duncanjwitham

This is was the relevant bit of their statement:
”The claim is not limited merely to the amortisation issue in respect of which a Disciplinary Panel have already found Derby County to have breached the P&S Rules. Without breaking the confidentiality of the proceedings, in simple terms, MFC allege Derby County and its directors systematically cheated under the P&S Rules and that such cheating affects the integrity of the competition”

This is was the relevant bit of their statement:
”The claim is not limited merely to the amortisation issue in respect of which a Disciplinary Panel have already found Derby County to have breached the P&S Rules. Without breaking the confidentiality of the proceedings, in simple terms, MFC allege Derby County and its directors systematically cheated under the P&S Rules and that such cheating affects the integrity of the competition”

Knowing our luck, they probably mean positive for COVID, and now the admins aren't allowed to meet with anyone for the next 10 days.

They used “systematic cheating” in their statement, so it’s hard to reconcile that with just one transfer.  The complaint was always that our overspending allowed us to beat them to sign Waghorn etc, but that overspending still comes down to either the amortisation issue (which we’ve been punished for) or some other reason (which we haven’t been found guilty of).

In all fairness, they should be paying us compensation because we saved them from acquiring Waghorn 

They used “systematic cheating” in their statement, so it’s hard to reconcile that with just one transfer.  The complaint was always that our overspending allowed us to beat them to sign Waghorn etc, but that overspending still comes down to either the amortisation issue (which we’ve been punished for) or some other reason (which we haven’t been found guilty of).

They used “systematic cheating” in their statement, so it’s hard to reconcile that with just one transfer.  The complaint was always that our overspending allowed us to beat them to sign Waghorn etc, but that overspending still comes down to either the amortisation issue (which we’ve been punished for) or some other reason (which we haven’t been found guilty of).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Knowing our luck, they probably mean positive for COVID, and now the admins aren't allowed to meet with anyone for the next 10 days.

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).

Completely hypothetical here, but if Arsenal now said they're writing off all money owed for Bielik, I'm fairly certain that we wouldn't get a 15 point deduction for not paying it. The same will apply to the HMRC debt.
In 2020, HMRC got promoted from the unsecured league to the preferential league. All this means is they're higher in the pecking order. As far as I recall, the EFL regs only say Football creditors are to get 100% rather than preferential creditors.
My understanding is the following debts in priority order are:
1. Fixed charge holders
MSD - £20m (was floating charge, but became fixed upon administration)
MSD loan - £5m (taken out to get us through to Jan)
2. Admin fees
Quantuma - £5m (estimated)
3. Preferential
Transfer fees - £8.4m
HMRC - £26m
4. Unsecured
Trade - £4.3m
Accruals - £3.9m
Other - c£1m
I make that:
£20m deferred
£5m at 100% = £5m
£5m at 100% = £5m
£8.4m when it falls due
£26m at 25% = £6.5m (if agreed with HMRC)
£9.2m at 25% = £2.3m
That's £27.2m guaranteed (not far off the reported £28m!), with the £20m for the stadium to be resolved at a later date.
 
What I also believe is that HMRC are entitled to their 100% prior to unsecured creditors getting more than 25%.

He’s been saying that for a while and as far as I know he’s the only one who thinks that. 
 
in fact he’d been saying we have to pay 100% to Hmrc without any other qualification.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s me! ?

He seems to be saying that we get -15 if we don't pay HMRC 100%, not that we *have* to pay 100%. We can negotiate lower but that will automatically trigger the deduction.

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.

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.