EFL Verdict

[kevinhectoring]

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? 

The rules require accounts to comply with the companies act. Ours did not.

The EFl does not ‘approve our accounts’. It just doesn’t, despite what you read on here. Our directors do. Not do the auditors approve them - they audit them. 
 

[Spanish]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The rules require accounts to comply with the companies act. Ours did not.

The EFl does not ‘approve our accounts’. It just doesn’t, despite what you read on here. Our directors do. Not do the auditors approve them - they audit them. 
 

agreed.  Some think and they have a point in the we discussed our plan and it was in a way agreed.  the EFL have had 3 years to challenge the accounts and summaries and didn't therefore providing silent consent.  The EFL have successfully argued that our disclosures were insufficient to bring their attention to the unique method, the club agrees.  Some even go as far as thinking that 1 guilty verdict together with a paltry £100k fine proves that Mel was correct all along.  In the end we are the reason for this mess

Edited June 27, 2021 by Spanish

[Carnero]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The rules require accounts to comply with the companies act. Ours did not.

The EFl does not ‘approve our accounts’. It just doesn’t, despite what you read on here. Our directors do. Not do the auditors approve them - they audit them. 
 

Wrong. The auditors job is to check that the accounts show a true and fair view and that they comply with the requirements of The Companies Act. The auditors signed off that they do.

To say that our accounts do not comply with the Companies Act is plainly false, they may not comply with P&S rules but it seems that there is a difference between complying with Companies House/HMRC rules and complying with the EFL P&S rules. Stop confusing the two.

[Carnero]

@kevinhectoring

@Spanish

 

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, Carnero said:

@kevinhectoring

@Spanish

 

Not an accountant but there is more to read as always

Independent arbitration panel

The EFL said an Independent League Arbitration Panel “determined that the club’s policy was not in accordance with accounting standard FRS 102 because it failed to accurately reflect the manner in which the club takes the benefit of player registrations over the lifetime of a player’s contract”.

The original disciplinary commission had already concluded that the club “did not adequately disclose in its financial statements the nature and or effect of its change in accounting policy”, the statement added.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/financial-reporting/arbitrator-red-cards-derbys-amortisation-policy

we need to wait to read the DC 2nd hearing

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

13 hours 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.

Agree with all this. Basic assessment, Mel p1ssed them off, Maguire piped up, Gibbo got arsie and  we had a few near legit accounting skeletons in in the cupboard. For instance, When Sky renewed the last contract and MM, Raziani and another (cant remember) wanted to create PL2, I am pretty sure that did not go down well. It is not about crystal ball we werent exactly whiter than white and we started to make a bit of noise so people started to look into this.

[Carnero]

17 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Not an accountant but there is more to read as always

Independent arbitration panel

The EFL said an Independent League Arbitration Panel “determined that the club’s policy was not in accordance with accounting standard FRS 102 because it failed to accurately reflect the manner in which the club takes the benefit of player registrations over the lifetime of a player’s contract”.

The original disciplinary commission had already concluded that the club “did not adequately disclose in its financial statements the nature and or effect of its change in accounting policy”, the statement added.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/financial-reporting/arbitrator-red-cards-derbys-amortisation-policy

we need to wait to read the DC 2nd hearing

I think qualified accountants and auditors are better placed to judge than 3 lawyers and a professor don't you?

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, Carnero said:

I think qualified accountants and auditors are better placed to judge than 3 lawyers and a professor don't you?

3 lawyers and a professor are probably better than me and maybe you. We might as well close this thread down if that is all you have.

The only expert before the DC was Professor Peter Pope, who is a Professor of Accounting at Bocconi University in Milan, and an Emeritus Professor at the LSE.  Not one to be dismissed in such a manner

Look I'm not arguing their case but I feel there is too much blinkered EFL are totally at fault approach by some posters who clearly haven't bothered to read the findings.  I keep going back to the LAP and DC deliberations and find something I have missed or forgotten every time.   Here is another gem that you might want to dismiss as they are merely the ramblings of 3 lawyers and a professor;

18.22 Amortisation begins when the intangible asset is available for use, ie when it is in the location and condition necessary for it to be usable in the manner intended by management. Amortisation ceases when the asset is derecognised. The entity shall choose an amortisation method that reflects the pattern in which it expects to consume the asset’s future economic benefits. If the entity cannot determine that pattern reliably, it shall use the straight-line method.”

we are slowly running out of options.  The EFL have run the figures and tried to admit them to the LAP so there must be some risk that the straight line method will breach.  I hope not and all this has been a terrible dream but I am not convinced that the corporate governance at our historic club has been particularly first class.

I've no axe to grind with fellow members of the forum and I really enjoy debating the facts as I see them.  Eyes wide open not blinkered

[RadioactiveWaste]

17 minutes ago, Carnero said:

I think qualified accountants and auditors are better placed to judge than 3 lawyers and a professor don't you?

Wasn't the key thing in the appeal that they decided the evidence of the expert witness should be given extra weight because he was the expert witness? <although i did think it was quite possible we couldn't get an expert witness to put our case because we're on shakey ground>

[Sparkle]

Ok if we have to re do the accounts for the benefit of the EFL for 3 years, actually it will mean 5 years with the 2 years following which haven’t been published yet due to this mess. Does this mean we have to publish new ones to HMRC because the ones we did submit were perfectly legal !
Or is this a new reality that our legal accounts can go to the HMRC and the EFL P&S accounts go to the EFL whilst being basically Different?

[Carnero]

21 minutes ago, Spanish said:

3 lawyers and a professor are probably better than me and maybe you

If you say so.

[Mucker1884]

11 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? 

Change your username to @Gladyschops  ?

[Mucker1884]

9 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The rules require accounts to comply with the companies act. Ours did not.

 

Is that so?  How come HMRC aren't chasing us?

I hasten to add, that is a genuine question by someone who knows the square root of FA.  I'm not trying to pretend I know the answer, or blatantly calling you out.

[Rich84]

16 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Is that so?  How come HMRC aren't chasing us?

I hasten to add, that is a genuine question by someone who knows the square root of FA.  I'm not trying to pretend I know the answer, or blatantly calling you out.

Just about to ask the same question,  if the accounts don't comply with the Companies Act then surely HMRC will be after us.....

Also, for P+S, do we need to resubmit the 3 year rolling numbers that include the prior years,  everyone is focusing on 19/20 but 2016 and 2017 have an effect on the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 don't they? Which don't have the protection of the Stadium sale and with our policy will be more adversely affected as our policy didn't write off much value in the 1st 2 years of a player's contract

Edited June 27, 2021 by Rich84
Spelling

[Mucker1884]

5 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

Just about to ask the same question,  if the accounts don't comply with the Companies Act then surely HMRC will be after us.....

Also, for P+S, do we need to resubmit the 3 year rolling numbers that include the prior years,  everyone is focusing on 19/20 but 2016 and 2017 have an effect on the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 don't they? Which don't have the protection of the Stadium sale and with our policy will be more adversely affected as our policy didn't write off much value in the 1st 2 years of a player's contract

Are these the years that apparently were previously accepted by EFL, using the same accounting methods, but are now being told such methods are unacceptable?

Very good question then, if so.  

 

Also... we seem to have very similar surnames.  Are we related?

... and are you really, really Rich?  ?

[Rich84]

Yes, 2016, 2017 and 2018 are the years we need to resubmit but I'm hoping someone knows how that affects the prior years, or did the 3 yrs rolling and the loss allowance only start from 2016.

Only Rich by name I'm afraid..... 

[NottsRam77]

15 hours 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.

If that was the case … what punishment would we expect 

before any appeal from .. as @86 Hair Islandsrightly says in the absence of a crystal ball being available to the club 

if they are going to punish us retrospectively then surely we have a v strong case that had we known or been told our practices were wrong we could have adjusted/changed our method and our ongoing transfer policy 

Edited June 27, 2021 by NottsRam77

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

If you say so.

Impressive and I shan’t ask how big your willy is as it will probably depress me 

You implied - by cleverly circulating the club’s auditors statement - that the directors and the auditors have the same responsibility re the accounts. Given your expertise you’ll know that isn’t true. In my earlier post I was emphasising that it’s the directors who are the responsible parties, and I stand by that. The auditors have a different role. 
 

That point is a bit of a sideshow  The point I was on about is this: people on here keep saying the EFL approved our accounts. First, that’s not their job, role or responsibility. I’m guessing you and I can agree on that. Second, the truth is they didn’t understand until very shortly before the first DC hearing how we had actually done the amortisation calculations!! This is one reason why the whole case has been shambolic  

Why didn’t they understand what we had done ? Maybe incompetence, we don’t actually know  Certainly the DC suggested the EFl was partly to blame. But at appeal the EFl clearly took the LAP through the detailed chronology, in an attempt to show them the misunderstanding was not the EFL’s fault.   And it’s clear the LAP was convinced by the EFL’s version: the LAP basically said the misunderstanding arose because Pearce had misled the EFl  

Btw, surprising the appeal tribunal came to a different finding on a matter of evidence - I didn’t think they were supposed to do that.  Maybe that pi$$ed off the DC resulting in the ‘lenient’ sanction  So far...

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by kevinhectoring

[eccles the ram]

If we are going to be 'punished' then would our auditors have a case against the EFL as they are questioning the accounts validity? Also i believe chairman of other clubs would be looking very closely as this pans out. Don't believe every club in this division is whiter than white! Whose going to be next in the EFL firing line?

[cosmic]

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

If you say so.

Why would you screenshot this and not just upload the edited photo?

Edited June 27, 2021 by cosmic