EFL appeal

[i-Ram]

10 minutes ago, Ramos said:

I haven’t been on much today but just spotted this??? Is this legit? Not seen it anywhere else. 
https://www.keystonelaw.com/news/employment-tribunal-finds-keystone-client-sam-rush-was-unfairly-dismissed-by-Derby-county

Have you not been on much since March 2018 when the article was published. Come on Ramos, do keep up.

[Ramos]

14 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Have you not been on much since March 2018 when the article was published. Come on Ramos, do keep up.

Looool sorry I just saw it on someone’s Twitter reposted and thought it came up today. As you were. 

[kevinhectoring]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Pretty sure I read, maybe in the original case document, that Derby were applying a specific model used by other clubs for assessing residual values and amortisation amounts, I may have just dreamt that though, will do some digging.

Not quite the same point I know, but this from para 82 of the LAT decision is notable :

No other club has ever adopted the treatment utilised by the Club for amortisation or anything similar. Whilst that does not of itself indicate that the treatment adopted by the Club was wrong, it is a very striking feature of this case that the Club were seeking to do something no one else seems ever to have considered permissible.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Not quite the same point I know, but this from para 82 of the LAT decision is notable :

No other club has ever adopted the treatment utilised by the Club for amortisation or anything similar. Whilst that does not of itself indicate that the treatment adopted by the Club was wrong, it is a very striking feature of this case that the Club were seeking to do something no one else seems ever to have considered permissible.

 

We aren't sheep...

[Van der MoodHoover]

4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Not quite the same point I know, but this from para 82 of the LAT decision is notable :

No other club has ever adopted the treatment utilised by the Club for amortisation or anything similar. Whilst that does not of itself indicate that the treatment adopted by the Club was wrong, it is a very striking feature of this case that the Club were seeking to do something no one else seems ever to have considered permissible.

 

I thought that I read somewhere that it was shown that other clubs in the Premier league and efl were not using straight line amortisation. 

So how many different approaches to the subject can there be which aren't "remotely similar"? 

Amortising an asset is a fairly tightly defined concept. Is this not unnecessarily inflammatory language? 

[Mucker1884]

6 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

I think the forum rules say that you can insult people as long as they are neither members of the forum, nor part of DCFC.

As you say, if they joined the forum and posted their comments, we could reply in a non-insulting way!

But, there is the complication that nearly everyone is anonymous, so how do we know whether or not they are already members?!

As I understand it, mild profanity is not actually thought of as insulting - so I guess you can continue to stick up two fingers to them! (My only caveat is that, in the main, insults can be in the eye of the beholder. So, if someone tells you that they feel insulted by having Rik Mayall sticking up two fingers - rather than them finding it amusing and smiling - then, you should probably stop once they have told you!

What about if they feel insulted by Ade Edmondson sticking up two fingers?  Would it amount to the same thing?

#asking for a housemate.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Mucker1884

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I thought that I read somewhere that it was shown that other clubs in the Premier league and efl were not using straight line amortisation. 

So how many different approaches to the subject can there be which aren't "remotely similar"? 

Amortising an asset is a fairly tightly defined concept. Is this not unnecessarily inflammatory language? 

1. All upfront (the first year)

2. Over the duration of the original contract

3. As per 2, but adjusted if a contract extension is signed, so that it covers the newly extended period.

Then there's impairment which can be added on (injuries, dropping down a division, etc...)

 

Those are deemed acceptable

[Gaspode]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I thought that I read somewhere that it was shown that other clubs in the Premier league and efl were not using straight line amortisation. 

So how many different approaches to the subject can there be which aren't "remotely similar"? 

Amortising an asset is a fairly tightly defined concept. Is this not unnecessarily inflammatory language? 

The pathetic part of the whole judgement is that they don’t specify the approach that should be used but then object to any club not using the straight line method. Surely you can only be found to be in breach of the rules if the rules clearly define what you can and can’t do…..
We’ve exploited a number of loopholes to meet FFP (which is what happens when regulations aren’t carefully enough defined) - they’re embarrassed that they’ve been shown to be lax and so they want to make an example of us….the EFL are completely unfit to govern

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

The pathetic part of the whole judgement is that they don’t specify the approach that should be used but then object to any club not using the straight line method. Surely you can only be found to be in breach of the rules if the rules clearly define what you can and can’t do…..
We’ve exploited a number of loopholes to meet FFP (which is what happens when regulations aren’t carefully enough defined) - they’re embarrassed that they’ve been shown to be lax and so they want to make an example of us….the EFL are completely unfit to govern

The rules need to be better write is really the main finding of all of this.

[richinspain]

5 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

The rules need to be better write is really the main finding of all of this.

That could have been better written ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

21 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

1. All upfront (the first year)

2. Over the duration of the original contract

3. As per 2, but adjusted if a contract extension is signed, so that it covers the newly extended period.

Then there's impairment which can be added on (injuries, dropping down a division, etc...)

 

Those are deemed acceptable

You see, I would see all those methods ss

... Starting at the same point

... Ending at the same point

... With different paces of getting from one to the other. 

So that would seem to describe the parameters of "similar". 

I'm struggling to understand from what I have read, what method we could use that falls outside of these parameters to be described as "not remotely similar". 

Maybe I'm just being a linguistic pedant mind... 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Deleted.... Already covered. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[angieram]

19 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

You see, I would see all those methods ss

... Starting at the same point

... Ending at the same point

... With different paces of getting from one to the other. 

So that would seem to describe the parameters of "similar". 

I'm struggling to understand from what I have read, what method we could use that falls outside of these parameters to be described as "not remotely similar". 

Maybe I'm just being a linguistic pedant mind... 

No, I don't think you are. The whole tone of the report is judgemental, in my opinion.

[Indy]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I thought that I read somewhere that it was shown that other clubs in the Premier league and efl were not using straight line amortisation. 

So how many different approaches to the subject can there be which aren't "remotely similar"? 

Amortising an asset is a fairly tightly defined concept. Is this not unnecessarily inflammatory language? 

I thought a few bits of the panels report were unnecessary.
 

Like the bit where they confirmed that they would not be allowing the consideration of the accounts filed after the judgement as new evidence, and then summarised the argument the EFL wanted to make by asking for the new evidence. Surely this amounts to the same thing, by putting on record the EFL argument but without supporting evidence. 

Also: referring to the original commission disputing Pope’s assertion that disposal of assets wasn’t a benefit, when the regs specifically say it is many times. Referring to it as an appeal to common sense (ie subjective) when it’s there in the text is ridiculous. 
 

Also: saying the fact that Pope has zero practical experience of preparing accounts, or knowledge of the football industry isn’t relevant. As part of his argument is based on assumptions about the football industry (ie the likelihood that an agreement to sell a player will be blocked by a third party, meaning we can’t guarantee a sale so can’t account for it), then his lack of industry knowledge is totally relevant. 
 

Also: saying the regs allow them to form a panel with no specialist accounting experience, so inferring they are allowed to overturn the commission’s decision. I’d argue that commissions consider matters that may not need accounting knowledge (eg the date of when Wednesday actually sold their stadium), so a non-expert panel could reconsider things like that. As the appeal on ours was about the accountancy aspects (ie compliance with accountancy standards) then it should be considered by people with expertise. 
 

It also looks like the list of possible punishments in para 89 (including fines, contract enforcement etc) doesn’t include a points deduction.

Would be useful to know when the EFL have to agree who decides the punishment (the panel has only recommended it be handled by the original commission if agreed by all parties), as I presume we can’t file accounts (and are therefore on a transfer embargo) until that is sorted. 
 

Sorry for the long post!!!

[Comrade 86]

So essentially our player amortisation policies were examined and found to be FRS102 compliant by a DC including an accounting expert. Subsequently and under appeal, a panel devoid of any accounting specialist, has decided otherwise.

In true EFL fashion, the 'expert analysis' could be appealed, but the decision made without any such input, can't be. 

Welcome to modern football folks! 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

15 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

So essentially our player amortisation policies were examined and found to be FRS102 compliant by a DC including an accounting expert. Subsequently and under appeal, a panel devoid of any accounting specialist, has decided otherwise.

In true EFL fashion, the 'expert analysis' could be appealed, but the decision made without any such input, can't be. 

Welcome to modern football folks! 

You couldn't make it up could you.... Meanwhile the whole football community thinks we're despicable cheats due to sensationalist headlines. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[Sparkle]

10 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

So essentially our player amortisation policies were examined and found to be FRS102 compliant by a DC including an accounting expert. Subsequently and under appeal, a panel devoid of any accounting specialist, has decided otherwise.

In true EFL fashion, the 'expert analysis' could be appealed, but the decision made without any such input, can't be. 

Welcome to modern football folks! 

Whilst going through this very long and drawn out process the one overriding feeling that seems to exist and be the most consistent is that the EFL seriously do not know what they are doing by constantly making things up on the hoof.

football used to played in real time but so much time is now focused approximately three years in the past it’s beyond ridiculous 

[Carnero]

16 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

So essentially our player amortisation policies were examined and found to be FRS102 compliant by a DC including an accounting expert

... plus the independant auditors... plus the auditors own regulatory body!

[Albert]

For all the many things that Mel's regime have made a mess of, ironically, the one which will have the most direct consequences, actually seems to be the one where their ducks were in order. 

The truly bizarre part of it all is that the amortisation policy used is itself is a double edged sword. The start and end points are the same, it's just how it gets there that are different. 

Regardless of final outcome, however, the EFL have better PR overall, and given the bumbling nature of Mel's regime otherwise, Derby will come off looking bad regardless of the outcome. 

[Ghost of Clough]

53 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

You see, I would see all those methods ss

... Starting at the same point

... Ending at the same point

... With different paces of getting from one to the other. 

So that would seem to describe the parameters of "similar". 

I'm struggling to understand from what I have read, what method we could use that falls outside of these parameters to be described as "not remotely similar". 

Maybe I'm just being a linguistic pedant mind... 

It's a case of our amortisation policy giving the club the ability to control when and how much amortisation falls into each year. The other methods (excluding impairment) are pretty much set in stone from the day you sign them.

All methods do exactly what you've outlined - get from the same starting point, and end at the same point. "Not remotely similar" in this case would be the finer details of the policy rather than the overall purpose.

 

2 goals are scored. Both start with Roos from a goal kick, and end with Waghorn finding the bottom corner. 
The first is passed between the back four 30 times, slowly make our way up the pitch, keep passing it around the edge of the box, then Wahorn runs on to a little through ball and finds the back of the net.
The second is a long punt upfield. Kazim wins a flick on, Waghorn picks it up and scores with his second touch.
Both have the same start, the same end, but different middles. The goals would be described as "not remotely similar".