i-Ram Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 10 minutes ago, CBRammette said: If you were your profile pic I would let you! CBRammette 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexxxxx Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Who is in the LAP? Who appoints it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 "LAP" seems to be quite apt, seeing as we seem to be going round and round, but not actually getting anywhere! Steve How Hard? and Mostyn6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 From page 42 of the document. I could be misunderstanding, but are they really saying that if you buy a house you have no expectation of being able to sell it at all? And after 40 years a house is effectively worthless? And then saying players are basically the same? Because that's an insane position to take. Indy, The Scarlet Pimpernel and RandomAccessMemory 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 People seem to have missed that Derby can appeal the final sanction given by DC but the EFL can’t appeal it Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 I'm getting bored of this. i-Ram, mwram1973, Derby4Me and 4 others 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 A bit more info on the 5th particular that wasn't really discussed previously: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 I'm about 2/3rds of the way through, but the root of it seems to be the club screwed up buy not bringing in their own expert witness. The expertise of our accountant didn't count (he was a factual witness, not an expert one), neither did that of the accountant on the panel (again not an expert witness). So the EFL put up their guy that just read the dictionary to the tribunal, and the tribunal are basically required to accept it as fact. If we'd put up our own expert, we'd probably have been fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: From page 42 of the document. I could be misunderstanding, but are they really saying that if you buy a house you have no expectation of being able to sell it at all? And after 40 years a house is effectively worthless? And then saying players are basically the same? Because that's an insane position to take. They're trying to compare standard depreciation policies with amortisation. All they're saying is "this is the standard way of doing things". What they have failed to prove is our policy is not an acceptable alternative, as far as I can tell (they're looking at the problem backwards) Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Just now, duncanjwitham said: I'm about 2/3rds of the way through, but the root of it seems to be the club screwed up buy not bringing in their own expert witness. The expertise of our accountant didn't count (he was a factual witness, not an expert one), neither did that of the accountant on the panel (again not an expert witness). So the EFL put up their guy that just read the dictionary to the tribunal, and the tribunal are basically required to accept it as fact. If we'd put up our own expert, we'd probably have been fine. Don't forget, the lateness of being notified of the 2nd charge resulted in inadequate time to prepare an expert witness Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 12 minutes ago, i-Ram said: How much are you getting for the new Warburtons ad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LE_Ram Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Having read that document, it seems that the EFL's appeal against the decision has succeeded based on one charge, which is that the future benefits from owning a player's registration extend only to their ability to play matches and their possible resale shouldn't be considered. To me it's just silly - in the original decision, you have the DC going down point-by-point, referring to FRS102 and why DCFC's accounting treatment was compliant with this. In the appeal, you have "Professor Pope", explaining why he disagrees with that. The whole point of accounting standards is to act as a guide, and overarching the whole shebang is the principle of "substance over form" - it's clear that the EFL's witness is an academic because his argument reads like such a conceptual interpretation rather than (as should be) an application of the standards, bearing in mind that the most crucial point is that the substance of a transaction is more important than the form of it. You've got two different sets of people, both reading the same standards, and coming to different conclusions. r_wilcockson, angieram, Ghost of Clough and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: They're trying to compare standard depreciation policies with amortisation. All they're saying is "this is the standard way of doing things". What they have failed to prove is our policy is not an acceptable alternative, as far as I can tell (they're looking at the problem backwards) I just find it bizarre that they've picked as their an example something that clearly does have an expectation of being able to gain economic value by selling after you've finished using it. And especially something that has a pretty well established process for determining it's value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 12 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: From page 42 of the document. I could be misunderstanding, but are they really saying that if you buy a house you have no expectation of being able to sell it at all? And after 40 years a house is effectively worthless? And then saying players are basically the same? Because that's an insane position to take. This also doesn’t really make sense because in the world of accounting, I.e. not using an individual buying a house as means of making a laboured point, an organisation has the opportunity to revalue their assets to reflect a truer position. I can understand not allowing this as it is open to abuse when you are getting points deductions for losses, but seems bizarre that your assets can be amortised with no mechanism for revaluing upwards after new contracts or for youth players or players signed to develop with resale value in mind. It should really be neither or both, unless I’m being a bit simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 11 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: Don't forget, the lateness of being notified of the 2nd charge resulted in inadequate time to prepare an expert witness 4 minutes ago, LE_Ram said: You've got two different sets of people, both reading the same standards, and coming to different conclusions. So it's back to what I said before. It's a matter of interpreting standards, and the EFL provided an expert to interpret them for the panel, and we didn't. The lateness of the charge shouldn't have mattered, if it's that obvious we should have been able to find an accountant somewhere who understood it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Well, that went well... Steve How Hard?, r_wilcockson, The Scarlet Pimpernel and 4 others 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LE_Ram Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: So it's back to what I said before. It's a matter of interpreting standards, and the EFL provided an expert to interpret them for the panel, and we didn't. The lateness of the charge shouldn't have mattered, if it's that obvious we should have been able to find an accountant somewhere who understood it. Yep, and even if you discard the merits of each party's argument/interpretation, it's a bit pathetic that it's come to this really. Derby could potentially be punished based on the fact that we interpreted a standard one way, and the witness the EFL found interpreted it another. How does any of this help English Football? Why does the EFL find it necessary to appeal against the initial decision? Quite simply the EFL isn't fit for purpose. angieram, duncanjwitham, The Scarlet Pimpernel and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 19 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said: How much are you getting for the new Warburtons ad? An undisclosed amount of dough. duncanjwitham and WhiteHorseRam 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 24 minutes ago, Curtains said: People seem to have missed that Derby can appeal the final sanction given by DC but the EFL can’t appeal it Yes, I have seen articles that say that and also articles that say both sides can. Not sure which is true? Curtains 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, nottingram said: This also doesn’t really make sense because in the world of accounting, I.e. not using an individual buying a house as means of making a laboured point, an organisation has the opportunity to revalue their assets to reflect a truer position. I can understand not allowing this as it is open to abuse when you are getting points deductions for losses, but seems bizarre that your assets can be amortised with no mechanism for revaluing upwards after new contracts or for youth players or players signed to develop with resale value in mind. It should really be neither or both, unless I’m being a bit simple. You only have to look who gave that as evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now