EFL appeal

[Malty]

The two statements are contradictory

DCFC says the panel should have considered prof pope’s evidence.

The EFL says that we’ve not complied with FRS102.

I suggest then that prof pope has said that we didn’t comply with FRS102. That’s the only way to make sense of this. 

I can’t see this now being resolved any other way than a negotiation on a sanction. I would suspect a small-ish fine would be appropriate. But so hard to be sure as whatever is agreed could set a precedent for others.

[Kernow]

If we do eventually get a points deduction, even if it is only 2 or 3 points, then Steve Gibson has kept us in the division.

His meddling and throwing his toys out of the pram delayed the verdict by at least 5 months, only for all of his crying to be thrown out and no wrongdoing proved. This means that any deduction we may get would have been applied to the season that’s just finished rather than the next season.

Whatever happens, and as disappointing as it is, it’s still absolutely hilarious that Mr Gibson has done nothing but help us, and the bill for the honour will be footed by every other club.

Thanks Steve, now run along.

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Well we know the EFL didn't appeal the 5th particular, and the 1st was withdrawn during the first hearing.

2. Straight line basis - wording doesn't suggest this was appealed

3. Anticipating a sale of value during the contract - maybe this one but I don't think so

4. Reliability of predicting values - this is the only one I think it's about (also the only one I could see overturned on appeal)

I think Pope argued that our policy was not compliant with FRS 102 and arbitration have said they were wrong

More specifically, the panel determined that the Club’s policy was not in accordance with accounting standard FRS102 because it failed to accurately reflect the manner in which the Club takes the benefit of player registrations over the lifetime of a player’s contract.

that could make us guilty of c and d, in other words 3 out of 5.  Appears b is safe (straight line is not a rule) therefore it is back to ERV's

 

Nothing about restating past figures but I don't know how they can do this effectively with ERVs.  The biggest problem is that this is a hindsight test, they pretty will know what we eventually got for the players who left

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

The EFL won their appeal and we await our punishment. That’s all you need to know.

Ive not read it like that.

Surely the DC will have to revisit the situation but this time taking Professor Popes evidence into account?

If we are then found guilty of the original charge there will be punishment?

Unless I am completely misinterpreting things?

[inter politics]

4 minutes ago, Seth's left foot said:

That club statement is cleverly worded to imply Derby have only committed a small crime.

In a nutshell then:

Morris and Pearce have ducked up.

A points deduction and transfer embargo will possibly result in Rooney leaving and us going the way of Sheffield Wednesday.

Boot Alonso into touch and look for a credible buyer ASAP.

oh, and Steve Gibson can do one. 

 

 

I actually think Rooney quitting in this scenario would be a good thing, as an experienced manager (dare I say someone like Big Sam) would be far more suited.

[Spanish]

Just now, Kernow said:

If we do eventually get a points deduction, even if it is only 2 or 3 points, then Steve Gibson has kept us in the division.

His meddling and throwing his toys out of the pram delayed the verdict by at least 5 months, only for all of his crying to be thrown out and no wrongdoing proved. This means that any deduction we may get would have been applied to the season that’s just finished rather than the next season.

Whatever happens, and as disappointing as it is, it’s still absolutely hilarious that Mr Gibson has done nothing but help us, and the bill for the honour will be footed by every other club.

Thanks Steve, now run along.

mind the gap, thought I'd say it first

[Wolfie]

21 minutes ago, EdinRam said:

You are blaming the wrong bloke, there's only one person to blame here and it isn't steve nobson 

Keogh?

[therams69]

Listen .... You know .... The best is yet to come.... #tiktok

[WystonRam]

Pearce if guilty of knowingly false accounting, should be fired immediately.

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Ive not read it like that.

Surely the DC will have to revisit the situation but this time taking Professor Popes evidence into account?

If we are then found guilty of the original charge there will be punishment?

Unless I am completely misinterpreting things?

we lost at least 2 of the subcharges no appeal all down to punishment now

EFL

The Club and EFL will now have the opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate sanction arising out of those breaches.

DCFC

The Club and the EFL have agreed that the matter shall now be remitted back to the original DC who can determine what, if any, consequences arise from the partial success of the EFL’s Amortisation charge, and the Club is therefore currently unable to comment further.

 

[Millenniumram]

Just now, therams69 said:

Listen .... You know .... The best is yet to come.... #tiktok

Ffs Erik, not again!

[G STAR RAM]

On the basis that the EFL clearly act when threatened by member clubs, would it be possible for us to threaten them if they do not retrospectively investigate Middlesbrough for selling their tax losses to a group company?

[therams69]

1 minute ago, Millenniumram said:

Ffs Erik, not again!

Haha no!

[Carl Sagan]

The original Disciplinary Committee acquitted us. The EFL appealed against an accountancy offense, with no accountants on their appeals panel. They won one of their charges. It now goes back to the original Disciplinary Committee to decide what, if any, punishment there should be. My hope is that there will be none.

[Animal is a Ram]

Quote

The LAP, which consisted of three very eminent lawyers, but no expert accountant, found that on one ground this was not so.

This line from Derby's statement interests me the most.

It seems to insinuate that the League Arbitration Panel are in a worse place to judge whether it follows FRS102 than the original Disciplinary Commission.

Then this line: 

Quote

At the appeal the EFL accepted the DC’s factual findings at paragraph 54 of its Decision: the Club’s witnesses were found to have given truthful evidence about the amortisation policy, and their judgments were made in light of carefully researched and objectively justifiable information. The LAP did not interfere with that important finding.

In combination with this from the EFL statement:

Quote

Club did not adequately disclose in its financial statements the nature and or effect of its change in accounting policy

Would suggest we have some mitigating circumstances. While the LAP did not agree that the amortisation model DCFC used followed FRS102, those at the club believed it did, for good reason - 'carefully researched and objectively justifiable information'.

I still think it throws some shade at the EFL. They should have spotted this in the first place - they knew at the time that there was a different amortisation model, but breezed past it taking the club at face value, instead of investigating it further. As above, the club didn't outright mislead the EFL, but what was said was not enough. 

So, as I understand it, I'd expect a fine for the misconduct, and then a points deduction as a result of the accounts recalculation.

[nottingram]

The Athletic STILL claiming in their headline that we could be relegated this season.

You expect it from the Mail where clicks = £ but click bait headlines is very poor from a subscription service. The actual chance of it must be lower than 1%.

[duncanjwitham]

So as far as I can tell, it seems to be related to this:

Pope basically argued that since we couldn't *guarantee* we could sell a player, we had to assume (for accounting purposes) that the player would potentially never be sold.  The question then is, does that completely undermine our ERV model (since if there's no guarantee of a sale at some point, you have to do a straight-line amortization)?  And if it does, are they going to force us to recalculate (and potentially fail) P&S for the years in question? 

[Ambitious]

On another note: I hope Steve Gibson drowns in a pool of his own piss. 

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

I think Pope argued that our policy was not compliant with FRS 102 and arbitration have said they were wrong

More specifically, the panel determined that the Club’s policy was not in accordance with accounting standard FRS102 because it failed to accurately reflect the manner in which the Club takes the benefit of player registrations over the lifetime of a player’s contract.

that could make us guilty of c and d, in other words 3 out of 5.  Appears b is safe (straight line is not a rule) therefore it is back to ERV's

 

Nothing about restating past figures but I don't know how they can do this effectively with ERVs.  The biggest problem is that this is a hindsight test, they pretty will know what we eventually got for the players who left

Well, if it's found that we should be using our amortisation policy, then historical figures should be adjusted to reflect this.

Due to the extenuating circumstances, it seems immoral to me to punish us for something we could have addressed if we had known 6 years ago.

[RIMBAUD]

1 minute ago, Ambitious said:

On another note: I hope Steve Gibson drowns in a pool of his own piss. 

Someone else’s would be better.