duncanjwitham

The risk of other claimants crawling out of the woodwork renders the actual size of any payoff moot IMO.  If we settle at all, or a tribunal finds in 'Boro's favour, then what's to stop Leeds or Bristol City, or any other team that finished in or around us in previous seasons, from claiming?

I don't know exactly what was agreed, but if we still owe any fixed payments then these will be due as originally agreed. Any conditional payments (£Xm after Y games type stuff) will obviously not be due if he doesn't meet those targets.

A rousing chorus of this will do: 
 
 

I think there might be a few people in here not understanding what "good faith" means (not necessarily you, @PistoldPete, just clarifying before I make my main point...) - the way I understand 4.4 is that it requires clubs to act in "good faith" with their P&S/accounts submissions etc. So not to do things like lie or misrepresent amounts, or conceal how they are calculating things. It's one of the things the EFL accused us of, but we were cleared of.  We genuinely believed we were allowed to use our amortization model, so we were acting in good faith.  If we'd known it was wrong but did it anyway, or tried to conceal what we were doing, then the EFL would have had a case here.  The rider about "only the league..." is just to clarify that although clubs have a duty to each to act in good faith, like all disciplinary matters, only the league can actively prosecute breaches of it.
So the way I see it, the actual claims don't matter themselves, because there are only 2 possible classes of things that 'Boro can be after in their claim.  The first is things that we haven't been found guilty of by the EFL (either cleared of, or never even charged with). These claims simply have no merit because we are officially not guilty of them, and 'Boro do not have the power to make us guilty (only the league etc etc).  Any claim that falls under this class should be instantly dismissed at arbitration, including anything related to the stadium sale.  I think any claims under 4.4 fall here too, as we simply haven't been found guilty of acting in bad faith.
The second type of claim is something we've already been found guilty of, so that's very specifically the amortization issue and any arising overspend after restating etc.  In theory, 'Boro can pursue a case here, but they have to prove a loss.  And that's going to be very difficult, with multiple previous EFL cases making it clear that you can't correlate overspending to actual on-field results.

I think there might be a few people in here not understanding what "good faith" means (not necessarily you, @PistoldPete, just clarifying before I make my main point...) - the way I understand 4.4 is that it requires clubs to act in "good faith" with their P&S/accounts submissions etc. So not to do things like lie or misrepresent amounts, or conceal how they are calculating things. It's one of the things the EFL accused us of, but we were cleared of.  We genuinely believed we were allowed to use our amortization model, so we were acting in good faith.  If we'd known it was wrong but did it anyway, or tried to conceal what we were doing, then the EFL would have had a case here.  The rider about "only the league..." is just to clarify that although clubs have a duty to each to act in good faith, like all disciplinary matters, only the league can actively prosecute breaches of it.
So the way I see it, the actual claims don't matter themselves, because there are only 2 possible classes of things that 'Boro can be after in their claim.  The first is things that we haven't been found guilty of by the EFL (either cleared of, or never even charged with). These claims simply have no merit because we are officially not guilty of them, and 'Boro do not have the power to make us guilty (only the league etc etc).  Any claim that falls under this class should be instantly dismissed at arbitration, including anything related to the stadium sale.  I think any claims under 4.4 fall here too, as we simply haven't been found guilty of acting in bad faith.
The second type of claim is something we've already been found guilty of, so that's very specifically the amortization issue and any arising overspend after restating etc.  In theory, 'Boro can pursue a case here, but they have to prove a loss.  And that's going to be very difficult, with multiple previous EFL cases making it clear that you can't correlate overspending to actual on-field results.

A rousing chorus of this will do: 
 
 

A rousing chorus of this will do: 
 
 

I'm pretty sure that's the rule they used to fine QPR when they got relegated back to the Championship.

It's in the appendices: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-5-financial-fair-play-regulations/

It's not nice to bump old threads in the transfer forum though, and make everyone think he's leaving ?

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

It's not nice to bump old threads in the transfer forum though, and make everyone think he's leaving ?

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

It's not nice to bump old threads in the transfer forum though, and make everyone think he's leaving ?

Personally, I carry printed copies of the EFL rules and the DC/LAP written reasons wherever I go. You never know when someone is going to start asking awkward questions, and it's always good to have the option of getting it out and waving it around.  And the printouts are useful too...

It's not nice to bump old threads in the transfer forum though, and make everyone think he's leaving ?

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

It's not nice to bump old threads in the transfer forum though, and make everyone think he's leaving ?

We might as well get the thread warmed up. If Luke Plange is anything to go by he'll be bought shortly after his first goal ?

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.

For comparison, the other attendances last night: 

22k on a weeknight, for a game that's live on Sky, is a good attendance.