Chris_D

The process used for this season will need to be overhaulled. 12 summer signings and a further 2 in January, of which only 3 are likely to be regular starters is absolutely shocking (Nelson, Nyambe, Blackett-Taylor). This is also after the squad failed to place top last season, losing 3 of our first 11 (Roberts, Knight and McGoldrick) and not even having a right back in the entire squad.
It's summarised by having no long term vision. That's in terms of: a) bringing in younger players who will either maintain their current standards for longer, or have room for improvement; or b) planning how the players will fit into the team.
Warne put a clear focus on older and more experience players, based on the rationale of higher wages equates to better players. If more budget is put towards the wages, we'll end up with a stronger squad of players.
Warne also had no plan on how to fit the players into the team. This is demonstrated by early summer recruitment being with 3421 in mind, which quickly changed to 352, and then alternating between 442 and 4231 during the season so far. We signed a LB (Elder) to play as a wing back, but also signed Nyambe (RB) after already signing 2 wing backs. He also signed a slow CB who cannot play in a high line and is uncomfortable on the ball under pressure. We've basically got through from October with only 1 fully fit forward whowas 2nd choice last season and failed to improve on in the summer AND January.
The style of play our CF targets prefer also varied. Summer targets like Harris, Rhodes and Sharp all have different strengths and weaknesses. Similar with January targets such as Smith, Gregory, Mubama, Ennis. It's just a scattergun approach all round. Most of these targets compromise on the high intensity press Warne wants to implement too.

The world's best U21 side would be mid-table in the PL.
Generally speaking, England age groups are at the following level of ability:
England U21s - Upper Championship to lower PL
England U20s - Mid to Upper Championship
England U19s - Upper L1 to Mid Championship
Man City had a full international at CM, and 1x U21, 2x U20, 3x U19 and 3x U18.
Three or four of the U21 team have been in several Man City squads this season.
I'm willing to bet at least half of that team we just lost to will be playing Championship football next season.
Wigan, Ipswich, Wycombe, Hull, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Sunderland and Rotherham have all lost to U21 sides over the past 3 seasons. All have either won promotion during that period, or are in a very good position to do so this season.
All things considered, it's not a disaster for our second string 11 of players needing match fitness to lose to a very good U21 side.

Wow.....give the bloke a chance.....He gave honest answers and he was only responding to questions asked...I didn't want Liam removed either but he was and I trust Mr Clowes...the man that saved our club...you obviously don't like Warne thats your choice of course but bullying????   thats ridiculous....think its you who needs to calm down 

Sounds like they’re putting pressure on Kirchner to get their money back as promised.
The club won’t get penalised for this and neither will Stratford/Triple S. The story is leaked to draw public attention to Kirchner unable to put them back in adequate time (nearly a month after the wages were paid) and they want to put pressure on him to settle the debt.
The BBC article adds the issues at Slync with funding and cash flow and it’s likely that the jet is being sold to fund the wages at Slync and DCFC while he sorts his business out.

That's how it's supposed to work. The first stage of an arbitration hearing will be whether they actually have the standing to raise the claim, and if it isn't the claim will be tossed out.  You can see this working when 'Boro tried to appeal our hearing and were rejected.
Basically, the EFL don't want to be in the position of deciding what valid claims are, because they're effectively making themselves judge and jury on those claims if they decide they aren't valid. So everything goes to arbitration and everything gets a fair look with an independent panel.  (Different definitions of 'fair' may apply... etc etc.) 
Not saying that's necessarily right or wrong, but that is how it's intended to work.

Sorry but nothing in this statement says the claim is against the directors as individuals, it just accuses the directors of facilitating cheating as directors of DCFC (i.e. within that role). It’s very hard to claim against an individual for something they did as a director, unless its criminal behaviour.

So they are barristers then.

It just isn't what happens in anything like the way you describe - and not just for sentencing. No magistrate ever says "Well the letter of the law says x but I'm finding you guilty because the intention of the law is y." And it doesn't happen in higher courts either. Yes, judges might consider the intention of the law if they need to resolve some tension or ambiguity, but that's a world away from using intention as a starting point, or ignoring the law, or "stretching" the law (your words), or simply inventing a law that doesn't exist. You should not (contra your example) be any more likely to be convicted if you are "a menace to public safety", and nor should you be. It might affect your sentence, and so it should. Both those things are entirely in accordance with the letter of the law. 
I'm baffled that you think this happens - do you perhaps live in Russia or China? - let alone that you think it's a fine and acceptable thing for courts (or the EFL) to do. 
 

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

Frankly I don’t care what Mel thinks and funnily enough the high court bench is made up of senior barristers…

I’m not sure either club can sue him personally tbh. He could indemnify the admins, but doubt the admins will want him getting that involved with what they are doing (he’ll no doubt want some input if he’s paying).

I’m not sure either club can sue him personally tbh. He could indemnify the admins, but doubt the admins will want him getting that involved with what they are doing (he’ll no doubt want some input if he’s paying).

This £7m to “settle” the claims only seems to exist in that BBC web article, which also says “it has been suggested” - anyone know where / when this figure was otherwise reported/suggested? 

There’s hardly ever a jury in civil court cases either and juries are generally far less able to understand complex financial claims anyway. No idea why people keep saying this as if it’s meaningful.  Also, HMRC are not invited/ a party to the arbitration, just the EFL’s suggested meeting.
And to accuse arbitration panels of bias is just ridiculous, they’re very experienced professionals who sit independently.
Also, where does it say the EFL has a list of experts that any expert witnesses must be chosen from? 

Where has the £7m come from other than the bbc?

I think their position is ridiculous and probably unlawful given whole point of laws around insolvency is to give breathing space to struggling companies (which would mean you can’t just say “well our rules mean you  can still sue so there”), but would probably need a court to decide here.  EFL not willing to decide how their own rules work - also think EFL would interpret their regs very broadly to say they have had regard to the insolvency act but arbitration is needed to protect integrity of league etc

RT draft minutes which are then reviewed for accuracy by Q and comments fed back. 

The claims exist, they are against the club. If a buyer buys the club, he buys it with the claims. What the EFL have actually said is : there is nothing to stop a buyer buying the club with the claims still there. 

Related to this: the EFl approach on club transfers is that when a buyer takes over, that buyer needs to show funding for the club for ? 2 years. This unfortunately means that if a buyer DOES buy the club with the claims, the EFl may have to assess what value to ascribe to the claims. We’ve not reached that point yet though Kirchner seemed to clear the hurdle. If Ashley is the buyer, it won’t matter, because he’s loaded 
So no, I think the PB issue is that Ashley won’t part with his money until the claims are sorted, it’s nothing to do with the EFl. If he agreed to proceed with the claims in place, I think the EFL would roll out a red carpet 
 
 

I think we’ve got crossed wires
There’s nothing in the rules that requires the claims to be sorted before, say, Ashley takes us over. I agree. The problem is, as a commercial matter Ashley is not willing to proceed as PB until the claims are sorted. So the assertions of our fans that EFL is stopping PB being announced are wrong.
 
This is all I was trying to say in my post 

I think they are saying a different thing. They are saying there is a statute that Q are going to use to compromise claims. (They don’t dispute that the statute does what it says.) And they are saying there is disagreement about the interpretation of the EFl football creditor rules, in cases where claims are compromised under that statute. 
 
You can’t write 600 pages of regulations without points like this arising, particularly given that the law is constantly changing 

I don't see anything in that statement to get het up about, it's just a statement of fact.
Wycombe can get in the bin, their claim is too late and hasn't been communicated even to the EFL.
Boro have a claim predating administration, so have to be dealt with, even if that dealing with is like a small child demanding sweets at a supermarket checkout.
The fact that our administrators haven't dealt with it is on them, all the EFL are needing is proof of funding until the end of the season, everything else can be dealt with between now and then.
It's obviously too complex and difficult a job for them, so we'll probably cease to exist in our current form fairly shortly.
Another magnificent Mel Morris decision to appoint them, I get the feeling he only opens his mouth to change feet.

Glad you agree it is opinions.  The only mention of the ICAEW i can see is related to them reviewing an audit file. There is nothing to suggest they accepted the amortisation methodology (as one of our many accounting policies) or looked at it before it was implemented/post implementation as to FRS 102 compliance, and I can't see they have ever come to say they did unless you can demonstrate their statement to that effect?  They seem to have reviewed the audit file prepared by SC for one year where the new amortisation policy was in place (I.e. reviewed whether SC had properly audited the club in that year as against it's written policies, the ICAEW have not been shown to have reviewed the club's underlying accounting policies vis FRS 102). 
Here is what I think people are getting confused by from the DC at para 50 as I can't find anything else: "The fact that Smith Cooper’s audit file for a financial year since the change in amortisation policy has occurred has been picked for review by the ICAEW and approved as compliant."
There seems to be a lot of people basing their entire opinion on the DC decision/our own opinion as a club about our own policy and that of our accountants/auditors (maybe not?), whereas the LAP decided against all of them based on further evidence, and I would suggest two QCs and Lord Dyson, who sat as a Justice on the Supreme Court, are very able to form a proper opinion and come to a sound judgment on the issue without needing to be accountants - without trying to be condescending, it's what judges do, weigh up the evidence and then apply the law.  It's how the court system in England and Wales works - judges are not accountants and hear accountancy based cases all the time (as well as everything else they hear on which they are not 'qualified' experts).

we haven't spent 300k on an appeal

Glad you agree it is opinions.  The only mention of the ICAEW i can see is related to them reviewing an audit file. There is nothing to suggest they accepted the amortisation methodology (as one of our many accounting policies) or looked at it before it was implemented/post implementation as to FRS 102 compliance, and I can't see they have ever come to say they did unless you can demonstrate their statement to that effect?  They seem to have reviewed the audit file prepared by SC for one year where the new amortisation policy was in place (I.e. reviewed whether SC had properly audited the club in that year as against it's written policies, the ICAEW have not been shown to have reviewed the club's underlying accounting policies vis FRS 102). 
Here is what I think people are getting confused by from the DC at para 50 as I can't find anything else: "The fact that Smith Cooper’s audit file for a financial year since the change in amortisation policy has occurred has been picked for review by the ICAEW and approved as compliant."
There seems to be a lot of people basing their entire opinion on the DC decision/our own opinion as a club about our own policy and that of our accountants/auditors (maybe not?), whereas the LAP decided against all of them based on further evidence, and I would suggest two QCs and Lord Dyson, who sat as a Justice on the Supreme Court, are very able to form a proper opinion and come to a sound judgment on the issue without needing to be accountants - without trying to be condescending, it's what judges do, weigh up the evidence and then apply the law.  It's how the court system in England and Wales works - judges are not accountants and hear accountancy based cases all the time (as well as everything else they hear on which they are not 'qualified' experts).

we haven't spent 300k on an appeal