EFL Verdict

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Found this earlier from when football was a lot simpler.  A good little watch . A pretty young Dave Mackay after about 7-8 minutes.

I can vaguely remember when going to football was just that rather than compiling dossiers on other teams auditors and accounts.

Sad but true, or maybe just exceedingly sad.

 

[hintonsboots]

I would guess that the next EFL press release will be under cover of the aftermath of the England game tonight , so we should know more by tomorrow.

Edited June 29, 2021 by hintonsboots

[Ghost of Clough]

9 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

You didn’t read my post.  It’s nothing to do with whether they CAN do it. It’s to do with whether it makes sense for the regulator to unpick everyone’s audited accounts 

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.

It also has to be stated that the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge.
Also, the original DC revealed that the EFL claimed to have only been made aware of the different amortisation policy shortly before bringing the charges in January 2020. Please also note that Kieran Maguire wrote to the EFL regarding the amortisation policy in June 2018.

Incompetence.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

It's good to touch base on this now and again. Currently we are only guilty after appeal of not flagging up a different amortisation policy to everyone else. Not an illegal one just a different one. 

Now, in time, due to the acceptance of the charge, we may be guilty of failing P&S BUT only if in time our resubmissions fail. So, to repeat, at this time we are only guilty of not flagging up a DIFFERENT BUT NOT illegal amortisation policy. BIG DEAL! 

I have to keep reminding myself incase I'm going mad. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[RadioactiveWaste]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.

It also has to be stated that the EFL made no attempt to clarify/understand the amortisation policy prior to the charge.
Also, the original DC revealed that the EFL claimed to have only been made aware of the different amortisation policy shortly before bringing the charges in January 2020. Please also note that Kieran Maguire wrote to the EFL regarding the amortisation policy in June 2018.

Incompetence.

And the various "this is what we want to do is it ok" dialogue - which whilst not in anyway binding, did demonstrate the EFL knew what we were doing or at the very least we weren't doing the standard method.

I remember Derby tried to argue that meant the charges should be dismissed but the panel three that out.

[duncanjwitham]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

A competent organisation wouldn't simply look at the bottom line figure, which is what you're suggesting. At the very least they should skim read the accounts for any obvious irregularities - the new amortisation being one.

The way the rules are written, with just a blanket "you must comply with FRS 102", it basically feels like the EFL have decided to outsource that particular competence to the people that actually have expertise on it.  They know they don't have the manpower or knowledge to properly audit every clubs accounts, so they decided to just leave a requirement to comply and trust HMRC/auditors etc to do it properly.  Which honestly seems a fairly sensible way of doing things to me.

That's why it feels so weird and wrong that they're suddenly making very specific requests about how accounts are to be submitted, and they're passing judgments on things that they have no legal authority to pass judgements on.  To my knowledge, no legal body has ever bestowed on the EFL the power to determine whether accounts are compliant with FRS102 or not.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The way the rules are written, with just a blanket "you must comply with FRS 102", it basically feels like the EFL have decided to outsource that particular competence to the people that actually have expertise on it.  They know they don't have the manpower or knowledge to properly audit every clubs accounts, so they decided to just leave a requirement to comply and trust HMRC/auditors etc to do it properly.  Which honestly seems a fairly sensible way of doing things to me.

That's why it feels so weird and wrong that they're suddenly making very specific requests about how accounts are to be submitted, and they're passing judgments on things that they have no legal authority to pass judgements on.  To my knowledge, no legal body has ever bestowed on the EFL the power to determine whether accounts are compliant with FRS102 or not.

Or if FRS102 is inadequate (not prescriptive enough) to submit P&S returns.

[Reggie Greenwood]

10 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Found this earlier from when football was a lot simpler.  A good little watch . A pretty young Dave Mackay after about 7-8 minutes.

I can vaguely remember when going to football was just that rather than compiling dossiers on other teams auditors and accounts.

Sad but true, or maybe just exceedingly sad.

 

We got banned from Europe in 1970 for financial irregularities which lead to the appointment of Stuart Webb so maybe football was never simpler ??

[Spanish]

34 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

It's good to touch base on this now and again. Currently we are only guilty after appeal of not flagging up a different amortisation policy to everyone else. Not an illegal one just a different one. 

Now, in time, due to the acceptance of the charge, we may be guilty of failing P&S BUT only if in time our resubmissions fail. So, to repeat, at this time we are only guilty of not flagging up a DIFFERENT BUT NOT illegal amortisation policy. BIG DEAL! 

I have to keep reminding myself incase I'm going mad. 

we have been found guilty on 2nd particular of the 2nd charge as well as the 5th (disclosure)

106. In the event we allow the appeal on the sole ground that it was impermissible in amortising
under the cost model for the Club to take into account possible resale values of players
and in consequence we find the second charge proved in relation to the second but not
the third or fourth particular in relation to each of the 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18
accounts.

we have yet to know whether we have breached due to the demand to restate on a straight line basis, it would be effing ironic if we don't breach

[Carnero]

18 minutes ago, Spanish said:

we have yet to know whether we have breached due to the demand to restate on a straight line basis, it would be effing ironic if we don't breach

It'll be sweet justice if/when we don't breach. We'll be making savings for the following seasons 2018/19 & 2019/20 by re-doing the figures so they'll have done us an inadvertent favour.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

It's good to touch base on this now and again. Currently we are only guilty after appeal of not flagging up a different amortisation policy to everyone else. Not an illegal one just a different one. 

Now, in time, due to the acceptance of the charge, we may be guilty of failing P&S BUT only if in time our resubmissions fail. So, to repeat, at this time we are only guilty of not flagging up a DIFFERENT BUT NOT illegal amortisation policy. BIG DEAL! 

I have to keep reminding myself incase I'm going mad. 

The DC originally deemed the only wrong-doing was not detailing the policy adequately in the accounts. [Note: the DC were a group of accountants]

The LAP deemed the policy to not be compliant with FRS102, hence why we now have to resubmit the P&S figures with a standard amortisation policy. [Note: the LAP were a group of lawyers]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

And the various "this is what we want to do is it ok" dialogue - which whilst not in anyway binding, did demonstrate the EFL knew what we were doing or at the very least we weren't doing the standard method.

I remember Derby tried to argue that meant the charges should be dismissed but the panel three that out.

I think that only apllied to the stadium sale to be fair

Edited June 29, 2021 by Ghost of Clough

[RadioactiveWaste]

What were parts 3 and 4?

25 minutes ago, Spanish said:

we have been found guilty on 2nd particular of the 2nd charge as well as the 5th (disclosure)

106. In the event we allow the appeal on the sole ground that it was impermissible in amortising
under the cost model for the Club to take into account possible resale values of players
and in consequence we find the second charge proved in relation to the second but not
the third or fourth particular in relation to each of the 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18
accounts.

we have yet to know whether we have breached due to the demand to restate on a straight line basis, it would be effing ironic if we don't breach

 

[Ghost of Clough]

9 minutes ago, Carnero said:

It'll be sweet justice if/when we don't breach. We'll be making savings for the following seasons 2018/19 & 2019/20 by re-doing the figures so they'll have done us an inadvertent favour.

I was thinking about this in bed last night (?). 

They were almost certain they would win charge 1 (stadium sale), but they didn't know how much would be knocked off the sale value. If it only dropped it to £65m for example, we still would have passed P&S for the period. However, if they could also get us to restate our amortisation figures, then we would certainly have failed P&S as a result.

Perhaps they're trying to push for a harsher penalty for now, because they know/think we'll pass with the restated figures.

[Ghost of Clough]

10 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

What were parts 3 and 4?

 

3. That we anticipate an economic benefit (sale)

4. Reliably estimate ERVs (values)

[Carnero]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I was thinking about this in bed last night (?). 

?

[Woodley Ram]

I think the EFL need to recruit some staff as I guess there are a number of clubs such as Stoke that will be trying to be creative with Covid debt.  Just think next season could start off with half of the Championship on -12 points

[Tamworthram]

1 minute ago, Woodley Ram said:

I think the EFL need to recruit some staff as I guess there are a number of clubs such as Stoke that will be trying to be creative with Covid debt.  Just think next season could start off with half of the Championship on -12 points

My current contract end on 30th June so, I’m available and promise to be completely impartial ?

[derbydaz22]

6 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I think the EFL need to recruit some staff as I guess there are a number of clubs such as Stoke that will be trying to be creative with Covid debt.  Just think next season could start off with half of the Championship on -12 points

The only problem is they only seem interested in Derby’s accounts at the moment unless Gibson picks up the phone and mentions Stoke etc.

[Spanish]

57 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I was thinking about this in bed last night (?). 

They were almost certain they would win charge 1 (stadium sale), but they didn't know how much would be knocked off the sale value. If it only dropped it to £65m for example, we still would have passed P&S for the period. However, if they could also get us to restate our amortisation figures, then we would certainly have failed P&S as a result.

Perhaps they're trying to push for a harsher penalty for now, because they know/think we'll pass with the restated figures.

As we all suspect they must have a pretty good idea what the figs will look like.  Did you read the inadmissible evidence paper from LAP, that's got some good data in it and shows what their thoughts are.  I am not so confident that we will pass but that is merely a hunch and hopefully very wrong

you are right, they thought the DC would find us guilty on charge 1 and I think both sides fought so hard on that one, neither side did enough on charge 2.

[Woodley Ram]

5 minutes ago, Spanish said:

As we all suspect they must have a pretty good idea what the figs will look like.  Did you read the inadmissible evidence paper from LAP, that's got some good data in it and shows what their thoughts are.  I am not so confident that we will pass but that is merely a hunch and hopefully very wrong

you are right, they thought the DC would find us guilty on charge 1 and I think both sides fought so hard on that one, neither side did enough on charge 2.

do you have a link to that paper?