duncanjwitham

The hilarious thing would've been, if they'd decided to immediately swap us and Wycombe between leagues after we submitted the accounts (with the 1-week extension), presumably the games we'd both played would have been expunged and additional games would have had to be played in their place. That would have cost 'Boro the point they got against in the 4th game of the season, and move them outside of the playoffs...

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it:

The other thing is, the delay was largely us and the EFL arguing over the exact form of the accounts we were going to submit.  The sanction hearing didn't specify the exact form of what we were required to submit, only that they be FRS102 compliant.  So what happens if we just submitted them straight away?  We almost certainly submit a set that clears us completely of all breaches, the EFL charges us with non-compliant accounts, and the whole rigmarole kicks off again.  And still no points deduction last season...

The other thing is, the delay was largely us and the EFL arguing over the exact form of the accounts we were going to submit.  The sanction hearing didn't specify the exact form of what we were required to submit, only that they be FRS102 compliant.  So what happens if we just submitted them straight away?  We almost certainly submit a set that clears us completely of all breaches, the EFL charges us with non-compliant accounts, and the whole rigmarole kicks off again.  And still no points deduction last season...

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it:

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it:

The Wycombe case comes down to which seasons the penalties should have been applied.
14/15-16/17 = £7.76m = 6 points 16/17-18/19 = £11.72m = 8 points 17/18-20/21 = £1.96m = 3 points There are only really 3 possible scenarios where the points deductions are applied. The first involves going back several seasons (which could never happen), the second is submitting some accounts much earlier than required, and the final option is what actually happened.
If penalised in the correct season:
17/18 - Preston have a claim as they were 2 points behind in 7th 19/20 - No impact at either end of the table. Derby finish 15th instead of 10th 21/22 - We'd be 1 place higher and only 1 point away from climbing out of the bottom 3. If the accounts were submitted for completed seasons in 20/21, then remaining season in 21/22:
     1&2. 20/21 - 14 points cumulatively we finish bottom, Wycombe stay up
     3. 21/22 - We'd be 1 place higher and only 1 point away from climbing out of the bottom 3.
If accounts were submitted as they were:
     1,2&3. 21/22 - 17 points reduced by 50% to 9 points as agreed with the EFL.
 

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it:

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it:

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it:

The hilarious thing would've been, if they'd decided to immediately swap us and Wycombe between leagues after we submitted the accounts (with the 1-week extension), presumably the games we'd both played would have been expunged and additional games would have had to be played in their place. That would have cost 'Boro the point they got against in the 4th game of the season, and move them outside of the playoffs...

So by analogy - if someone lights a building on fire, and then someone else deliberately bars the doors and windows to stop people escaping, then that second person is entirely innocent in the matter?  Thought not.
Do they *really* believe that the EFL would re-organise the leagues with multiple games already played? That's proper cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. And even if we have submitted on the exact deadline given, it still only triggered the next stage of the process, it didn't trigger an automatic deduction. That process didn't finish until November(?), and would have gone on longer if we'd have used our right to demand a actual hearing rather than an agreed decision. And even if it had triggered an automatic deduction, it would have absolutely been within our right to appeal it, so the penalty would have almost certainly been suspended (because the outcome would have been even worse for the EFL if the penalty had been amended even further into the season).

So by analogy - if someone lights a building on fire, and then someone else deliberately bars the doors and windows to stop people escaping, then that second person is entirely innocent in the matter?  Thought not.
Do they *really* believe that the EFL would re-organise the leagues with multiple games already played? That's proper cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. And even if we have submitted on the exact deadline given, it still only triggered the next stage of the process, it didn't trigger an automatic deduction. That process didn't finish until November(?), and would have gone on longer if we'd have used our right to demand a actual hearing rather than an agreed decision. And even if it had triggered an automatic deduction, it would have absolutely been within our right to appeal it, so the penalty would have almost certainly been suspended (because the outcome would have been even worse for the EFL if the penalty had been amended even further into the season).

The other interesting part of that document is part (i) here:

That's very relevant when we didn't actually overspend in the 3 years before the Wycombe season, so wouldn't have been given a penalty under normal circumstances.

The other interesting part of that document is part (i) here:

That's very relevant when we didn't actually overspend in the 3 years before the Wycombe season, so wouldn't have been given a penalty under normal circumstances.

I don’t doubt that we delayed the submission of our amended accounts as long as possible partly, if not fully, in order to avoid the points being deducted last season but, it doesn’t matter what he THINKS we should have done. We did what we did within the deadlines set by the EFL.

He actually seems to think we should have restated the accounts immediately on being found guilty, not waited for the sanction hearing.  Which is insane - there's no guarantee that the accounts would have had to be restated. Given the "club had no reason to believe they were doing anything wrong" type arguments in the actual sanction notes, they could have easily allowed the existing accounts to stand and just ordered us to submit them "correctly" going forward. 

He actually seems to think we should have restated the accounts immediately on being found guilty, not waited for the sanction hearing.  Which is insane - there's no guarantee that the accounts would have had to be restated. Given the "club had no reason to believe they were doing anything wrong" type arguments in the actual sanction notes, they could have easily allowed the existing accounts to stand and just ordered us to submit them "correctly" going forward. 

He actually seems to think we should have restated the accounts immediately on being found guilty, not waited for the sanction hearing.  Which is insane - there's no guarantee that the accounts would have had to be restated. Given the "club had no reason to believe they were doing anything wrong" type arguments in the actual sanction notes, they could have easily allowed the existing accounts to stand and just ordered us to submit them "correctly" going forward. 

So by analogy - if someone lights a building on fire, and then someone else deliberately bars the doors and windows to stop people escaping, then that second person is entirely innocent in the matter?  Thought not.
Do they *really* believe that the EFL would re-organise the leagues with multiple games already played? That's proper cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. And even if we have submitted on the exact deadline given, it still only triggered the next stage of the process, it didn't trigger an automatic deduction. That process didn't finish until November(?), and would have gone on longer if we'd have used our right to demand a actual hearing rather than an agreed decision. And even if it had triggered an automatic deduction, it would have absolutely been within our right to appeal it, so the penalty would have almost certainly been suspended (because the outcome would have been even worse for the EFL if the penalty had been amended even further into the season).

I'm not even sure you can tell that (from that angle anyway) - the defenders leading knee and shoulder are both hidden behind Davies, so you haven't got anything to compare too. 

I think, given the qualifications needed to sit on a panel, it’s very unlikely they’re going to be biased. No one is going to risk a 10 year legal career to do a favour for the EFL or ‘Boro. I’m far more worried about their ability to understand highly technical accounting arguments etc, given there’s no requirement for specialists on there.

IIRC, we spent slightly more in the specific season they’re moaning about, but they spent significantly more in the 3-year FFP window. So you can argue it either way.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

There are like half a dozen EFL v Birmingham hearings, so I can’t rule out there being any other passages buried away somewhere, but that one suits our position so I reckon we stick with it.