EFL appeal

[Indy]

Just now, angieram said:

Rules of DC and LAP are unclear but we side with EFL on one issue, that of player resale value.

All seems to be about interpretation,  rather than law. 

That's more than ten words, I know, but there are 59 pages! 

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 
 

IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether our approach was legally compliant and reasonable - and all accountants involved have agreed that it was. 

[CBRammette]

3 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Ha. She’s a women don’t you know. The summary will be at least twice the length of the original.

But at least she will focus on getting to the end and finishing the task off rather than leaving it half finished to do something else ?

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 
 

IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether our approach was legally compliant and reasonable - and all accountants involved have agreed that it was. 

in theory this could pit DC against EFL.  Not sure how I would feel if I was on the DC I think I may need to resign.  A different DC might be less aligned to our side of the argument

[Boycie]

8 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Ha. She’s a women don’t you know. The summary will be at least twice the length of the original.

You old school sexist you! ?

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

But at least she will focus on getting to the end and finishing the task off rather than leaving it half finished to do something else ?

If you weren’t married, I would make sure you were a regular visitor to my boudoir you cheeky little Rammette.

[angieram]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

in theory this could pit DC against EFL.  Not sure how I would feel if I was on the DC I think I may need to resign.  A different DC might be less aligned to our side of the argument

Why would anyone want to resign? More likely they would want to protect their professional reputation by responding with another lengthy legal justification and giving the minimum possible sanction. Which the EFL will then presumably appeal against.

We are now down to various legal professionals posturing (for large sums of money) in my opinion. 

[LE_Ram]

40 minutes ago, angieram said:

The second report is available, I downloaded a copy yesterday.

It's too big a file to add on here.

Do you have a link to where it’s available?

[angieram]

10 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

But at least she will focus on getting to the end and finishing the task off rather than leaving it half finished to do something else ?

You should know better than to feed the trolls, CBR!

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, angieram said:

Why would anyone want to resign? More likely they would want to protect their professional reputation by responding with another lengthy legal justification and giving the minimum possible sanction. Which the EFL will then presumably appeal against.

We are now down to various legal professionals posturing (for large sums of money) in my opinion. 

Because I would in their position, they are professional highly skilled individuals who have been told they made a mistake by a group of people with apparently less technical knowledge.  I think it borderlines insulting.

[angieram]

Just now, LE_Ram said:

Do you have a link to where it’s available?

No, sorry, I got it off twitter yesterday. Would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

If anyone knows how to source a document, let me know! 

[GboroRam]

Just now, Spanish said:

Because I would in their position, they are professional highly skilled individuals who have been told they made a mistake by a group of people with apparently less technical knowledge.  I think it borderlines insulting.

It's not solely about accountancy though, it's also about residual values of footballers. They aren't normal depreciating assets, so it's arguable that the expertise lies somewhere in the middle.

[angieram]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

Because I would in their position, they are professional highly skilled individuals who have been told they made a mistake by a group of people with apparently less technical knowledge.  I think it borderlines insulting.

Exactly, so fight it by not giving the EFL what they want.

Resign and the EFL will just find some tamer people to do their bidding.

[i-Ram]

4 minutes ago, angieram said:

You should know better than to feed the trolls, CBR!

Troll? @Boyciecan this be construed as a personal insult. If so I will wear it as a badge of honour.

[Mihangel]

21 minutes ago, Indy said:

That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. 

In fairness, the summary reads that the panel of lawyers made a decision based on the interpretation of law rather than any accounting matters. That the evidence of the EFL accounting 'expert' should have been allowed. How they then reached a conclusion that had his evidence been allowed then the original DC would have found for the EFL, I don't know but that's what appeal panels do.

[angieram]

10 minutes ago, LE_Ram said:

Do you have a link to where it’s available?

Found it! 

 

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It's not solely about accountancy though, it's also about residual values of footballers. They aren't normal depreciating assets, so it's arguable that the expertise lies somewhere in the middle.

 

The DC dismissed Popes evidence and now they are told that was wrong, fairly strong critcism in my opinion.

[Rampage]

9 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It's not solely about accountancy though, it's also about residual values of footballers. They aren't normal depreciating assets, so it's arguable that the expertise lies somewhere in the middle.

The residual value of Waggy was probably very low in many Derby fans opinions but in one game he then saved us millions. I have no idea what his residual value is now but it was very high on Saturday.

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, angieram said:

Exactly, so fight it by not giving the EFL what they want.

Resign and the EFL will just find some tamer people to do their bidding.

for my sins I do sit and have sat on certain councils and tribunals.

Personally it would have been of no interest to me that the EFL would replace me with a tamer version.  I am not resigning over a little fit, I am resigning because I have failed to meet the standards expected of me and maybe even that my independency has been challenged.  Remember I have dismissed Prof Popes evidence, the EFL's expert witness 

[CBRammette]

42 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

If you weren’t married, I would make sure you were a regular visitor to my boudoir you cheeky little Rammette.

If you were your profile pic I would let you!

[Mucker1884]

10 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

If you were your profile pic I would let you!

 

Oy!  There's a queue!