EFL appeal

[RandomAccessMemory]

10 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

That may have been the case, but that comes back to not knowing the rules of the game. The report from the appeal makes it clear - our accountant was there as a factual witness, not an expert one (i.e. there to speak on what we did, not what the law/accounting rules are, so his evidence on accounting regs was worthless), and presumably the same applies to the accountant on the panel.

I get what you’re saying, but isn’t that a technicality?

Did we know it would go to an appeal in front of a panel without an accountant and can we put forward a new witness once we know this?

The EFL’s expert put forward an example which includes a tangible asset which doesn’t use amortisation, not an intangible one which does, that’s not relevant to the issue at hand, yet they reference it because it’s come from the expert. So just because he is the only expert witness anything he says goes even if it’s irrelevant, how does that work?

Edited May 13, 2021 by RandomAccessMemory

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Perhaps we couldn’t find an expert witness who agreed with our ‘point of view’? 

Our accountant as happy with the policy, the auditors signed off on it. There's even an external auditor posting on here who agrees with the fundamentals of what were doing.  Even a surface reading of FRS102 seems to indicate what we were doing was fine.  I'd be amazed if we couldn't find anyone. 

2 minutes ago, rynny said:

We didn't know they were going to add the amortisation policy on the charge until they revealed to the world. We tried to argue at the original hearing that we didn't have time to get an expert as we didn't have sufficient time to bring one in and get them up to date with what we do. 

Yet the EFL managed to find one and get him up to speed.  It didn't even need to be someone who knew what we were doing in-depth, seemingly they just needed to understand the basics of accounting.  And if anything, any delays in that charge are down to us being vague and misleading in describing what we're doing in the accounts. 

[rynny]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Yet the EFL managed to find one and get him up to speed.  It didn't even need to be someone who knew what we were doing in-depth, seemingly they just needed to understand the basics of accounting. 

Because the EFL had longer than us to bring in their expert, as they knew before we did that they were going to charge us with it. 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Yet the EFL managed to find one and get him up to speed.  It didn't even need to be someone who knew what we were doing in-depth, seemingly they just needed to understand the basics of accounting.  And if anything, any delays in that charge are down to us being vague and misleading in describing what we're doing in the accounts. 

The EFL had more time to find someone as they knew we were getting charged for it in advance.

Their 'expert' was basically saying straight-line is better, not arguing why ERV isn't suitable. This means the basics was al that was needed. Our policy goes into a lot more detail meaning it more time would be required.

Delays in the charge? There was no prior notice of a possible charge against amortisation.

[duncanjwitham]

15 minutes ago, Eddie said:

If the original practice was signed off and accepted as compliant, then subsequently found not to be compliant, that simply means that the rules of the game were changed retrospectively.

I mean the rules of the trial process.  We seemingly didn't realise that we *had* to have an expert argue our corner or we were basically guaranteed to lose on this aspect.

11 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I get what you’re saying, but isn’t that a technicality?

Did we know it would go to an appeal in front of a panel without an accountant and can we put forward a new witness once we know this?

The EFL’s expert put forward an example which includes a tangible asset which doesn’t use amortisation, not an intangible one which does, that’s not relevant to the issue at hand, yet they reference it because it’s come from the expert. So just because he is the only expert witness anything he says goes even if it’s irrelevant, how does that work?

Like I said, if we didn't know that we needed an expert witness at the time, then we didn't understand the rules of the game we were playing.

4 minutes ago, rynny said:

Because the EFL had longer than us to bring in their expert, as they knew before we did that they were going to charge us with it. 

I've just checked back on the report from the original decision. We were offered the chance to seek an adjournment for the second charge, to prepare our case better, and chose not to.  Lack of preparation is entirely on us.

[CBRammette]

does all this then mean we are involved in cases against accountants and lawyers for years to come due to perceived incorrect advice?

[rynny]

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I've just checked back on the report from the original decision. We were offered the chance to seek an adjournment for the second charge, to prepare our case better, and chose not to.  Lack of preparation is entirely on us.

Don't remember any offer of an adjournment, but I'll take your word for it. 

[RandomAccessMemory]

7 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I've just checked back on the report from the original decision. We were offered the chance to seek an adjournment for the second charge, to prepare our case better, and chose not to.  Lack of preparation is entirely on us.

Because it had already gone on long enough by that point? Goodness knows how long the original IDC would have taken if we’d have taken the chance to adjourn it.

[Curtains]

On 08/01/2021 at 13:43, rynny said:

This is what was reported.

The independent disciplinary tribunal did find that "the wording of the amortisation policy in Derby's financial statements could have been clearer".

We didn't have an expert on the amortisation part as the EFL added that on last minute, it was the EFL'S experts that were car crashes.

The EFL are contesting the whole of our amortisation policy, but, I don't think, it will be overturned as the rule is that amortisation has be systematic and ours is, as it is used throughout the world in accounting. Due to the ambiguous wording of the rule the EFL don't have a leg to stand on. 

They are idiots full stop 

[derby8]

Something to be said for ffp to be based on cash accounts rather than accrual accounts, keep a watch on debts, cash at bank, etc.?

[MackworthRamIsGod]

According to the Athletic the EFL want a points deduction this season.

As if the EFL have waited until the season ended before deciding how to relegate us.

They operate like a footballing mafia.

[duncanjwitham]

5 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Because it had already gone on long enough by that point? Goodness knows how long the original IDC would have taken if we’d have taken the chance to adjourn it.

But if that's ultimately what's led to us losing, we'd have been better off taking the extra time and doing it properly.

It's actually irrelevant though - reading down the original report further, the issue of consumption of economic benefits through disposal was in the original charge letter, so it wasn't sprung on us at the last minute.  We had ample time to prepare and provide an expert witness, and chose not to.

[BathRam72]

Just now, MackworthRamIsGod said:

According to the Athletic the EFL want a points deduction this season.

As if the EFL have waited until the season ended before deciding how to relegate us.

They operate like a footballing mafia.

If true, I have said this before. Had we been relegated of our own accord would that have been the end of the matter?

The EFL seem to want to see the outcome of our season to maximise our punishment.

Either way this has been bought on ourselves. (Enough said) 

[RandomAccessMemory]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

But if that's ultimately what's led to us losing, we'd have been better off taking the extra time and doing it properly.

It's actually irrelevant though - reading down the original report further, the issue of consumption of economic benefits through disposal was in the original charge letter, so it wasn't sprung on us at the last minute.  We had ample time to prepare and provide an expert witness, and chose not to.

Maybe if the IDC was only for the amortisation charge we might have done that, don’t forget it was also for the stadium charge, and we’d already got our ducks in a row for that one.

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, RandomAccessMemory said:

Maybe if the IDC was only for the amortisation charge we might have done that, don’t forget it was also for the stadium charge, and we’d already got our ducks in a row for that one.

The offer was to adjourn just for the second charge. We could have got the stadium one sorted and dealt with the second one when we were ready.  There are no excuses for it

(For clarity, I still think the decision is wrong we should not be charged or punished for it. But it's seemingly mostly down to us screwing up that we didn't win, which is incredibly frustrating.)

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The offer was to adjourn just for the second charge. We could have got the stadium one sorted and dealt with the second one when we were ready.  There are no excuses for it

(For clarity, I still think the decision is wrong we should not be charged or punished for it. But it's seemingly mostly down to us screwing up that we didn't win, which is incredibly frustrating.)

You ever thought of the costs of all this from the EFL side. 
 

Money not going back into the game .

The EFL are acting like dictators 

[Ambitious]

13 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

According to the Athletic the EFL want a points deduction this season.

As if the EFL have waited until the season ended before deciding how to relegate us.

They operate like a footballing mafia.

Trevor Birch was apparently the CEO of our club in 2007 for a very short period. I genuinely can't remember him, or what happened, but perhaps he's got an axe to grind against Mel and/or the club. He came in the summer of 2007 (after our promotion) and left in October 2007 (when it was apparent we were poo). I'd imagine he left when Adam Pearson became chairman? I'm not sure, but Mel would've been on the board when he was appointed CEO. 

[Curtains]

15 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

According to the Athletic the EFL want a points deduction this season.

As if the EFL have waited until the season ended before deciding how to relegate us.

They operate like a footballing mafia.

Well they are the football mafia.

Does anybody really think FFP is fair with Premier League Parachute payments allowed season after season .

EFL won’t be able to doc us points this season or at all. 

[RandomAccessMemory]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The offer was to adjourn just for the second charge. We could have got the stadium one sorted and dealt with the second one when we were ready.  There are no excuses for it

(For clarity, I still think the decision is wrong we should not be charged or punished for it. But it's seemingly mostly down to us screwing up that we didn't win, which is incredibly frustrating.)

Ahh, yes, sorry I missed that bit. Might that have incurred more costs? I’m still not clear on who pays for these things, I thought it would be the losing party, however at the end of some of the other documents, such as the Boro one it suggests that should be agreed between the parties.

[BramcoteRam84]

I’m seeing talk of points deductions and the EFL wanting to implement them this season. From chatter On here yesterday we seem pretty confident that despite having to change our amortisation policy we would still be within the £39m limit and if that’s the case we won’t get any deduction. Am I missing something?