FFP breakdown

[The Rational Fan]

I admire your bravery with regard to the confidence you have in the integrity of auditors and the accountancy profession.

I agree.  Bury's books were 'a mess for perhaps a decade', but not until the prospective buyers bothered to forensically examine them at the start of this season was the real root cause of the Club's demise identified.  Accountants and auditors are as good as they can get away with and anyone who imagines the football authorities and their armies of fair play specialists to be effective are probably living in cloud cuckoo land.  Some of the worse examples of accountancy over a long period of time seem to be found in that one single example of a club in trouble and so why didn't the EFL's units of fairness identify the appalling anomalies that were present and actually save them?

Well, don't blame KPMG often the accounts are accurate but football clubs have bought players that turn out to be worthless then pain sell them buy new players that are even worse and leave their value sky high. It's not long before you have players on premier league wages that cannot even help in a championship relegation battle. The Fulham accounts show that if 100% of the players we currently have all started playing at League Two standard without extra investment that is where we would end up.

[Statto]

We are not run by a public company so the "Annual Accounts" can be whatever TK and his father want, it is much the same with the majority of clubs, they just have to comply with whatever regulation is in place and can interpret it as they please.

Doesn't matter that we're not a public company.
Fraudulent accounting is still an offence.
Plus, I cannot be bothered to check but am quite sure there will be other accounting offences under the Companies Act.
And KPMG are not going to risk becoming the next Arthur Anderson for a small client like Fulham (if at all).
And we are not Bury.
This whole line of argument about TK making up whatever numbers he wants, "fiddling" the accounts etc is frankly absurd.
There are of course legitimate accounting techniques we can use if beneficial (eg impariment) but fundamentally, the accounts won't be deceitful.
Also I'm not even sure whether/why TK would be involved in the accounts. He's not an accountant.

[Roberty]

We are not run by a public company so the "Annual Accounts" can be whatever TK and his father want, it is much the same with the majority of clubs, they just have to comply with whatever regulation is in place and can interpret it as they please.

Doesn't matter that we're not a public company.
Fraudulent accounting is still an offence.
Plus, I cannot be bothered to check but am quite sure there will be other accounting offences under the Companies Act.
And KPMG are not going to risk becoming the next Arthur Anderson for a small client like Fulham (if at all).
And we are not Bury.
This whole line of argument about TK making up whatever numbers he wants, "fiddling" the accounts etc is frankly absurd.
There are of course legitimate accounting techniques we can use if beneficial (eg impairment) but fundamentally, the accounts won't be deceitful.
Also I'm not even sure whether/why TK would be involved in the accounts. He's not an accountant.

My comment was not about the FFC accounts or the owners making up the numbers but about your reliance on the integrity of accountancy profession. The football authorities obviously recognize this because they have their own rules and governance for FFP.

It does matter, ask A M Sugar - because the share holders can impose their will on the management, no matter what the cost to the company, which is why he brought Amstrad back from his shareholders

There is nothing fraudulent about interpreting the rules to suit your needs - as you may already know "tax avoidance" is perfectly legal, it's "tax evasion" that's illegal, as Al Capone found out.

All of the "Big Four" have already been caught providing a poor standard of performance for shareholders and have been fined, censured or prosecuted for it. For an accountancy practice the incentive to overlook creative management accounting is that they will be appointed for another year at the AGM, thus the recent demands that Auditors should not be appointed for life.

[The Rational Fan]

We are not run by a public company so the "Annual Accounts" can be whatever TK and his father want, it is much the same with the majority of clubs, they just have to comply with whatever regulation is in place and can interpret it as they please.

Doesn't matter that we're not a public company.
Fraudulent accounting is still an offence.
Plus, I cannot be bothered to check but am quite sure there will be other accounting offences under the Companies Act.
And KPMG are not going to risk becoming the next Arthur Anderson for a small client like Fulham (if at all).
And we are not Bury.
This whole line of argument about TK making up whatever numbers he wants, "fiddling" the accounts etc is frankly absurd.
There are of course legitimate accounting techniques we can use if beneficial (eg impariment) but fundamentally, the accounts won't be deceitful.
Also I'm not even sure whether/why TK would be involved in the accounts. He's not an accountant.

The DOF determines player current valuations, which our accountant would use to adjust impair values and KPMG will audit those numbers. Each player valuation has a range of values that the DOF could say that would not be Fraudulent Accounting. KPMG expertise is accounting and not player valuations, so provided Fulham uses a reasonable method that would probably be accepted. This discussion started debating "how much money was left for this season" and the answer is a loan or two is within the wiggle room that delaying impairment of player valuations allow.

Importantly, I would note that it seems Tony Khan didn't use the wiggle room to get another loan and probably impaired Seri, MLM and Fabri a little to close to the price they can be sold for. Transfermarkt has written down Fabri to £1m but if he gets a Liga A game, his value will go straight back up and will be booking a profit.

[toshes mate]

Perhaps some of you have forgotten it is the owners who run the EFL and determine what rules and protocols are included in, and manage the processes of, things like FFP and penalties for wrongdoings or breaches.  Post Bury FC demise the EFL promised a renewed effort to have an independent body implement and manage the whole show including the fair financial play processes something that has long been high up on the football supporters associations' wish list.  The owners get to vote on such changes but supporters do not.  Football supporters are long term investors, one way or another, but owners are not.   

Supporter attendances in the English game peaked in the 1950s and are still down on those heights even in the PL with its ever larger stadia.  Championship attendances are currently around a third down (34%) on the 1950s peak having hit their rock bottom towards the end of the last century.  Leagues One and Two (ex-Third Division North and Third Division South etc) continue a steady decline from 1950s peak having shown absolutely no restorative trends in seventy years. 

Do football club owners seriously give a damn?

[Statto]

We are not run by a public company so the "Annual Accounts" can be whatever TK and his father want, it is much the same with the majority of clubs, they just have to comply with whatever regulation is in place and can interpret it as they please.

Doesn't matter that we're not a public company.
Fraudulent accounting is still an offence.
Plus, I cannot be bothered to check but am quite sure there will be other accounting offences under the Companies Act.
And KPMG are not going to risk becoming the next Arthur Anderson for a small client like Fulham (if at all).
And we are not Bury.
This whole line of argument about TK making up whatever numbers he wants, "fiddling" the accounts etc is frankly absurd.
There are of course legitimate accounting techniques we can use if beneficial (eg impariment) but fundamentally, the accounts won't be deceitful.
Also I'm not even sure whether/why TK would be involved in the accounts. He's not an accountant.

The DOF determines player current valuations, which our accountant would use to adjust impair values and KPMG will audit those numbers. Each player valuation has a range of values that the DOF could say that would not be Fraudulent Accounting. KPMG expertise is accounting and not player valuations, so provided Fulham uses a reasonable method that would probably be accepted. This discussion started debating "how much money was left for this season" and the answer is a loan or two is within the wiggle room that delaying impairment of player valuations allow.

Importantly, I would note that it seems Tony Khan didn't use the wiggle room to get another loan and probably impaired Seri, MLM and Fabri a little to close to the price they can be sold for. Transfermarkt has written down Fabri to £1m but if he gets a Liga A game, his value will go straight back up and will be booking a profit.

I'll repeat that I'm no expert but impairment, as I understand it, has nothing to do with the player's market value or TK's perceived value of the player.   

It's purely bringing losses (amortisation) forward into the current season where your revenue is high (eg a season in the PL), presumably to reduce the profits on which tax is payable and/or avoid having to book those losses in future seasons (for FFP). 

Either way, whilst the accounts would of course be signed off by all directors, including TK, applying impairment would be largely a common sense decision, probably suggested, and certainly implemented, by the accountants, not TK.

I can't see it at any stage involving TK "determining player current valuations". 

[We Are Premier League]

Seri ang Anguissa are probably on our books for a total of approximately 30m at the moment, probably not far from their real value given that they are both playing every game for the respective loan clubs. I.e. a sale of them in the summer shouldn't have much impact on our transfer budget.

[The Rational Fan]

I'll repeat that I'm no expert but impairment, as I understand it, has nothing to do with the player's market value or TK's perceived value of the player.

I am not an accountant but have taught accounting at university so know a little. If you build a building (a fixed tangible asset) that is designed to last 40 years, that cost £40m then you would depreciate over 40 years at £1m per year. An Chartered Engineer (or quantity surveyor) would determine the length that the building is designed to last, from time to time a Chartered Engineer (or quantity surveyor) would verify how long the building is going to last and any impairment in value. If after 10 years, the Chartered Engineer said it will have to be rebuilt in another 10 years, then 20 years of impairment would occur.

Similarly, for the fixed intangible assets of football players we use amortization, it's the clubs Football expert (i.e. our DOF) that will determine who long a player will last at the club. The normally time a player is assumed to last a club is the length of his first contract unless you're Derby that amorizated some players over a longer period than the player's contracts (i.e. assumed they would sign some extensions).

The only difference is while building and land value have professional bodies that approve who can provide valuations (e.g. Charter Engineers and Quanity Surveyors), I am unaware of a professional body that approves of people that provide football valuations so it could be anyone inside the club and probably the DOF.

It's purely bringing losses (amortisation) forward into the current season where your revenue is high (eg a season in the PL), presumably to reduce the profits on which tax is payable and/or avoid having to book those losses in future seasons (for FFP). 

That may be in fact what happens, but it is definitely not was is supposed to happen and KPMG should call out a DOF out for doing that. What the DOF should do and would claim he is doing is "correcting for a larger than expected fall in player value" and not as he would actually do "bringing amortization forward into the current season when it suits him". If a player has a career-ending injury, his value should be completely impaired, but you will find that some clubs don't have much impairment with pretty serious impairment.

Either way, whilst the accounts would of course be signed off by all directors, including TK, applying impairment would be largely a common sense decision, probably suggested, and certainly implemented, by the accountants, not TK. I can't see it at any stage involving TK "determining player current valuations".

The Accountants may ask for some proof of how the DOF came up with the player's values and/or may even ask for an independent assessment by a football expert (such as football agent, other team or even transfermartkt), but the accountants role is enter based on the documentation given to him by the DOF.

An Accountant would never determine the impairment of a building, but there are some major problems with football players that unlike Chartered Engineer, Quantity Surveyors, Real Estate Agents, and Professional Land values, the professional standards for football player valuations are quite poorly developed to my knowledge.

[The Rational Fan]

Seri ang Anguissa are probably on our books for a total of approximately 30m at the moment, probably not far from their real value given that they are both playing every game for the respective loan clubs. I.e. a sale of them in the summer shouldn't have much impact on our transfer budget.

True, the ability to "cook the books" is limited for Seri between the highest offer for him (probably around £11m) and half his original price (probably around £13m at the end of the season), that £2m is enough wiggle room to get an extra loan in this year but that's not a huge difference.

[Statto]

The Accountants may ask for some proof of how the DOF came up with the player's values and/or may even ask for an independent assessment by a football expert (such as football agent, other team or even transfermartkt), but the accountants role is enter based on the documentation given to him by the DOF.

I actually did a bit more research after my last post and have to say yes, it was consistent with what you've said above - that impairment must reflect an actual reduction in market value.

However, impairment was one of the few areas in which I thought we had some discretion, and if in fact we don't, that reinforces my view that there's substantially no "wiggle room" (as you put it) for ambiguous or disingenuous calculations in the accounts. I cannot accept that valuations can just be conjured up by TK - surely if these can't be calculated by the accountants then they'll come from, as you say, independent experts, and TK is neither independent nor an expert. So again, it reinforces my view that TK probably isn't really involved in the preparation of the accounts, except to sign them before they're submitted to Companies House or the EFL.

Also to reiterate, we don't know whether the accounting rules for FFP are different, so all the foregoing stuff about impairment may well be true under IFRS or US GAAP or whatever, but not necessarily under whatever standards the EFL have prescribed for FFP.

[The Rational Fan]

However, impairment was one of the few areas in which I thought we had some discretion, and if in fact we don't, that reinforces my view that there's substantially no "wiggle room" (as you put it) for ambiguous or disingenuous calculations in the accounts. I cannot accept that valuations can just be conjured up by TK - surely if these can't be calculated by the accountants then they'll come from, as you say, independent experts, and TK is neither independent nor an expert.

As DOF, Tony Khan is supposed to be an expert so it would be expected he comes up with the value of players, to my knowledge this industry has absolutely no standards apart from coaching badges and being subject to British Accounting Rules.

While Tony Khan could be classified as an expert, no way could he classified as independent, so it is likely that an independent football expert could check the player valuations and would verify his internal numbers are either correct or incorrect. It would be most likely in my opinion that the player valuations are initially determined by the DOF (maybe copied off transfermarkt), given to the accountant and "independent football expert" verifies those numbers to be an accurate account (or an inaccurate account) on player valuations.

If Tony Khan says Mawson is worth £8.8m and the "independent football expert" believes Mawson is worth between £7m and £9m, then the independent expert will say the DOF has provided an accurate account of player values.  If Tony Khan says Mawson is worth £8.8m and the "independent football expert" believes Mawson is worth between £7.5m and £8.5m, then then the independent expert would request the DOF to justify or revise the numbers.

I don't think Fulham even if has wiggle room is really using it, but some other clubs are even valuing the stadiums land incorrectly to get around FFP.

[MJG]

However, impairment was one of the few areas in which I thought we had some discretion, and if in fact we don't, that reinforces my view that there's substantially no "wiggle room" (as you put it) for ambiguous or disingenuous calculations in the accounts. I cannot accept that valuations can just be conjured up by TK - surely if these can't be calculated by the accountants then they'll come from, as you say, independent experts, and TK is neither independent nor an expert.

As DOF, Tony Khan is supposed to be an expert so it would be expected he comes up with the value of players, to my knowledge this industry has absolutely no standards apart from coaching badges and being subject to British Accounting Rules.

While Tony Khan could be classified as an expert, no way could he classified as independent, so it is likely that an independent football expert could check the player valuations and would verify his internal numbers are either correct or incorrect. It would be most likely in my opinion that the player valuations are initially determined by the DOF (maybe copied off transfermarkt), given to the accountant and "independent football expert" verifies those numbers to be an accurate account (or an inaccurate account) on player valuations.

If Tony Khan says Mawson is worth £8.8m and the "independent football expert" believes Mawson is worth between £7m and £9m, then the independent expert will say the DOF has provided an accurate account of player values.  If Tony Khan says Mawson is worth £8.8m and the "independent football expert" believes Mawson is worth between £7.5m and £8.5m, then then the independent expert would request the DOF to justify or revise the numbers.

I don't think Fulham even if has wiggle room is really using it, but some other clubs are even valuing the stadiums land incorrectly to get around FFP.

If anyone thinks Tony sits down with an excel spreedsheet and sends it over to Ally Mac at the time of accounting saying player X is worth X then I belive they are mistaken.

[The Rational Fan]

However, impairment was one of the few areas in which I thought we had some discretion, and if in fact we don't, that reinforces my view that there's substantially no "wiggle room" (as you put it) for ambiguous or disingenuous calculations in the accounts. I cannot accept that valuations can just be conjured up by TK - surely if these can't be calculated by the accountants then they'll come from, as you say, independent experts, and TK is neither independent nor an expert.

As DOF, Tony Khan is supposed to be an expert so it would be expected he comes up with the value of players, to my knowledge this industry has absolutely no standards apart from coaching badges and being subject to British Accounting Rules.

While Tony Khan could be classified as an expert, no way could he classified as independent, so it is likely that an independent football expert could check the player valuations and would verify his internal numbers are either correct or incorrect. It would be most likely in my opinion that the player valuations are initially determined by the DOF (maybe copied off transfermarkt), given to the accountant and "independent football expert" verifies those numbers to be an accurate account (or an inaccurate account) on player valuations.

If Tony Khan says Mawson is worth £8.8m and the "independent football expert" believes Mawson is worth between £7m and £9m, then the independent expert will say the DOF has provided an accurate account of player values.  If Tony Khan says Mawson is worth £8.8m and the "independent football expert" believes Mawson is worth between £7.5m and £8.5m, then then the independent expert would request the DOF to justify or revise the numbers.

I don't think Fulham even if has wiggle room is really using it, but some other clubs are even valuing the stadiums land incorrectly to get around FFP.

If anyone thinks Tony sits down with an excel spreedsheet and sends it over to Ally Mac at the time of accounting saying player X is worth X then I belive they are mistaken.

If Tony Khan doesn't send any revised player values, the accountant would assume that the "book value" = "what the DOF paid" x "length of contract remaining" / "length of contract". If Tony Khan doesn't send a spreadsheet to AM, someone in football (i.e. reporting to the DOF) would.

[Roberty]

If Tony Khan doesn't send any revised player values, the accountant would assume that the "book value" = "what the DOF paid" x "length of contract remaining" / "length of contract". If Tony Khan doesn't send a spreadsheet to AM, someone in football (i.e. reporting to the DOF) would.

Which set of accounts are you talking about ? There are two sets. One that is filed with the Inland Revenue and Companies House and a second set for FFP that go to the EFL. The set for the EFL would be a restatement of the first omitting items that are outside the scope and perhaps restating some cost to comply with their rules, where their is a variance to the way income and cost are determined for the Inland Revenue version.

It is usual for a company to have a written policy for things like amortization, depreciation and impairment so that the Inland Revenue are aware of how the accounts have been prepared and I would imagine that for FFP there is a policy imposed by the EFL to ensure there is a standard model for all clubs.

So it's not a finger in the air situation and I would be surprised if we were able to increase player values under the FFP rules because it would leave a big loophole for clubs to abuse as has happened with grounds being over valued when they were sold.

Sadly for Derby, Wednesday, Villa and others there is a catch all about dealings with a interested parties, that was originally brought in when the Citte owners paid unrealistic sums for naming rights and sponsorship, to stop them increasing their income by inflating the values.

[The Rational Fan]

If Tony Khan doesn't send any revised player values, the accountant would assume that the "book value" = "what the DOF paid" x "length of contract remaining" / "length of contract". If Tony Khan doesn't send a spreadsheet to AM, someone in football (i.e. reporting to the DOF) would.

Which set of accounts are you talking about ? There are two sets. One that is filed with the Inland Revenue and Companies House and a second set for FFP that go to the EFL. The set for the EFL would be a restatement of the first omitting items that are outside the scope and perhaps restating some cost to comply with their rules, where their is a variance to the way income and cost are determined for the Inland Revenue version.

It is usual for a company to have a written policy for things like amortization, depreciation and impairment so that the Inland Revenue are aware of how the accounts have been prepared and I would imagine that for FFP there is a policy imposed by the EFL to ensure there is a standard model for all clubs.

So it's not a finger in the air situation and I would be surprised if we were able to increase player values under the FFP rules because it would leave a big loophole for clubs to abuse as has happened with grounds being over valued when they were sold.

Sadly for Derby, Wednesday, Villa and others there is a catch all about dealings with a interested parties, that was originally brought in when the Citte owners paid unrealistic sums for naming rights and sponsorship, to stop them increasing their income by inflating the values.

While the Inland Revenue and Statutory Accounts loopholes are almost impossible to bypass without lying. For a world-class accountant, the FFP rules are probably easier to bypass than a back five of Fabri, TFM, Norvedit, MLM and Bryan is for Messi. Importantly, the cases that FFP is catching are laughable bad such as valuing Derby's home ground at London land values, so one may assume far more sensible cases that are only slightly bad just pass. A classic case, I know that did pass FFP is one team was expensing payments to seven ex-managers in one season, even though those managers had left a while ago, this shouldn't happen.

[Roberty]

While the Inland Revenue and Statutory Accounts loopholes are almost impossible to bypass without lying. For a world-class accountant, the FFP rules are probably easier to bypass than a back five of Fabri, TFM, Norvedit, MLM and Bryan is for Messi. Importantly, the cases that FFP is catching are laughable bad such as valuing Derby's home ground at London land values, so one may assume far more sensible cases that are only slightly bad just pass. A classic case, I know that did pass FFP is one team was expensing payments to seven ex-managers in one season, even though those managers had left a while ago, this shouldn't happen.

Since tax avoidance is perfectly legal, where as tax evasion isn't, there is a whole industry making a profit from selling tax avoidance of one sort or another. This would tend to suggest that there are loopholes and interpretations that can be quite legally be exploited as I know perfectly well from my previous experience.

From memory I think that under the FFP rules contractual payments being made to previous managers have to be specifically included on an ongoing basis. It would make no sense to include them otherwise because unlike the inflated values saga it doesn't reduce the loss but increases it.

I think the back ground to this is that few compensation packages are paid upfront to departing managers. They are negotiated to paid over the remainder of the contract that was broken when the manager was dismissed. I think it's also the case that in some instances the compensation agreed actually ceases or is reduced if the outgoing manager is employed by another club. Thus SJ and Potch could not accept an offer from another club before the end of the season during which they were fired without forfeiting their compensation in part or in full.

[Statto]

While the Inland Revenue and Statutory Accounts loopholes are almost impossible to bypass without lying. For a world-class accountant, the FFP rules are probably easier to bypass than a back five of Fabri, TFM, Norvedit, MLM and Bryan is for Messi. Importantly, the cases that FFP is catching are laughable bad such as valuing Derby's home ground at London land values, so one may assume far more sensible cases that are only slightly bad just pass. A classic case, I know that did pass FFP is one team was expensing payments to seven ex-managers in one season, even though those managers had left a while ago, this shouldn't happen.

But it wasn't an accounting issue at Derby. If a chairman pays £100m for a stadium worth £50m then the figure that should go in the accounts is £100m. Nothing unfair or misleading about that. The basis for any EFL challenge wouldn't be that the accounts were wrong, but rather, under some separate EFL rule somewhere that says where a club sells an asset to a related party it must do so at fair market value.

As to the accounting standards, the EFL rules are actually quite prescriptive. I retract my complaint further up the thread about them not being transparent enough about accounting standards etc. It's all here
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

[The Rational Fan]

While the Inland Revenue and Statutory Accounts loopholes are almost impossible to bypass without lying. For a world-class accountant, the FFP rules are probably easier to bypass than a back five of Fabri, TFM, Norvedit, MLM and Bryan is for Messi. Importantly, the cases that FFP is catching are laughable bad such as valuing Derby's home ground at London land values, so one may assume far more sensible cases that are only slightly bad just pass. A classic case, I know that did pass FFP is one team was expensing payments to seven ex-managers in one season, even though those managers had left a while ago, this shouldn't happen.

But it wasn't an accounting issue at Derby. If a chairman pays £100m for a stadium worth £50m then the figure that should go in the accounts is £100m. Nothing unfair or misleading about that. The basis for any EFL challenge wouldn't be that the accounts were wrong, but rather, under some separate EFL rule somewhere that says where a club sells an asset to a related party it must do so at fair market value.

As to the accounting standards, the EFL rules are actually quite prescriptive. I retract my complaint further up the thread about them not being transparent enough about accounting standards etc. It's all here
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

If a chairman pays £100m for a stadium he knows is worth £60m, then the accounts should say he paid £60m for the stadium and he gave a £40m gift.

Whether the Fixed Asset is Land Value or Intangible Player Value, the valuation process is the same and should be impaired if totally wrong. The only difference is finding an "independent property valuer" is slightly easier than finding an "independent football player valuer" and land value tends to have less of range for wiggle room (although these clubs like Derby seem to find it) than player values as the later is typically less accurate and less precise.

As the EFL rules being quite prescriptive the document sent seems to be 20,000 words long. I would point out that the tax code and accountancy rules for reporting much much larger trying to cover every possible loophole imaginable to an accountant.

[Statto]

If a chairman pays £100m for a stadium he knows is worth £60m, then the accounts should say he paid £60m for the stadium and he gave a £40m gift.

Whether the Fixed Asset is Land Value or Intangible Player Value, the valuation process is the same and should be impaired if totally wrong. The only difference is finding an "independent property valuer" is slightly easier than finding an "independent football player valuer" and land value tends to have less of range for wiggle room (although these clubs like Derby seem to find it) than player values as the later is typically less accurate and less precise.

Go to the link I just posted - Appendix A - Transactions with related parties.
These are provisions specific to FFP, not general accounting principles.

As the EFL rules being quite prescriptive the document sent seems to be 20,000 words long. I would point out that the tax code and accountancy rules for reporting much much larger trying to cover every possible loophole imaginable to an accountant.

Again look at the link i just sent. I cannot be bothered to pore over it but I bet it says in there somewhere that clubs must apply IFRS or something like that, ie the pages and pages of "accountancy rules" you refer to probably still apply, and these 20,000 words just set out a few modifications specific to FFP (such as the part on related party transactions being at fair value, above)

[The Rational Fan]

If a chairman pays £100m for a stadium he knows is worth £60m, then the accounts should say he paid £60m for the stadium and he gave a £40m gift.

Whether the Fixed Asset is Land Value or Intangible Player Value, the valuation process is the same and should be impaired if totally wrong. The only difference is finding an "independent property valuer" is slightly easier than finding an "independent football player valuer" and land value tends to have less of range for wiggle room (although these clubs like Derby seem to find it) than player values as the later is typically less accurate and less precise.

Go to the link I just posted - Appendix A - Transactions with related parties.
These are provisions specific to FFP, not general accounting principles.

As the EFL rules being quite prescriptive the document sent seems to be 20,000 words long. I would point out that the tax code and accountancy rules for reporting much much larger trying to cover every possible loophole imaginable to an accountant.

Again look at the link i just sent. I cannot be bothered to pore over it but I bet it says in there somewhere that clubs must apply IFRS or something like that, ie the pages and pages of "accountancy rules" you refer to probably still apply, and these 20,000 words just set out a few modifications specific to FFP (such as the part on related party transactions being at fair value, above)

We know that all of the clubs that have got in trouble with FFP have made the most blatant breaking of the rules. No one to my knowledge has got in trouble for not impairing players sufficient. I am a 100% convinced one of the 92 clubs hasn't impaired players sufficiently and 50% convinced half the clubs haven't impaired player values perfectly.

If we get promoted and Mawson has career ending injury, do we thing we impairing him immediately and declare we broke FFP before starting PL; or use a little wiggle room to delay the writeoff until October 2020 by finding any doctor that thinks be will recover to issue a certificate?

I am sure that if every doctor thinks he won't recover, then the accountant would declare a breach of FFP, but if one specialist doctor honestly believes he will recover that's the wiggle room he will use to avoid breaching FFP. Accountants are responsible for providing a reasonable estimate that can be justified, if a specialist or two says Mawson will recover that is enough, even if ten don't (ps Mawson career ending injury is hypothetical).