Embargo.

[B4ev6is]

If I was mel I be taking it to court as we did nrothing wrong even dc and ps both said efl had no grounds to ask for points dudction that's why fined us 100k. Even that should not be given to us I think it should gone to boro.

[Keepyuppy]

Seeing as the Transfer window is closed till Jan, I’d be inclined to take the case to court ASAP and let an independent Legal Panel decide our fate - surely it should be resolved in the next 3 months and we’ll just carry on as best we can till then. 
 

[Crewton]

13 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

Well i don't think it could be any clearer,  i don't just read it as relating to transfers,

Any club in breach of any required payment terms would be subject to embargo and appear on the reporting service.

 

 

Well, I know what the question I asked them was, and I know how obliquely the answer they gave (appreciated though it was) addressed that question, so you'll just have to take my word when I say that the response could have been clearer. 

Or don't. I've stopped GAF. 

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, Yani P said:

The EFL want us punished, even though our accounting policy was not illegal it was just not covered by the rules.

They have a trump card right now - they can keep us under embargo basically

As I recall the LAP decision, it was found we used a method of amortisation that was not in accordance with the  FRS. I don’t think ‘illegal’ is the best word to use but the accounts were found to be non compliant with the standard. 

As for their ‘trump card’, I’m not sure you’re right. I think we could refuse their offer of -9 etc and say we’ll go another round in the disciplinary process. If we do that, then provided we’ve filed accounts and paid HMRC, we’re out of embargo aren’t we? The problem is, we don’t want another legal process so we are refusing their kind offer. Instead we are trying to get them to reduce it. And so far failing, it seems. 

In other words, the embargo is not their trump card, because it’s in our hands to have it lifted. Their trump card is further proceedings if we don’t agree their proposed sanction. And we want to avoid further proceedings for obvious reasons 

I think that’s what’s going on but tbh at this stage I can no longer be bothered to read the rules to check

Edited September 8, 2021 by kevinhectoring

[cheron85]

11 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

Or it could be that MM has been caught out and has nowhere to turn, as you say the silence coming out of the club is deafening, that is so unlike MM if he is on a winner.

Prefacing this by saying I have no insider info and have heard nothing

But if I was in a situation where I felt the EFL were being unreasonable and trying to force us to accept sanctions with seemingly no reason I would fight it - However if I was also trying to repair relationships with the EFL and show good faith to them I would be doing it in private - I wouldn't be shouting about it, I wouldn't be telling the fans how unreasonable the EFL are being and I wouldn't even make a single comment which could be construed by the EFL as being negative/aggravating 

It's frustrating for us not hearing anything - But I don't blame Morris for not saying anything - I think if he were to come out and let everyone know what the hold up is I suspect it would out the EFLs back up and make them dig their heels in further

[Wolfie]

12 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

We got found out for doing something that wasn't against the rules. Don't you understand the difference between breaking the rules and doing something not covered by the rules?

Of course I understand rules. I also understand being sneaky and under hand to use whatever loophole is there to gain an advantage - which is what we did - and have claimed it's purely coincidental. BS.

Right now I don't care if we deserve a punishment or not. The EFL aren't going to let this drop until we get one and we're not going to be able to make fresh start until they do.

[I know nuffin]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

As I recall the LAP decision, it was found we used a method of amortisation that was not in accordance with the  FRS. I don’t think ‘illegal’ is the best word to use but the accounts were found to be non compliant with the standard. 

As for their ‘trump card’, I’m not sure you’re right. I think we could refuse their offer of -9 etc and say we’ll go another round in the disciplinary process. If we do that, then provided we’ve filed accounts and paid HMRC, we’re out of embargo aren’t we? The problem is, we don’t want another legal process so we are refusing their kind offer. Instead we are trying to get them to reduce it. And so far failing, it seems. 

In other words, the embargo is not their trump card, because it’s in our hands to have it lifted. Their trump card is further proceedings if we don’t agree their proposed sanction. And we want to avoid further proceedings for obvious reasons 

I think that’s what’s going on but tbh at this stage I can no longer be bothered to read the rules to check

Three layers found we were not compliant. The first time when there was an accountant on the panel we were found to be compliment

[G STAR RAM]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

As I recall the LAP decision, it was found we used a method of amortisation that was not in accordance with the  FRS. I don’t think ‘illegal’ is the best word to use but the accounts were found to be non compliant with the standard. 

And what expertise did the LAP call upon when making this decision?

Because the IDC, that used accounting/auditing experts views concluded differently. 

I can categorically state that the method used IS in accordance with FRS.

Whether it is being applied correctly is a different matter.

Amortisation is an accounting estimate but if them estimates are not giving a true and fair view there will be indicators that show the auditors that the estimates are not reasonable. In this instance we would be making big losses every time a player was sold.

Of course many of our players ran their contacts down so it is hard ro say whether amortisation is correctly spread across their contracts.

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Of course I understand rules. I also understand being sneaky and under hand to use whatever loophole is there to gain an advantage - which is what we did - and have claimed it's purely coincidental. BS.

Right now I don't care if we deserve a punishment or not. The EFL aren't going to let this drop until we get one and we're not going to be able to make fresh start until they do.

We're really not talking about "loopholes" are we though? Certainly not in the sense of finding some gap in the law that the authorities didn't intend to be there.  The EFL rules say we have to comply with FRS102. Our accountants (and seemingly every other accountant that's looked at it properly) think we do comply.  We just happen to do things a little bit differently because (shocker, I know! ?) companies choose to organise their accounts in a way that suits the way they want to do business.  You can't have flexibility in the rules and then have a toddler-tantrum when not everyone produces exactly the same thing.  And let's be clear - that flexibility is there by design, because those rules cover a multitude of different business-types that do different things in different ways, so you'll never get a single uniform set of rules from something like FRS102.  So we're again back at the same thing I keep saying - if the EFL want accounts produced in a very strict and controlled way, they need to write the rules for it and publish them.  You can't have the situation where the EFL are enforcing rules that aren't written down.

[kevinhectoring]

13 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Prefacing this by saying I have no insider info and have heard nothing

But if I was in a situation where I felt the EFL were being unreasonable and trying to force us to accept sanctions with seemingly no reason I would fight it - However if I was also trying to repair relationships with the EFL and show good faith to them I would be doing it in private - I wouldn't be shouting about it, I wouldn't be telling the fans how unreasonable the EFL are being and I wouldn't even make a single comment which could be construed by the EFL as being negative/aggravating 

It's frustrating for us not hearing anything - But I don't blame Morris for not saying anything - I think if he were to come out and let everyone know what the hold up is I suspect it would out the EFLs back up and make them dig their heels in further

We have foolishly slagged off the EFl in previous club statements. The club disingenuously misdescribed the LAP decision in a club statement. Our use of the media to attempt to bludgeon the EFl has been part of our downfall and an indication Mel has no idea about how the politics of the EFl works. So yes you’re absolutely right, the dispute needs to be played out in private. And in public we need to show restraint and respect. 
But the closing of the transfer window after our manager told us he needed to and would recruit further was a major issue which requires the club to break the silence. It cannot be difficult for the EFl and the club (and the buyers?) to agree a statement that allows fans to think, ok they have said what they can. Perhaps it just isn’t a priority for Mel any more 
 

[DCFC27]

Interesting to see how this pans out, I feel we weren’t as blatantly underhand as Sheff Weds -  they litterally sold their ground and tried to put it in the accounts for the previous year retrospectively to stay compliant (that’s borderline fraud) 
Ours has been so much more subjective - 1 panel agreed with us another agreed with the EFL. I would have thought on that basis we shouldn’t get any more than them. In fact less as I genuinely believe that in the way we made up our accounts it was thought to be allowable - to the extent it’s taken 4/5 years for it to be found not to be. So there is some mitigation here. 

[kevinhectoring]

10 hours ago, Keepyuppy said:

Seeing as the Transfer window is closed till Jan, I’d be inclined to take the case to court ASAP and let an independent Legal Panel decide our fate - surely it should be resolved in the next 3 months and we’ll just carry on as best we can till then. 
 

You’ll recall that last time round Middlesborough intervened which caused a delay of months. You don’t think that would happen again ? Or something similar ? 

[falconram]

12 hours ago, ossieram said:

I was told the same and that Mel is willing to take this to the law courts.  

I don't know how or if the person who told me knows this for sure or if it's bs.

Genuine 

[24Charlie]

Is this good or bad? 

[Sparkle]

Meanwhile watford FC continue to sell players at inflated prices to their sister club in Italy and in return receive players at reduced cost to meet their finances/ restrictions and have been doing so for years and have at least two promotions on the back of it.

oh look Nottingham forest do the same 

meanwhile Wolves benefitted hugely from only loaning half of Portugal national team which no other team was allowed the same option to loan the same players.

I am not saying they should be punished because it’s a loophole close it or restrict it maybe.

the point I am making is that these are loopholes ( still open) but loop holes none the less and what we did was exploit  a loophole that might have Benefited us - it might not have but we currently don’t know that, but little else and what the EFL are doing is massively over the top spurred on by over zealous owners of other clubs and a consistent barrage of targeted negative press.

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

And what expertise did the LAP call upon when making this decision?

Because the IDC, that used accounting/auditing experts views concluded differently. 

I can categorically state that the method used IS in accordance with FRS.

Whether it is being applied correctly is a different matter.

Amortisation is an accounting estimate but if them estimates are not giving a true and fair view there will be indicators that show the auditors that the estimates are not reasonable. In this instance we would be making big losses every time a player was sold.

Of course many of our players ran their contacts down so it is hard ro say whether amortisation is correctly spread across their contracts.

Professor Pope

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

Of course I understand rules. I also understand being sneaky and under hand to use whatever loophole is there to gain an advantage - which is what we did - and have claimed it's purely coincidental. BS.

Right now I don't care if we deserve a punishment or not. The EFL aren't going to let this drop until we get one and we're not going to be able to make fresh start until they do.

Gaining advantage using a loophole is not 'sneaky and underhand'! 

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Professor Pope

I think the lawyers of the LAP made their judgment on the legal basis that prof pope was presented as an expert witness, thus his evidence was better than anyone else and thus had to be accepted. The DC did not seem happy with that but were bound to accept.

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Professor Pope

Time to quote my favourite Professor Pope bit from the DC1 written reasons again...

Although this runs it a close second...

[24Charlie]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Gaining advantage using a loophole is not 'sneaky and underhand'! 

It’s certainly not sporting, which is what football is supposed to be.

Gone are the days when the batsman “walked” mores the pity. 
 

In the context of the make up of the championship it seems the only way to compete with parachute payment clubs is to seek out and take advantage of loopholes.