EFL appeal

[angieram]

2 minutes ago, LE_Ram said:

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. 

The standard isn't specific enough to cover every eventuality, so it is tested through interpretation. This is what all law is about, isn't it? 

In the end it often comes down to something interpreted or procedural rather than fact.

I find it a bit pathetic, but it's what drives the money machine.

 

[LE_Ram]

2 minutes ago, angieram said:

The standard isn't specific enough to cover every eventuality, so it is tested through interpretation. This is what all law is about, isn't it? 

In the end it often comes down to something interpreted or procedural rather than fact.

I find it a bit pathetic, but it's what drives the money machine.

 

Yeah, exactly. Any accounting standards - be it FRS102 or anything else - can't possibly legislate for every possible transaction, or it would be impossibly long and unwieldy. Hence, the generic guidance, and the overarching principle that "Transactions and other events and conditions should be accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and not merely their legal form."

To me, it seems that Derby have accounted for the substance of the transaction by including the fact that they expect to sell any given player, and the EFL have simply argued for the legal form by saying that such a sale isn't guaranteed.

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, angieram said:

Yes, I have seen articles that say that and also articles that say both sides can. Not sure which is true? 

I think it’s the former . ie the EFL can’t appeal the DC decision but Derby can .

My head hurts  

 I have just read this which is going back to where it all began I found it interesting .

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/finance-strategy/Derby-charged-under-financial-fair-play-rules

 

[duncanjwitham]

16 minutes ago, angieram said:

Yes, I have seen articles that say that and also articles that say both sides can. Not sure which is true? 

The document basically says if the appeals panel determined a sanction it would be final, no appeals either way, but if they passed it back to the original tribunal it could be appealed.  Passing it back to the tribunal would require consent of both parties.  The document then progresses as through they will be making the sanction themselves (hence no appeals), but the statements yesterday mentioned referring back. I'd assume that both parties have agreed to go back to the original tribunal (hence we can appeal), but it's not totally clear.

[RandomAccessMemory]

46 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.

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.

I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?

Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?

So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?

If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?

That's something that struck me as odd.  The rules are very clear that the original tribunal had to contain an accountant for matters like this.  But the appeals panel have basically ignored that expertise and decided the only expert present was the EFL's witness so they have to take his opinion as fact.  So why even have an accountant on the panel in the first place?

[WhiteHorseRam]

35 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

An undisclosed amount of dough.

It's good to see you getting the icing on the cake and not be involved in anything half-baked.

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, CBRammette said:

If you were your profile pic I would let you!

I've met him, looks exactly like George TBF. 

[Foreveram]

53 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

An undisclosed amount of dough.

Can I be your manager I’d like a slice of the action

[RandomAccessMemory]

I also don’t understand Pope’s point here

It is referenced all the way through FRS 102 that disposal of an asset is consuming a future economic benefit, so how has he come to the conclusion above and how have they completely ignored what FRS 102 says to come to the conclusion that Pope is right because he’s the ‘expert’?

Isn’t it better to conclude that Pope’s ‘expert’ evidence doesn’t reflect how FRS 102 is supposed to work and is therefore inadmissible, which appears to be what the IDC are being told they did wrong?

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

It is referenced all the way through FRS 102 that disposal of an asset is consuming a future economic benefit, so how has he come to the conclusion above and how have they completely ignored what FRS 102 says to come to the conclusion that Pope is right because he’s the ‘expert’?

Isn’t it better to conclude that Pope’s ‘expert’ evidence doesn’t reflect how FRS 102 is supposed to work and is therefore inadmissible, which appears to be what the IDC are being told they did wrong?

Their argument is that you can't guarantee that you can sell a player, because another club might not want to buy, or the player might not want to leave, so you can't assume he has any value at all.  But that literally rules out future economic benefits from disposal for anything at all ever, so I don't understand how it makes any sense.

[CBRammette]

17 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

I've met him, looks exactly like George TBF. 

But does he have the money?

[Angry Ram]

8 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

But does he have the money?

Loads. He lives in the South by the sea. He got the right hump when I got chip grease on his Bentley seats.. 

 

[RandomAccessMemory]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

Their argument is that you can't guarantee that you can sell a player, because another club might not want to buy, or the player might not want to leave, so you can't assume he has any value at all.  But that literally rules out future economic benefits from disposal for anything at all ever, so I don't understand how it makes any sense.

As was referenced by the IDC, it only has to be a expectation, not as Pope referenced an entitlement, so no guarantees necessary.

To be recognised as an asset in the first place there has to be an expectation of future economic benefits, future economic benefits include disposal of an asset, so I don’t think they can exclude disposal as future economic benefit as it’s inextricably linked?

[RandomAccessMemory]

For anyone that wants a bit more reading (don’t worry they’re much shorter!) the other decisions, that the EFL, and Boro, failed on are here

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/judgments/judgments-202021/

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

40 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I’d like to know why he, Professor Pope, the EFL’s ‘expert’ accountant, is using an example of a house, a property, a tangible asset, which depreciates, as opposed to an intangible asset which amortises to explain his point.

I was under the impression they weren’t one and the same?

Could that be the reason why the IDC, which did contain an accountant, dismissed his evidence as they realised, due to that containing of an accountant that it was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand?

So now we’ve been found guilty on account of a misunderstanding by a bunch of lawyers instead which we cannot now appeal?

If so you really couldn’t make it up could you?

This is it in a nutshell. The EFL only acted after three years because Middlesbrough FC said they would sue them for not protecting the division from nasty DCFC who were gaining an unfair advantage by selling the stadium etc. The case was heard and found in Derby's favour apart from one minor technicality. Middlesbrough FC still didn't accept that and instigated their own appeals (three separate points we are told) all of which failed. The EFL also appealed the technicality and staggeringly won that appeal based it seems on very strange accounting conclusions being drawn. The case has been agreed to be passed back to the original committee who will now decide any sanction.

Its noteworthy that the appeal panel found DCFC to be open & honest in providing evidence throughout this process. 

[Animal is a Ram]

After reading the document...

Derby have been particularly naive in trying to 'systematically' and 'reliably' predict player values - which seems to be the main contention for the club trying to use ERV rather than a straight line - especially when it appears that no other club does this.

Having said that, as pointed out in earlier posts, how can it be that the only 'economic benefits' of a player is that they play? Is this based on a statistic somewhere that the majority of players leave a club on a free transfer?

[Ghost of Clough]

21 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

As was referenced by the IDC, it only has to be a expectation, not as Pope referenced an entitlement, so no guarantees necessary.

To be recognised as an asset in the first place there has to be an expectation of future economic benefits, future economic benefits include disposal of an asset, so I don’t think they can exclude disposal as future economic benefit as it’s inextricably linked?

But Professor Plum is the expert, so has to be correct when he says entitlement

[Indy]

19 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

For anyone that wants a bit more reading (don’t worry they’re much shorter!) the other decisions, that the EFL, and Boro, failed on are here

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/judgments/judgments-202021/

Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch!

Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation. 

[Animal is a Ram]

Also, appears to be a shame that the DCs decision to exclude Pope's evidence was overturned by the LAP.

Them pointing out that he sounds a bit dense and the metaphors weren't anywhere near the same thing as football players wasn't enough of a reason.