duncanjwitham

It won't be the EFL themselves, it will be a LAP, like our appeal was. The make-up of it is set out in the rules - something like each side gets to name one panel members, and the 3rd has to be from an official arbitration body or something, with rules on the minimum qualifications each member must have.
I'm not so much worried about the impartiality as the technical competence.  There's no requirement for qualified accountants or anything on the panel, it will be QCs etc again.  So I'm worried that 'Boro rock up and start mouthing off about FRS102, we defend our position, and the LAP (having no experience or training to understand the technical issues), end up deciding based on which lawyer has the smartest suit or which expert witness had the most letters after his name.

Honestly, his entire testimony and evidence is an absolute horror-show from the EFL's point of view.  With their valuer massively overstating his own experience, making basic mistakes (confusing cost-per-seat with cost-per-square-meter at one stage), refusing to show where he got values from, deliberately hiding evidence that disagreed with his position, and more.  Anybody that has any doubts about why we won the stadium value charge needs to read that entire section.

Honestly, his entire testimony and evidence is an absolute horror-show from the EFL's point of view.  With their valuer massively overstating his own experience, making basic mistakes (confusing cost-per-seat with cost-per-square-meter at one stage), refusing to show where he got values from, deliberately hiding evidence that disagreed with his position, and more.  Anybody that has any doubts about why we won the stadium value charge needs to read that entire section.

Honestly, his entire testimony and evidence is an absolute horror-show from the EFL's point of view.  With their valuer massively overstating his own experience, making basic mistakes (confusing cost-per-seat with cost-per-square-meter at one stage), refusing to show where he got values from, deliberately hiding evidence that disagreed with his position, and more.  Anybody that has any doubts about why we won the stadium value charge needs to read that entire section.

Honestly, his entire testimony and evidence is an absolute horror-show from the EFL's point of view.  With their valuer massively overstating his own experience, making basic mistakes (confusing cost-per-seat with cost-per-square-meter at one stage), refusing to show where he got values from, deliberately hiding evidence that disagreed with his position, and more.  Anybody that has any doubts about why we won the stadium value charge needs to read that entire section.

It’s an incredible read. I didn’t use the phrase ‘laughed out of court’ lightly earlier! The panel were actually furious that their time was being wasted. 

Honestly, his entire testimony and evidence is an absolute horror-show from the EFL's point of view.  With their valuer massively overstating his own experience, making basic mistakes (confusing cost-per-seat with cost-per-square-meter at one stage), refusing to show where he got values from, deliberately hiding evidence that disagreed with his position, and more.  Anybody that has any doubts about why we won the stadium value charge needs to read that entire section.

Imagine how awful you must be when you are making Leeds look classy by comparison...

It's a minor point, but the EFL's valuer didn't multiply it to match Pride Park's capacity, he multiplied it to match the average attendance Derby had got in recent seasons. Just another example of why the commission cleared us on that charge.

Or they have absolutely no confidence that an EFL led arbitration would be impartial, justifiably so because history tells us otherwise.

Yeah, that's pretty close.  They took the average cost per seat of a bunch of similar stadia, and multiplied it up to match Pride Park.  Then basically fudge it a bit for finance costs, depreciation etc.  The argument was over the choice of stadia to use as comparisons.
Page 88 onwards in here: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf
 

Yeah, that's pretty close.  They took the average cost per seat of a bunch of similar stadia, and multiplied it up to match Pride Park.  Then basically fudge it a bit for finance costs, depreciation etc.  The argument was over the choice of stadia to use as comparisons.
Page 88 onwards in here: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf
 

No arguments from me there. I've said all along that FFP in it's current form isn't fit for purpose.  I'd much prefer something like the wages/turnover ratio limit that applies in Leagues 1 and 2.  It's overspending on wages that kills clubs, not owners chucking some extra money in to buy a new striker - as we're amply demonstrating right now ?.

Yeah, that's pretty close.  They took the average cost per seat of a bunch of similar stadia, and multiplied it up to match Pride Park.  Then basically fudge it a bit for finance costs, depreciation etc.  The argument was over the choice of stadia to use as comparisons.
Page 88 onwards in here: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf
 

No arguments from me there. I've said all along that FFP in it's current form isn't fit for purpose.  I'd much prefer something like the wages/turnover ratio limit that applies in Leagues 1 and 2.  It's overspending on wages that kills clubs, not owners chucking some extra money in to buy a new striker - as we're amply demonstrating right now ?.

The clubs vote for the rules though, or at least vote to approve them. The clubs clearly thought it was something they wanted. And then when they saw it play out, they changed their minds (as is their right, obviously).
I find it hard to see it as a loophole too.  The only major fixed tangible assets clubs have are their stadium and training ground, so it's not really clear what else this rule change could be for.  If I was guessing, I'd say that enough clubs sensed they were sailing close enough to the FFP thresholds to want a fallback option there, just in case. And then the backlash etc made enough of them change their minds a few years later.

The clubs vote for the rules though, or at least vote to approve them. The clubs clearly thought it was something they wanted. And then when they saw it play out, they changed their minds (as is their right, obviously).
I find it hard to see it as a loophole too.  The only major fixed tangible assets clubs have are their stadium and training ground, so it's not really clear what else this rule change could be for.  If I was guessing, I'd say that enough clubs sensed they were sailing close enough to the FFP thresholds to want a fallback option there, just in case. And then the backlash etc made enough of them change their minds a few years later.

The clubs vote for the rules though, or at least vote to approve them. The clubs clearly thought it was something they wanted. And then when they saw it play out, they changed their minds (as is their right, obviously).
I find it hard to see it as a loophole too.  The only major fixed tangible assets clubs have are their stadium and training ground, so it's not really clear what else this rule change could be for.  If I was guessing, I'd say that enough clubs sensed they were sailing close enough to the FFP thresholds to want a fallback option there, just in case. And then the backlash etc made enough of them change their minds a few years later.

The rules were expressly changed a few seasons before we did it, to allow profit/loss from disposal of fixed tangible assets to count towards FFP.  There's no question of interpretation here as it was a change that was consciously and deliberately made.  And the value was determined correctly by a 3rd party valuer, so there's no issue there either.
The rules were changed back a few seasons later, so it's not allowed any more.  But that's not relevant to our case, as it was clearly and deliberately allowed at the time.

The obvious question with that is, were 'Boro trying to make the EFL enforce their rules, or trying to make them enforce a particular interpretation of them that favoured 'Boro over us?  It certainly seems clear that in what 'Boro deemed to be the major issue (the stadium sale), the interpretation that the EFL initially applied was correct (that the sale was allowed).

I heard he's hoping to be flush with cash...

I heard he's hoping to be flush with cash...

The rules were expressly changed a few seasons before we did it, to allow profit/loss from disposal of fixed tangible assets to count towards FFP.  There's no question of interpretation here as it was a change that was consciously and deliberately made.  And the value was determined correctly by a 3rd party valuer, so there's no issue there either.
The rules were changed back a few seasons later, so it's not allowed any more.  But that's not relevant to our case, as it was clearly and deliberately allowed at the time.

I think you're under-selling it tbh. That season alone, you can argue at least Reading (finished 7th) and Wigan (lost in the playoff semi to QPR) have cases against QPR, for example.

I think you're under-selling it tbh. That season alone, you can argue at least Reading (finished 7th) and Wigan (lost in the playoff semi to QPR) have cases against QPR, for example.