duncanjwitham

From what I've seen, he also seems to be arguing that preferred creditors (including HMRC) need to be paid 100% to avoid the 15 point penalty, but I can't find any rules anywhere to back that up.

Obviously there will be no mention of the referee completely losing control of the match, which led to those scenes in the first place...

To be fair, we were paying him to argue our case, so it would have been a bit of a shocker if he'd said the opposite.

To be fair, we were paying him to argue our case, so it would have been a bit of a shocker if he'd said the opposite.

The EFL rules specify that you must comply with FRS102. FRS102 is deliberately vague. Hence there's argument over whether we complied or not.

The EFL rules specify that you must comply with FRS102. FRS102 is deliberately vague. Hence there's argument over whether we complied or not.

I seriously believe that if the accounts had literally just said recoverable instead of residual (with no other changes), the notes would probably have been fine.  And while those 2 terms are theoretically different, the actual practical implications for our accounting policy were very similar (with the only real difference being how it deals with going to zero in the final year or not).  The conversations with the EFL definitely show that, even if they didn't fully understand the actual policy, they definitely understood the practical implications of it. They knew it could shunt amortization into the future, and could risk a large pile up in certain years, and they were basically fine with it.  It's not like we told them we were doing one thing, then did something completely different.

To be fair, we were paying him to argue our case, so it would have been a bit of a shocker if he'd said the opposite.

The EFL rules specify that you must comply with FRS102. FRS102 is deliberately vague. Hence there's argument over whether we complied or not.

I seriously believe that if the accounts had literally just said recoverable instead of residual (with no other changes), the notes would probably have been fine.  And while those 2 terms are theoretically different, the actual practical implications for our accounting policy were very similar (with the only real difference being how it deals with going to zero in the final year or not).  The conversations with the EFL definitely show that, even if they didn't fully understand the actual policy, they definitely understood the practical implications of it. They knew it could shunt amortization into the future, and could risk a large pile up in certain years, and they were basically fine with it.  It's not like we told them we were doing one thing, then did something completely different.

I seriously believe that you have missed the point here, the EFL are victims of a malicious targeted attack from Derby fans that are jeopardising the clubs future by antagonising them.
You can twist it how you like, but how would they know what was in the accounts we submitted, they can't be expected to read them, 72 clubs worth of accounts. 
What we did was dirty and underhand, we've been caught out and now must accept the punishment coming our way.

I seriously believe that if the accounts had literally just said recoverable instead of residual (with no other changes), the notes would probably have been fine.  And while those 2 terms are theoretically different, the actual practical implications for our accounting policy were very similar (with the only real difference being how it deals with going to zero in the final year or not).  The conversations with the EFL definitely show that, even if they didn't fully understand the actual policy, they definitely understood the practical implications of it. They knew it could shunt amortization into the future, and could risk a large pile up in certain years, and they were basically fine with it.  It's not like we told them we were doing one thing, then did something completely different.

Unfortunately for you, *if* the EFL decide that overspending requires paying compensation to the teams you displace, then you owe us about £90m I reckon, and if you don’t pay up, you’ll get kicked out of the league.  And rinse and repeat for dozens and dozens of other cases across the league.  Obviously we’re all hoping it doesn’t come down to that, because it would be absolutely insane. But that’s what’s at stake here.

Unfortunately for you, *if* the EFL decide that overspending requires paying compensation to the teams you displace, then you owe us about £90m I reckon, and if you don’t pay up, you’ll get kicked out of the league.  And rinse and repeat for dozens and dozens of other cases across the league.  Obviously we’re all hoping it doesn’t come down to that, because it would be absolutely insane. But that’s what’s at stake here.

Unfortunately for you, *if* the EFL decide that overspending requires paying compensation to the teams you displace, then you owe us about £90m I reckon, and if you don’t pay up, you’ll get kicked out of the league.  And rinse and repeat for dozens and dozens of other cases across the league.  Obviously we’re all hoping it doesn’t come down to that, because it would be absolutely insane. But that’s what’s at stake here.

Unfortunately for you, *if* the EFL decide that overspending requires paying compensation to the teams you displace, then you owe us about £90m I reckon, and if you don’t pay up, you’ll get kicked out of the league.  And rinse and repeat for dozens and dozens of other cases across the league.  Obviously we’re all hoping it doesn’t come down to that, because it would be absolutely insane. But that’s what’s at stake here.

I can’t believe there’s any credence in either claim, WW only ended up in the championship in a raffle in the first place, I still don’t know what Steve Gibsons grievance is, as you say it has potential for a huge domino effect.
I know for sure that if Villa hadn’t beaten you in the PO final then they would probably be in your position right now.

But when their own regs define “EFL-compliant” accounts as passing audit standards, then what basis would they challenge on - unless to say that the auditors had been at fault for clearing? There was nothing in their regs that should’ve prompted challenging an amortisation method that had passed audit. Again - the problem is their rules didn’t say what they actually wanted. It’s so inept, it’s untrue. 

That was my understanding too, but Maguire has been consistent on this since day one, and I can’t find the relevant bit of EFL rules anywhere to confirm either way.

It's worse than that. If you can decode Couhigs rantings on Radio Derby, they seemingly wanted us to restate our accounts in Spring 2021, giving the EFL time to review them and give us our points deductions in 20/21.  But we weren't even found guilty of *anything* material until May 2021, let alone ordered to restate them (July 2021).

I'd say the arguments against (to convince outside people) are even simpler:
Wycombe: we complied with every timescale we were given, bar one minor extension which made no difference.  Wycombe's argument is literally that we should have complied with our punishment before we were even found guilty of *anything*, which is clearly nonsense.
'Boro: They are trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't like the outcome. The cases have been run. The punishments have been handed out.  'Boro wanted to join in the appeal to claim they were specifically harmed, and were denied by the panel. The opportunity to hand out compensation was within the power of the panel and they chose not to.

They've either got something that hasn't been examined in the charges made by the EFL, in which case, they should present the evidence to the EFL for them to investigate and charge DCFC, or, they are referring to matters already decided.
If they are just going to make a mixture of inferences and assertions on the basis they think we spent more than we should have, I'd expect a robust defence to take that appart.

Our overspending was a breach of FFP but they actually out spent us .. by definition we had no financial advantage whatsoever. In sporting and financial terms They had an advantage over us due to parachute money.
We breached a technical rule - which, after due process, has given us a points deduction that has been applied. 
 
Saying we cheated is like a two handed man in a fight saying it’s not fair you took your handcuffs off 

You can be in charge of that message, it will be relevant after the takeover, if Boro and Wycombe continue their shenanigans!
Everyone else needs to work on the clear concise message that we’ve been harshly punished (even though we weren’t guilty) and stopping our takeover is just vindictive and malicious!
It’s all about messaging right now!

I'd say the arguments against (to convince outside people) are even simpler:
Wycombe: we complied with every timescale we were given, bar one minor extension which made no difference.  Wycombe's argument is literally that we should have complied with our punishment before we were even found guilty of *anything*, which is clearly nonsense.
'Boro: They are trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't like the outcome. The cases have been run. The punishments have been handed out.  'Boro wanted to join in the appeal to claim they were specifically harmed, and were denied by the panel. The opportunity to hand out compensation was within the power of the panel and they chose not to.