EFL Verdict

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

It isnt actually what accountants are all about. 

No of course not.

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

They found our notes to those accounts were misleading on the amortisation.

Did they actually say 'misleading' I can't remember.

[NottsRam77]

Am I right in thinking we’re still awaiting the full reasoning behind the 100k fine 

Surely this could be absolutely key in if or not the efl can appeal 

if the panel lambast the efl then surely they can’t go at us again … well we know they can and probably will but u know what I mean 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Did they actually say 'misleading' I can't remember.

I thought it was "ambiguous" and "not sufficently clear" rather than "misleading"? We did get found guilty on that part of the charge in the original hearing.

In terms of was the policy iliegal - no of course it wasn't, no auditor would sign off on it if it was. Was it not appropreate to use it in this context (specifically on professional football contracts) - that was not stated in the rules as written, so was only deemed unsuitable by the result of this process. So there is a pretty ligitimate argument that what we did in terms of the policy wasn't that bad a thing to do (hence the fine).

The massive beef everyone seems to have is "did using this policy allow DCFC to make losses over the allowable limits?" Well, that question will be resolved by the resubmitted P&S statements. We'll be punished if they show we did for the breach, and presumably get addition aggrivated points because of the accounting issue.

SO, we didn't get away with £100k fine. We get the fine, we have to resubmit P&S, and we get whtever is coming as a result of the new figures.

 

 

[CBRammette]

10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Did they actually say 'misleading' I can't remember.

Probably not I am shattered 

[Reggie Greenwood]

6 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I thought it was "ambiguous" and "not sufficently clear" rather than "misleading"? We did get found guilty on that part of the charge in the original hearing.

In terms of was the policy iliegal - no of course it wasn't, no auditor would sign off on it if it was. Was it not appropreate to use it in this context (specifically on professional football contracts) - that was not stated in the rules as written, so was only deemed unsuitable by the result of this process. So there is a pretty ligitimate argument that what we did in terms of the policy wasn't that bad a thing to do (hence the fine).

The massive beef everyone seems to have is "did using this policy allow DCFC to make losses over the allowable limits?" Well, that question will be resolved by the resubmitted P&S statements. We'll be punished if they show we did for the breach, and presumably get addition aggrivated points because of the accounting issue.

SO, we didn't get away with £100k fine. We get the fine, we have to resubmit P&S, and we get whtever is coming as a result of the new figures.

 

 

But all indications are that those figures will be within the limits so we should have nothing coming 

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I thought it was "ambiguous" and "not sufficiently clear" rather than "misleading"? We did get found guilty on that part of the charge in the original hearing.

I thought so too. Misleading is a deliberate attempt, and they never stated it was, the opposite in fact.

[Rampant]

@86 Hair Islands

Can I please use your magnificent post on p40 of this thread elsewhere (another forum)? I'll obviously give you the credit for it.

[r_wilcockson]

4 minutes ago, Rampant said:

@86 Hair Islands

Can I please use your magnificent post on p40 of this thread elsewhere (another forum)? I'll obviously give you the credit for it.

Wycombe or Middlesbrough? 

[JfR]

13 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I thought it was "ambiguous" and "not sufficently clear" rather than "misleading"? We did get found guilty on that part of the charge in the original hearing.

 

5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I thought so too. Misleading is a deliberate attempt, and they never stated it was, the opposite in fact.

Their exact terminology was "at the very least ambiguous and in reality incomplete and inaccurate", but they never refer to it as "misleading". There's actually another point in the document where our side tried to argue that we hadn't intentionally tried to mislead the EFL, and that an "innocent submission of annual accounts" should not be punished as a breach of P&S rules. The DC found against that second point, but they seemed to accept that the submission of accounts in the manner we did was "innocent" in its intention.

[Comrade 86]

9 minutes ago, Rampant said:

@86 Hair Islands

Can I please use your magnificent post on p40 of this thread elsewhere (another forum)? I'll obviously give you the credit for it.

Of course mate ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

15 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

But all indications are that those figures will be within the limits so we should have nothing coming 

That's yet to be seen, but with the sale of pride park being accepted it's not going to be that bad.

But the point is for all those *ahem* "furious" that Derby "got away with" just a fine, the beef is we spent/lost to much - if we did the ruling means we'll get that and take that. If there's nothing to get, that kind of shows the "fury" has been somewhat misplaced.

[Rampant]

3 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Of course mate ?

Thank you. 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

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.

They haven't, but I believe they know the amortisation for individual players during the period, transfer fees paid, contract lengths, contract extensions, and amounts received from sales. They should be able to re-calculate our P&S figures themselves.

[Comrade 86]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

They haven't, but I believe they know the amortisation for individual players during the period, transfer fees paid, contract lengths, contract extensions, and amounts received from sales. They should be able to re-calculate our P&S figures themselves.

Mate, this lot couldn't find the hole in a doughnut ?‍♂️

[Spanish]

49 minutes ago, enachops said:

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! 

Read the DC original findings for a clue. They, who IMO, have not been against DCFC say that by the nature of P&S it is open to re analysis.  I know I am the sole voice but we are the architects of this mess  and a bit of time exploring the other side of the argument is worthwhile.  We have been hard done to and continue to be but this was avoidable

[May Contain Nuts]

47 minutes ago, JfR said:

 

Their exact terminology was "at the very least ambiguous and in reality incomplete and inaccurate", but they never refer to it as "misleading". There's actually another point in the document where our side tried to argue that we hadn't intentionally tried to mislead the EFL, and that an "innocent submission of annual accounts" should not be punished as a breach of P&S rules. The DC found against that second point, but they seemed to accept that the submission of accounts in the manner we did was "innocent" in its intention.

The exact exact terminology wasn't that, it was..

"These explanations by the Club were at best confusing and at worst seriously misleading"

as per @kevinhectoring (search for his original post for more context)

..BUT, to me that really doesn't mean that they are actually saying that we did  mislead them, just that it's open to interpretation and they can see why there is such a grievance from the EFL's side of things. You're free to interpret their statement how you want to, of course, as I am doing here.

The thing that's mainly worrying me is that I have some vague memory of someone saying that is every single case that exists of the EFL taking an appeal to the LAP they've got exactly what they wanted, and always had their decision override everyone else.

Such is the design of the disciplinary system dictated to every club by the EFL - agree to it or find somewhere else to play .

Edited June 26, 2021 by Coconut

[JfR]

4 minutes ago, Coconut said:

The exact exact terminology wasn't that, it was..

"These explanations by the Club were at best confusing and at worst seriously misleading"

as per @kevinhectoring (search for his original post for more context)

..BUT, to me that really doesn't mean that they are actually saying that we did  mislead them, just that it's open to interpretation and they can see why there is such a grievance from the EFL's side of things. You're free to interpret their statement how you want to, of course.

The thing that's mainly worrying me is that I have some vague memory of someone saying that is every single case that exists of the EFL taking an appeal to the LAP they've got exactly what they wanted, and always had their decision override everyone else.

Such is the design of the disciplinary system dictated to every club by the EFL - agree to it or find somewhere else to play .

You're correct. I was looking at the original DC decision and not the LAP decision, so that's my bad. 

[CBRammette]

2 hours ago, enachops said:

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? 

That is all I was trying to do without quoting any judgements word for word, or certain words would have been in "  ". Re your other questions- no, no, yes and careful with the last, although if you do fully turn into him would you pop down to the training ground and make them give you a  trial as we really need you

[Ramslad1992]

4 hours 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. 

Duck ‘em... absolute see you next Tuesdays. If I wasn’t so stubborn those arsewipes would ruin one of the things that mean most to me... but I won’t let them. Not fit for purpose. I said it when they screwed over Macclesfield, Bury, Bolton... we are just the next in a conveyor belt... a club laughing at us will be next.