evidence for us but not as an expert. None of the bits you've quoted above counter the points in my posts unless I've misunderstood. Here below are the extracts from the judgement that support the points I was making (I looked at it again because I thought I was losing my marbles). Sorry if I've not been clear, KH'ing

a EFL charge re accounts presentation   

...the EFL contends: a) …. That ….. the ‘Annual Accounts’ submitted by the Club for those years were not (as is required by the P&S Rules) ‘prepared … in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of [the Companies Act 2006]’, and c) That the consequent submission by the Club of non-compliant Annual Accounts for those years placed the Club in breach of the P&S Rules. 

b Panel’s comment on auditor’s evidence on disclosure point 

Mr Delve accepted that, had he picked up the (accepted) ambiguity in the Notes, he would have required the Club to change the Notes to explicitly refer to the changes and the new approach. He thus accepted that the Notes in the financial statements for the years to which the Second Charge relates were inadequate

Panel’s finding on disclosure point 

… we find that the Club failed to comply with section 10 of FRS 102 … To that extent therefore the fifth Particular of Second Charge is made out.

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by kevinhectoring

[rynny]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think we're at cross purposes

Probably ?

[Abu Derby]

Judging by the length of time Wednesday had to wait for the result of their appeal, ours is imminent. Certainly this month. 

[Josh]

9 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

Judging by the length of time Wednesday had to wait for the result of their appeal, ours is imminent. Certainly this month. 

Imminent.

[CornwallRam]

We should know in 48 hours

[hintonsboots]

15 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

We should know in 48 hours

 

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, rynny said:

 

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. 

Systematic but not minuted, evidenced or recorded ?

um......

[GB SPORTS]

4 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Looks like a classic example of something to put into the Reps and Warranties that go along with the sale. If something subsequently goes wrong, the sheikh can come back to Mel for recompense.

This is exactly the point, Any A&M sphere will cover all angles that could derail an acquisition position.

 I have my concerns about the BZG position but bolting because of any ongoing issue (other than Covid) is not one of them.

When you sell a football club outside the Premier League, there's a fair chance that in the long term you are going to be backing a loser.

[CornwallRam]

46 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

 

I didn't specify which planet's hours.

[DCFC1388]

I saw Nixon mention about Wigan that if the EFL want to deduct points this season it would have to be by the 3rd Thursday in March, so if the EFL want to do the same for us I would think the appeal will be soon

[kevinhectoring]

12 hours ago, DCFC1388 said:

I saw Nixon mention about Wigan that if the EFL want to deduct points this season it would have to be by the 3rd Thursday in March, so if the EFL want to do the same for us I would think the appeal will be soon

Maybe the EFL have been so slammed dealing with COVID issues that all the business as usual (such as our appeal) is taking longer than normal 

 

[KentRam14]

Does anyone know of an update on the EFL appeal?

Seems to have been dragging on for ages now...?

[therealhantsram]

16 minutes ago, KentRam14 said:

Does anyone know of an update on the EFL appeal?

Seems to have been dragging on for ages now...?

The Athletic had an update a couple of weeks ago saying there had been a series of legal arguments throughout the Autumn about the scope of the appeal. That has been the delay. Hinted that things had been going Derby's way so far and nobody they spoke to thought the outcome would be anything more than a fine 

[Rab a dab doo]

Anything' MORE' than fine. 

The way our finance's are at the moment even that's a big thing.

Any way, why even a fine if we haven't actually been proven to have done anything thing wrong?