EFL Verdict

[Ghost of Clough]

50 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Looking at Readings financial results for their last 3 sets of accounts ending June 2020 they have a cumulative loss of £92 million, I wonder why they are not in the gun sights of the EFL. 

Because of how P&S works, I've only estimated them to be only £5m over the limit for that period. 

Reading are another club on Mr Pop's naughty step. His attention will likely be focused on them when our case is finally closed.

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Because of how P&S works, I've only estimated them to be only £5m over the limit for that period. 

Reading are another club on Mr Pop's naughty step. His attention will likely be focused on them when our case is finally closed.

Agreed they are in deep poo

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Read my post again...

 

The amortisation policy we used allowed us to reposition depreciation hits. It was maintained because it was advantageous and had been approved by 4 independent bodies, including the EFL. Given the EFL approved the prior accounts, we would have needed a crystal ball to foresee that they would ultimately reverse their assessment. I would have thought that would have been pretty obvious as is the fact that had we had a crystal ball and been able to see the future, we would have used that hindsight to do things differently. 

I've covered all of this already in my previous posts and given I know where you stand and likewise you know where I stand, I'm not going to waste my time saying the same things over and over to folk steadfastly refuse to accept information that is all in the public domain.

Agreed most of it is in the public domain and I’m not going to waste my time either.

[Comrade 86]

12 minutes ago, jono said:

I think you are 100% right and your earlier post was absolutely top drawer. It is what should happen, both morally and with the application of common sense.

I just have my reservations as there is clearly a grouping within the EFL that wants some sort of twisted revenge. I can see the no appeal but I can also see “further investigations following the re submitted accounts” leading to an umpteenth bite at the dogs hind leg that they are determined grind into powdered residue. It’s politics, not rules, fair play logic or rationality. 

I think Mel underestimated the pettiness and egotistical nature of the EFL board when he wrote to all the EFL member clubs to gather support for an increased share of the media monies pot. They've waited a long time to get their pound of flesh but even they must be beginning to understand that they are now starting to look a tad foolish and vindictive.

I totally agree that the highlighted section above is still a possibility but they will be on a sticky wicket if they do bring further charges unless their case is copper-bottomed as I believe were they again to fail, the club would then be in a very strong position to sue them for damages. I'd also be 99% certain that were we to do so, given civil courts would asses the case rather than the kangaroo court that is the EFL, not only would we win the case, but we would also be entitled to substantial compensation. 

It's also questionable whether other member clubs really want to continue footing the bill for these endless charges and appeal processes. By now, only the likes of Gibson will be evaluating the evidence and surmising we've done anything wrong. With times as tough as they are, why throw good money after bad? I hope and believe that this is finally over but as you say, this is the EFL we're dealing with so we will have to wait a little longer before we get to raise and glasses with a 'duck you very much' toast to the EFL.

[NottsRam77]

9 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I think Mel underestimated the pettiness and egotistical nature of the EFL board when he wrote to all the EFL member clubs to gather support for an increased share of the media monies pot. They've waited a long time to get their pound of flesh but even they must be beginning to understand that they are now starting to look a tad foolish and vindictive.

I totally agree that the highlighted section above is still a possibility but they will be on a sticky wicket if they do bring further charges unless their case is copper-bottomed as I believe were they again to fail, the club would then be in a very strong position to sue them for damages. I'd also be 99% certain that were we to do so, given civil courts would asses the case rather than the kangaroo court that is the EFL, not only would we win the case, but we would also be entitled to substantial compensation. 

It's also questionable whether other member clubs really want to continue footing the bill for these endless charges and appeal processes. By now, only the likes of Gibson will be evaluating the evidence and surmising we've done anything wrong. With times as tough as they are, why throw good money after bad? I hope and believe that this is finally over but as you say, this is the EFL we're dealing with so we will have to wait a little longer before we get to raise and glasses with a 'duck you very much' toast to the EFL.

Agree and hope your right 

only thing I would question … purely playing devils advocate 

Wycombe seem to have decided to have a very vested interest in what happens … so that’s Gibson and then trying to hunt us down 

the other thing is costs 

because we were effectively found guilty to that one charge … does that mean court fees are paid by us too .. ironically probably more than the fine we were actually handed … so my question and a genuine one is how much has this actually cost the efl ?

at they good to keep going at is in that respect ?

 

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

because we were effectively found guilty to that one charge … does that mean court fees are paid by us too .. ironically probably more than the fine we were actually handed … so my question and a genuine one is how much has this actually cost the efl ?

Honestly buddy, I'm not entirely sure. My gut feeling is that we may end up footing at least a portion of the bill and I think I saw a figure of around £2 million mentioned somewhere. The gift that keeps on giving, huh! 

[IslandExile]

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Why are some folk so unable, unwilling or both, to assimilate a few simple facts concerning these charges? It's no small wonder that fans from other clubs have a poor opinion of us now, when some of our own fans, who ought to be better informed, are themselves the first to jump on any sniff of perceived wrongdoing. What possible benefit is there in wilfully ignoring what we know to be true in favour presupposing guilt at every corner? We've even got folk using the fact that we've not submitted the new accounts inside 48 hours as the latest stick with which to thrash the club. It simply beggars belief.

For the umpteenth time, there were two charges; one related to the valuation of our stadium and was summarily dismissed by the DC; the other related to our amortisation policy which was signed off on and approved under legal accounting standards by independent auditors, the auditors regulatory body, the DC and the ducking EFL themselves, the latter several times over a period of years. The amortisation policy charge was also initially dismissed by the DC for the aforementioned reasons. This left the EFL so desperate to save face that they appealed the decision, the outcome of which was predicted by myself and numerous others on this very thread: a small fine in order to secure the token win they need to maintain any ducking credibility at all AND NO POINTS DEDUCTION. 

At this point, I very much doubt that even the EFL will be willing to risk further embarrassment. They can kid themselves this paltry fine vindicates two years of unwarranted charges and appeals and get back to their principal role as lapdogs to Sky and the Premiership whilst paying themselves inflated salaries for doing so. As for the DC, I strongly suspect that they only agreed to what is a nominal fine in order to save the EFL from falling into further disrepute and to allow us to finally emerge from under an endless series of unfair and damaging embargos and to prevent the EFL from continuing what has become a spiteful and unwarranted campaign against a club whose chairman quite rightly questioned their business acumen. In doing so, they have vindicated Mel's opinion in spades, though the crushing irony of this has unsurprisingly escaped the EFL's notice and who will doubtless be celebrating spending millions to secure a £100k fine for their members' coffers.

If, as I strongly suspect, the EFL do not appeal this sanction, I think we will 'be the bigger man' and simply take the £100k hit in order to allow us to return to football matters rather than spending every waking hour addressing the embittered ramblings and actions of a so-called professional body that seems more intent on undermining its membership than serving it. 

Good post. However, if the EFL were willing to leave it at that, why stir things up further with the 'interchangeable fixtures' post?

That's not letting it go. They wouldn't let it lie.

 

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Good post. However, if the EFL were willing to leave it at that, why stir things up further with the 'interchangeable fixtures' post?

That's not letting it go. They wouldn't let it lie.

Because they've not seen the new set of accounts as yet? In all honesty, who knows why they do anything they do? Why sanction us for accounting procedures they'd signed off on on multiple occasions, for instance?

These sporting bodies tend to be full of stuffed-shirt, old school tie types, not seasoned professionals. The EFL gets next to nothing right in my opinion. Too busy doing lunches on expenses to concern themselves overly with the job they're paid to do.

[BucksRam]

I still can't get my head round why we're the ones in the dock when our accounts were approved, our accounting process was approved, the sale was approved, we referred everything for scrutiny and approval i.e. were fully transparent yet here we are being called cheats, being fined, threatened with relegation.   If I typed how I really felt about the EFL I'm pretty sure I'd be banned from this forum. 

[duncanjwitham]

10 minutes ago, BucksRam said:

I still can't get my head round why we're the ones in the dock when our accounts were approved, our accounting process was approved, the sale was approved, we referred everything for scrutiny and approval i.e. were fully transparent yet here we are being called cheats, being fined, threatened with relegation.   If I typed how I really felt about the EFL I'm pretty sure I'd be banned from this forum. 

We lost the appeal because when it came down to it, the EFL found some random “expert” to argue that our method was illegal, and we didn’t even bother to put anybody up to argue our side.  If we’d have found literally any random accountant to stand there and say what we did was fine, we’d have almost certainly been cleared.

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Looking at Readings financial results for their last 3 sets of accounts ending June 2020 they have a cumulative loss of £92 million, I wonder why they are not in the gun sights of the EFL. 

Erm cough erm Stoke city? 

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Arsene Titman said:

I’ve already rightly applauded your post. Just a couple of questions though- once we submit 3 years revised accounts in accordance with EFL accounting rules, if we then exceed the £39m losses over that 3 year period, should we not expect a further charge with a possible points deduction for the forthcoming season ? Also, if you are right and the EFL don’t pursue an appeal against the current £100k sanction, is the soft transfer embargo lifted once we have paid up? If so, presumably it would be reimposed if the club exceed the £39m 3 year losses in the revised accounts and the EFL pursued the matter.

Interesting - being charged for accounts that the EFL signed off as Ok three years running 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

If this is the case why didn’t we do the calculations in the standard method and avoid 2 years of crippling pain

The issue of the stadium sale I would suspect 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

Agreed they are in deep poo

At least they have some decent players to use on the field of play currently 

[Spanish]

29 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

At least they have some decent players to use on the field of play currently 

With that sort of deficit they will need to be good to make up the 12 points penalty. I am s bit suspicious that post COVID issues will be dealt with more favorably than those like ours 

[CBRammette]

7 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

That's what accountants are all about, it's not like not paying any tax is it.

It isnt actually what accountants are all about. 

[CBRammette]

1 hour ago, BucksRam said:

I still can't get my head round why we're the ones in the dock when our accounts were approved, our accounting process was approved, the sale was approved, we referred everything for scrutiny and approval i.e. were fully transparent yet here we are being called cheats, being fined, threatened with relegation.   If I typed how I really felt about the EFL I'm pretty sure I'd be banned from this forum. 

They found our notes to those accounts were misleading on the amortisation. So the note explaining how the number in the accounts was calculated didnt actually do that clearly enough or was misleading. The notes are part of the accounts. Sorry if  someone else already said, i havent caught up on all the pages of misery yet

[OoooMarkWright]

52 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Interesting - being charged for accounts that the EFL signed off as Ok three years running 

This is what I don’t understand. Surely the EFL don’t have a leg to stand on given they approved the accounts when they were submitted. This then makes future losses void with the re-submitted accounts as we presumed what we were doing was ok. It’s like going 40mph in a 40 area and then 5 years later being done for speeding after they changed it to a 30. 

This is all over my head, since when did you have to have a degree in accounts to follow your football club. Duck the EFL! 

[NottsRam77]

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Honestly buddy, I'm not entirely sure. My gut feeling is that we may end up footing at least a portion of the bill and I think I saw a figure of around £2 million mentioned somewhere. The gift that keeps on giving, huh! 

God we really are, arnt we.

It’s just draining isn’t it 

feels like a slow death 

[OoooMarkWright]

3 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

They found our notes to those accounts were misleading on the amortisation. So the note explaining how the number in the accounts was calculated didnt actually do that clearly enough or was misleading. The notes are part of the accounts. Sorry if  someone else already said, i havent caught up on all the pages of misery yet

You may have just answered by query. Fair do’s. To my knowledge it wasn’t illegal though was it? Not against EFL rules? They approved them. They should have checked to the time? Jeez - I’m turning into Alan Hinton with all these question marks?