Ram@Lincoln

I've been told Tom Lawrence actually pays his 50p subs each game like Davies does. Anyone can play the "I've been told" card. ?

At the time of admin it was reported that Arsenal had agreed to defer this years payment for a year. Sure, we're a payment behind but it's agreed with the creditor - so technically we aren't behind the current payment structure. Similar to a holiday I booked last year, my purchase contract states I agreed to pay the initial deposit then the rest in one go. A few weeks after booking, Tui offered me a interest free plan to spread the cost over 12 months. They'll get their money eventually, I'm not viewing this as in crippling unpaid debt to them.

The whole argument that we owe instalment payments on Bielik...does Durham expect the likes of Man City et al to drop £100m cash upfront for Grealish? Liverpool £50m on that Dias fella? I found it funny last year when paying by instalments was headlined as a massive hack that the big clubs had uncovered. I don't know the ins and outs of football transfers, but I'd give a good guess that the vast majority are paid in instalments. Similar to a house purchase, does Durham think that everyone buys houses in cash? Instead of taking on crimpling debts as they haven't got the money to pay for it - aka, a mortgage. 

Durham doesn't think - he just opens that great big gob and lets the bull* out......

The whole argument that we owe instalment payments on Bielik...does Durham expect the likes of Man City et al to drop £100m cash upfront for Grealish? Liverpool £50m on that Dias fella? I found it funny last year when paying by instalments was headlined as a massive hack that the big clubs had uncovered. I don't know the ins and outs of football transfers, but I'd give a good guess that the vast majority are paid in instalments. Similar to a house purchase, does Durham think that everyone buys houses in cash? Instead of taking on crimpling debts as they haven't got the money to pay for it - aka, a mortgage. 

The whole argument that we owe instalment payments on Bielik...does Durham expect the likes of Man City et al to drop £100m cash upfront for Grealish? Liverpool £50m on that Dias fella? I found it funny last year when paying by instalments was headlined as a massive hack that the big clubs had uncovered. I don't know the ins and outs of football transfers, but I'd give a good guess that the vast majority are paid in instalments. Similar to a house purchase, does Durham think that everyone buys houses in cash? Instead of taking on crimpling debts as they haven't got the money to pay for it - aka, a mortgage. 

The whole argument that we owe instalment payments on Bielik...does Durham expect the likes of Man City et al to drop £100m cash upfront for Grealish? Liverpool £50m on that Dias fella? I found it funny last year when paying by instalments was headlined as a massive hack that the big clubs had uncovered. I don't know the ins and outs of football transfers, but I'd give a good guess that the vast majority are paid in instalments. Similar to a house purchase, does Durham think that everyone buys houses in cash? Instead of taking on crimpling debts as they haven't got the money to pay for it - aka, a mortgage. 

The whole argument that we owe instalment payments on Bielik...does Durham expect the likes of Man City et al to drop £100m cash upfront for Grealish? Liverpool £50m on that Dias fella? I found it funny last year when paying by instalments was headlined as a massive hack that the big clubs had uncovered. I don't know the ins and outs of football transfers, but I'd give a good guess that the vast majority are paid in instalments. Similar to a house purchase, does Durham think that everyone buys houses in cash? Instead of taking on crimpling debts as they haven't got the money to pay for it - aka, a mortgage. 

The whole argument that we owe instalment payments on Bielik...does Durham expect the likes of Man City et al to drop £100m cash upfront for Grealish? Liverpool £50m on that Dias fella? I found it funny last year when paying by instalments was headlined as a massive hack that the big clubs had uncovered. I don't know the ins and outs of football transfers, but I'd give a good guess that the vast majority are paid in instalments. Similar to a house purchase, does Durham think that everyone buys houses in cash? Instead of taking on crimpling debts as they haven't got the money to pay for it - aka, a mortgage. 

The whole argument that we owe instalment payments on Bielik...does Durham expect the likes of Man City et al to drop £100m cash upfront for Grealish? Liverpool £50m on that Dias fella? I found it funny last year when paying by instalments was headlined as a massive hack that the big clubs had uncovered. I don't know the ins and outs of football transfers, but I'd give a good guess that the vast majority are paid in instalments. Similar to a house purchase, does Durham think that everyone buys houses in cash? Instead of taking on crimpling debts as they haven't got the money to pay for it - aka, a mortgage. 

What a tool Ashley Fulwood is. He was offered an interview but there is nothing to suggest he was in the frame for the job? Were Everton just helping him brush up on his interviewing technique then?

They docked us 21 points
and then they changed the rules
WE ARE DERBY COUNTY
AND WE ARE STAYING UP
ALLEZ ALLEZ ALLEZ

Exactly. An uplift of circa 8-10k per sell out, even if at a averaged entry of £20 that's only £400k, or 1 week of the losses per month. Selling more tickets is 100% profit as there's no extra unit costs. Let's keep filling the ground!

Adrian Durham seeing us score without Lawrence & Bielik on the pitch….

Amortisation methods aside. 
This P&S change, the can of worms this has now opened is ridiculous. Would love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting.
Let's say Boro were to breach this season by £2.5m prior to this rule change, next season they avoid points deduction due to the rule change and beat Forest to the play offs.
Forest could argue that not only in January 22 they could have gone out and spent a further £2.5 on Bowler from Blackpool who would have strengthened their promotion bid this season, but next season as well who should not have finished behind Boro who should have had points deducted.
Even Reading, if they were to go down, they could argue had they known they could have spent a further £2.5m on Andy Carroll's wages to keep him at the club, that would have allowed them to stay up.
Above are purely hypothetical situations used to show what could happen when changing the rules mid way through the season.
What is the protocol for these votes to take place, is this something Rick Parry the chairman would propose a vote to take place, or can individual clubs propose rule changes at any time?
Find it astonishing that the financial rules can be changed with immediate effect, and not made in the summer prior to the transfer window open, when there were question marks over possible restrictions.

Rick when he got to the part about Gibson selling tax losses, Forest's Olympiacos link and Watford possibly using Udinese to get Ebosele for free.

We all know the why's, but it needs repeating so everyone at the back can hear and that we will never forget.
The EFL needed to get something on us to get Steve Gibson off their backs.
It's why we received little support from the rest of the Championship, if Gibson went for the EFL it would come out the TV deal kitty.
This is why it was in the best interests of the league, as the EFL said.
Never was this about fairly applying the rules, rivalries aside, this is what can happen to your club and why we must continue to push for an independent regulator.
 

My reply.
I understand I'm pissing in the wind with this, just want us to be treated fairly which I feel we are not.
With regards to the review of our points deduction, I looked at the judgment and it was a loss of £1.96m above the upper threshold for 20/21 where a £5m covid exemption was allowed. Last nights statement was £2.5m with immediate effect to the 21/22 season.
Wouldn't change the deduction at all would it @Ghost of Clough?

I don’t really have a problem with the claim that every other club is using the straight light method or the fact that they are no clarifying the rules (presumably to say they MUST use this method). 
The issues for me, and others that have already commented are:
Just because Derby stood alone and used a different method (whatever their motives for doing so were) didn’t make it wrong provided it wasn’t against in the rules. The fact that they are now “clarifying” them suggests they weren’t clear.
For me, this clearly indicates that Derby found a loophole and tried to use it to their advantage. The EFL are now closing that loophole. Standard practice dictates that you shouldn’t change rules/close loopholes and then retrospectively punish someone for what they did prior to that change being made.

All clubs didn’t write off losses by transferring debt to a haulage company, except one. 
Did Rick miss that bit out of his reply? 

Peterborough have the worst defence in the league and have not scored for 4 league games.
I for one am looking forward to their 1-0 win 

He's doing a cracking job if you ask me.

And Villa, escaping to the Promised land shouldn’t make them immune. 

However bad the EFL rules are all clubs as members have signed up to them. As it turns out this is misguided.  I think this fiasco, that has almost destroyed our club, is good for one thing only and that is it shows up the EFL rules for what they are, a load of contradictory rubbish. That in itself is not the fault of the EFL because they I presume are following the legal advice as written by their legal experts. Effectively what is normally kept in the shadows and is normally the preserve of the legal establishment has had a massive light shone upon it and now the lay man ( if interested) can see they haven't done a good enough job and in reality it isn't fit for purpose.
Of course most supporters of most clubs will be blissfully unaware of what potentially now could happen in respect of claims and counter claims and so the EFL will try to plod along as they always have. I expect after the dust has settled they will try to change or add a rule that stops clubs taking direct action against one another. Whether they do or not will depend upon how quickly they are put out of business by the government.
Oh well............ UTR

So let me get this correct - one club can hold a complete stranglehold on another club if both clubs don’t agree on a solution because the governing body won’t have anything to do with resolving it - ultimate BS don’t you think? - so we can have an obvious claim against QPR under that then !