Hxj

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. I would prefer - "Didn't realise the extent to which clubs would go to bend the rules" - clearly none of them had kids! The problem is that until the end of the season, you can't tell what the FFP position actually is, so this fails on the 'Theoretically good, practically impossible' test. Two points here. Firstly the new crowd are better than the old crowd. Secondly the EFL did tighten up significantly on accounts submission with the soft embargos, moving to hard embargos for such failures. The extended failure for Derby simply harms them, not anyone else. This is a commonly quoted problem, but it does not really exist. No club can take legal action through the courts against the EFL or another club. What they can do is go to arbitration on a relevant dispute. That is a perfectly valid position and regulatory system to adopt. Agreed, and I think that, contrary to an awful lot on here that Steve Lansdown is an excellent owner.

Well enforced government regulation will result in the FA being thrown out of UEFA and FIFA, so that would work well! Derby is a red herring. They are in a Hard Embargo, so any delay in submitting the accounts will simply hamper their recruitment policy further.

The often forgotten fundamental problem with the EFL Championship is that it is a Member's Club that everyone wants to leave. A quarter of the members will every year. Governance of any such organisation will be problematic regardless of how it is done. No system is perfect and all will appear to be biased in some way or another. The EFL needs to take the vast majority of clubs with it on any changes. With the ever changing membership and differing priorities that will never be easy. As regards FFP specifically, I know that there are a range of views out there. My view is that a Member's club which last season takes action which results in one club being relegated (Sheffield Wednesday) and another having a seriously close relationship with potential relegation (Derby County) and this season has three clubs Transfer Embargoes of one sort or another cannot be doing a bad job. The FFP rules are signed up to and agreed as are the sanctions and information requirements as part of becoming or remaining a member of the EFL. The level of resistance from various clubs as been problematic, as has the EFL's Board inconsistent 'prosecution' of the offences, however the previous powers that be were to condoning of bad behaviour. That said I would rather look forwards than backwards. I would say that there are two recently good signs that matters are improving. Firstly the published Embargo List, and secondly the announcement that all clubs were missed the filing deadline for their statutory accounts last season were on a soft embargo. I appreciate that it had no real impact, but it was a sign if intent. It also made it much easier to put clubs on stricter embargos if the failure continued, which did happen. As to improvements I would make it compulsory for each club (or relevant group to have a 31 May accounting date, submit their audited financial statements and final FFP statements by mid June, with any disciplinary action to be taken by the end of June. Failure to comply would mean automatic expulsion. Football clubs are not inherently complex as regards their accounts, so the deadline would be easily achievable.

On adoption of FRS 102 in 2016 you can revert to a 'Cost' basis for all assets. So you remove the revaluation Reserve and reduce the revalued asset to cost. You therefore 'create' an addition £30 million profit on the sale of the asset. Amazing how far sighted Morris was ???

Sadly, by some god given co-incidence, 2016 was the first accounting period that Derby adopted FRS 102 so there is no history of adoption of any policy ... oh and I was in error above the actual adjustment is made on adoption of FRS 102 which was in 2016.

Don't usually comment on 'Match Day Threads' but just got back from Middlesbrough and some time with friends, two of whom were also at the match (as 'boro fans). First time I have been at a City match since February 2019, so that was good. The Pukka pie at The Riverside was also very piping hot, so good as was plenty of free parking. Walked back to the car with the two clearly tactically aware 'boro fans, they used words and phrases like what @Davefevs does ???. They thought that they should have won easily, but didn't and that Atkinson has the potential to be a great player. They were also impressed by the tactical change of Kalas at right back and Weimann playing on the right. Personally I saw a plan, maybe not greatly executed, but at least a plan. To me Martin and Weimann looked rusty, which is not unexpected. The relationship between Baker/Atkinson/King/James was interesting, but all so new. Scott has talent, but like most of the City team was out 'gamed' by 'boro. I travel to enjoy the football, which I did, except for the following. To the 'fan' immediately behind me who spent the whole match telling his kid (I guess 8-10) how 'F-ing sh-te' all the city players were and how particularly 'sh-te' any one was who wasn't a WASP and the foul and abusive terminology used about the non-WASP players, I have have your photo and you have been reported to the police.

The issue will boil down to how much DCFC can alter the accounts previously submitted on resubmission. The FRS 102 accounts (2016 onwards) are on a 'Revaluation Basis' which is entirely acceptable, as would accounts on a 'Cost Basis'. What I am unsure of is how compliant the accounts would be if on resubmission, the basis was changed from a 'Revaluation Basis' to a 'Cost Basis'. hence releasing the additional profit. This will only effect the periods to 2018, 2019 and 2020 plus 2021. There is also the issue relating to the rent paid, as mentioned in the original DC decision.

I think you missed the point from the LAP decision that it appeared that the club had misled the auditors too ....

So have you handed your driving licence back as I doubt you have not committed at least 4 speeding offences in the last three years. Or do you mean - if I didn't get caught it doesn't count? The 'players of professional standing position' is as a direct result of playing an FA Cup match whereas Northampton were not required to play their league matches. To me natural justice requires an intelligent nuanced approach to punishment.

I look at say Northampton and Derby as far as playing matches go and in the particular circumstances feel that justice is best served by the current outcome. I have no doubts that Keogh's payment was a football debt, it was awarded by a Football Tribunal. Any part due by now has therefore been paid. Derby are already on a hard embargo, it's just the terms of the embargo that now cause angst.

I know I'll get slated for this, but I have some sympathy for Derby on the player position. The club still has a mountain of debt and no one wants to own them. Whilst they can sign players, they are limited and start their campaign in 18 days time, and haven't signed anyone yet. Plus of course we are still awaiting the FFP position.

Wow! Derby have paid their outstanding transfer fees!

It's where I got too as well - so it must be right!

I think that he has been incredibly successful at tightening up the rules, increasing transparency and keeping the majority of clubs onside.

I am sure that his statement is as honest as all the others. Whilst there might be a further profit, that means that there also might not be. Surprising that given the time passed he doesn't actually know there is. A bit like all the official DCFC statements that fail to mention whether they fail the P&S loss limits or pass them. That would be something that I would have checked when the EFL first got concerned. If I passed I could have restated the accounts, agreed to a non-points sanction and moved on. Technically it is for the EFL to propose an 'agreed sanction' with a list of reasons and for the club to accept or reject. In addition costs follow the decision so if the club was sanctioned at any hearing it would have to pay some costs as well. That said we all know that the decisions are not made in a vacuum. However I don't see a conspiracy here, but then I generally don't. I would consider the suspended (until the end of the 2021/22 season) 3 point penalty for a one month failure to pay the players an entirely reasonable sanction.

It simplifies and speeds up justice and it reduces costs significantly. Team A has breached FFP by say an amount which it means a 6 point penalty arises. If both parties so wish, why not agree a 6 point penalty arises.

My understanding is that the EFL as a corporate group has been genuinely knocked for six by the amount of bad publicity in respect of the disciplinary processes. They didn't really understand that company accounts are freely available, easy to access, and generally easy to read, plus of course it is obvious from other public records (such as the Land Registry) who has done what and when. So from a point where little was done on financial compliance, we are now at the point where this season: Sheffield Wednesday ended up with a 6 point penalty; Derby County got a £100,000 fine and a requirement to restate all the defective accounts; A large number of clubs were put on a soft transfer embargo for not submitting accounts to Companies House on time; Sheffield Wednesday have a 6 point suspended penalty for not paying some of their players over an extended period; Derby County have a 3 point suspended penalty for not paying any of their players for one month; Hull City are on a transfer embargo as a condition of the loan they took out; Reading are on a transfer embargo for a breach of P&S rules; Derby County are on a transfer embargo for numerous offences. We have publication of the Embargo List, with reasons. Fixed asset sale profits no longer count for P&S purposes I'm more than happy for now. I would love to see further progress, but good so far.

More than likely PAYE/NIC, a bit of a strain on cash flow when you keep having to put your hand in your pocket.

No one further at this point. Once the 2021 accounts are supplied along with the final P&S figures then other clubs might be brought into the net.

Sounds like a hard embargo to me, could be just as promised by the EFL for all clubs where the 2020 accounts and disclosure not agreed by the end of June.

Apologies, but I simply don't agree with the criticism of the EFL on this. The issue always was about FFP and the charges brought in respect of the amortisation were always secondary on the path of did they breach FFP? If DCFC have not breached FFP then there is no further offence, if they have the charges will run again. In the meantime, DCFC have an owner who wants to get rid, and no one who wants to buy, plus they are either on a soft embargo (buy players at a wage of less than £600,000 a year), or a hard one (buy no one). To date no one has come in and a significant part of their squad has left. Currently looking very much like a favourite for relegation.

That's because you spend far too much time on this board and the general hatred for Steve Lansdown for not putting enough of his money in to a club that he his hated for owning!

If Venkys is the TopCo for FFP purposes then group accounts have to be prepared for the year ending on a date in the period from 31 May to 31 July - see reg 1.1.3 penultimate paragraph: "If the accounting reference date falls at any other time, separate accounts for the Club or the Group as appropriate must be prepared for a period of twelve months ending on a date between 31 May and 31 July inclusive, and in such a case “Annual Accounts” means those accounts." That reads better! Firstly the problem with the amortisation method used was, quoting the actual decision at para 108.a, that " ... it was impermissible in amortising under the cost model in relation to the accounts for 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 for the Club to take into account possible resale values of players." So using a different method with resale values is still impermissible. Using some sort of flexible amortisation is possible, but that would need extensive documentation to demonstrate and we already know that that does not exist. As far as I can see it is a simple straight line, nothing else is possible. There really is not enough good data out there to determine if Derby failed or passed FFP. If Leeds had failed FFP then they would have had to have taken the punishment, but there is no evidence that they did, I am sure that they actually passed it. Failing is cheating, not failing is not cheating. Also one living on the edge, but I suspect that a good dose of averaging, Parachutes and judicious covid related amortisation will see them through.

Probably just a vain end of year attempt to make the balance sheet look a little better. They haven't put any share capital in for a good few years, so I suspect that the EFL were also getting twitchy.

Reading, Stoke, Blackburn all looking dodgy, plus some others. Difficult to see how it will all play out this season with the Covid exemptions and averaging. There will be some interesting arguments behind closed doors as to what is acceptable as a deduction.