Rev Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 If you dine with a cannibal, sooner or later you're going to get eaten. Boycie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram a lamb a ding dong Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 If they don't go up this year they will be subject to FFP. Only thing will be to save assetts but I don't know of they have many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram a lamb a ding dong Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 When I say if they go up I should amend that to read they WONT go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 47 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: People who said the amortisation policy was compliant/acceptable: Stephen Pearce - DCFC CEO, Chartered Accountant Andrew Delve - Smith Cooper (auditors) , Chartered Accountant James Karran - EFL CFO Graeme McPherson QC - Sports Lawyer Robert Englehart QC - Sports Lawyer James Stanbury - Foresnic Accountant People who said it wasn't: Rick Parry - EFL Chairman Charles Hollander QC - Sports Lawyer Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson - Sports Lawyer (among other fields) David Phillips QC - Sports Lawyer Professor Peter Pope - Professor of Accounting I know which side of the fence I would sit on regarding an accounting matter. The issue is it's the other side of the fence who have the final say Shame about the first name on the list of those that said it was compliant. It kind of damages the credibility ? RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty Swollocks Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 1 minute ago, Tamworthram said: Shame about the first name on the list of those that said it was compliant. It kind of damages the credibility ? Didn`t Nick De Marco (Sports Lawyer) also say that what we did was compliant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 1 hour ago, i-Ram said: That is exactly me today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 42 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: People who said the amortisation policy was compliant/acceptable: Stephen Pearce - DCFC CEO, Chartered Accountant Andrew Delve - Smith Cooper (auditors) , Chartered Accountant James Karran - EFL CFO Graeme McPherson QC - Sports Lawyer Robert Englehart QC - Sports Lawyer James Stanbury - Foresnic Accountant People who said it wasn't: Rick Parry - EFL Chairman Charles Hollander QC - Sports Lawyer Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson - Sports Lawyer (among other fields) David Phillips QC - Sports Lawyer Professor Peter Pope - Professor of Accounting I know which side of the fence I would sit on regarding an accounting matter. The issue is it's the other side of the fence who have the final say Also worth noting that Professor Pope’s testimony was criticised as he had no practical experience of preparing accounts, nor experience of the football industry (meaning some of his assumptions about the player market were questionable). He was also told that if ever called again he needed to learn about the role of an expert witness to provide facts and illuminate technical arguments, not present the argument for one of the litigants (if that’s the right term in this case). On that basis his testimony was thrown out - a decision overturned by the IDC without allowing DCFC to present a new witness to counter his newly allowed contribution. I know DCFC we’re criticised for not providing their own witness but this is (yet another) stitch up. The amortisation charge was added last minute and they didn’t have time to sort out a witness. As they were talking about whether accounts that had passed audit over several years were audit-compliant it was self-evident to all the practicing accountants involved that this wasn’t an issue. If they’d been told at the outset that the knowledge of Pearce and panel members would be disregarded, I’m sure they would have requested an adjournment to sort an expert witness. They weren’t told this. And this wasn’t the position until several steps down the line, and then (again) applied retrospectively as though it was an oversight on our part. Worth noting that Parry’s deal allowing a Gibson to pursue independently only applies if we were found guilty of a charge - any charge. So it makes you think why anomalies like the above witness nonsense, and the multiple appeals until they get a result, happened. Betty Swollocks, Day, JoetheRam and 6 others 6 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 11 minutes ago, R@M said: You are confusing law with regulations. The law is vague to allow for the businesses you mention, the EFL did not specify that a particular line of accounting should be used under their rules, until 3 years later. The EFL rules specify that you must comply with FRS102. FRS102 is deliberately vague. Hence there's argument over whether we complied or not. Carnero, Crewton and RadioactiveWaste 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, Betty Swollocks said: Didn`t Nick De Marco (Sports Lawyer) also say that what we did was compliant? To be fair, we were paying him to argue our case, so it would have been a bit of a shocker if he'd said the opposite. RadioactiveWaste, rammieib and Tamworthram 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, Indy said: Also worth noting that Professor Pope’s testimony was criticised as he had no practical experience of preparing accounts, nor experience of the football industry (meaning some of his assumptions about the player market were questionable). He was also told that if ever called again he needed to learn about the role of an expert witness to provide facts and illuminate technical arguments, not present the argument for one of the litigants (if that’s the right term in this case). On that basis his testimony was thrown out - a decision overturned by the IDC without allowing DCFC to present a new witness to counter his newly allowed contribution. I know DCFC we’re criticised for not providing their own witness but this is (yet another) stitch up. The amortisation charge was added last minute and they didn’t have time to sort out a witness. As they were talking about whether accounts that had passed audit over several years were audit-compliant it was self-evident to all the practicing accountants involved that this wasn’t an issue. If they’d been told at the outset that the knowledge of Pearce and panel members would be disregarded, I’m sure they would have requested an adjournment to sort an expert witness. They weren’t told this. And this wasn’t the position until several steps down the line, and then (again) applied retrospectively as though it was an oversight on our part. Worth noting that Parry’s deal allowing a Gibson to pursue independently only applies if we were found guilty of a charge - any charge. So it makes you think why anomalies like the above witness nonsense, and the multiple appeals until they get a result, happened. That’s why a public inquiry is needed Day and Indy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: To be fair, we were paying him to argue our case, so it would have been a bit of a shocker if he'd said the opposite. M'learned colleagues, I will note that I do not agree with the argument presented, however, as im on the clock, the presence of several work colleagues at the drinking contest confirm that the drinks party was in fact a work meeting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black ('n' White) Sheep Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said: Not long now ⚽️⚽️ You little tease... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram a lamb a ding dong Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 Nixin reckons a month delay is on the cards. Won't surprise me in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, Indy said: Also worth noting that Professor Pope’s testimony was criticised as he had no practical experience of preparing accounts, nor experience of the football industry (meaning some of his assumptions about the player market were questionable). He was also told that if ever called again he needed to learn about the role of an expert witness to provide facts and illuminate technical arguments, not present the argument for one of the litigants (if that’s the right term in this case). On that basis his testimony was thrown out - a decision overturned by the IDC without allowing DCFC to present a new witness to counter his newly allowed contribution. I know DCFC we’re criticised for not providing their own witness but this is (yet another) stitch up. The amortisation charge was added last minute and they didn’t have time to sort out a witness. As they were talking about whether accounts that had passed audit over several years were audit-compliant it was self-evident to all the practicing accountants involved that this wasn’t an issue. If they’d been told at the outset that the knowledge of Pearce and panel members would be disregarded, I’m sure they would have requested an adjournment to sort an expert witness. They weren’t told this. And this wasn’t the position until several steps down the line, and then (again) applied retrospectively as though it was an oversight on our part. Worth noting that Parry’s deal allowing a Gibson to pursue independently only applies if we were found guilty of a charge - any charge. So it makes you think why anomalies like the above witness nonsense, and the multiple appeals until they get a result, happened. We had the option to either get someone or delay (to give us time to get someone). Due to the evidence Prof Pope was giving, DCFC opted not to bother. We could have had pretty much anyone acting as a witness and the LAP decision would have been different. It went back to the DC who obviously disagreed with their decision, whose verdict was for us to restate the accounts with a compliant method. We adjusted our 'Derby method' to still be non-linear but the EFL obviously disagreed as they wanted a linear one which resulted in a points deduction. If we didn't go into administration and we had the time the club would have fought for it. However, Mel put us into administration, the administrators didn't have the time to fight against the EFL, so we were forced into reverting to a straight line method and forced into a points deduction. There is no doubt we would have failed future periods without a lot of player sales, but this was the risk highlighted by the EFL's current CFO after having a meeting with club reps in 2019. Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, Ram a lamb a ding dong said: Nixin reckons a month delay is on the cards. Won't surprise me in the least. ??? IslandExile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, Ram a lamb a ding dong said: Nixin reckons a month delay is on the cards. Won't surprise me in the least. Wouldn't 'proof of funds' be for the whole season ie to its end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, StaffsRam said: ??? We'll be stripped bare by the vultures looking to get bargains if that's the case - all the good work done by Rooney & the players will be wasted if we have to rely on under-18s to see out the season..... RadioactiveWaste, BriggRam and Ram a lamb a ding dong 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, StaffsRam said: ??? Nothing good in that if at all true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said: Wouldn't 'proof of funds' be for the whole season ie to its end? Believe he had a tweet about it being to the end of the season (last game), rather than to the end of the season (June 30th, where player contracts end). RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eatonram Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 Oh Please not another can kicking....my head can't stand it. LeedsCityRam, Archied, Tamworthram and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now