duncanjwitham

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 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).

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).

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

I know it's probably not in the admins remit to do this, but I would be very tempted to publicly release a list of all of the cases that we believe would be valid if the 'Boro and Wycombe claims were allowed to stand.  There are literally dozens and dozens of them.  Make it very clear to everyone quite how insane it is.

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

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

I know it's probably not in the admins remit to do this, but I would be very tempted to publicly release a list of all of the cases that we believe would be valid if the 'Boro and Wycombe claims were allowed to stand.  There are literally dozens and dozens of them.  Make it very clear to everyone quite how insane it is.

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

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

I quickly skimmed that and read your last 'point' as part of the EFL Regs! ? Well it seemed possible!

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

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

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

Another look at the legitimacy of the claims...
Possible Penalty Scenarios
Scenario 1. Penalties should have been accounted for in the season following the breach:
We fail the period up to 2017 = Deduction in 17/18 We fail the period up to 2019 = Deduction in 19/20 We fail the period up to 2021 = Deduction in 21/22 Boro are claiming for 18/19 whereas Wycombe are claiming for 20/21. The table in neither of those seasons would have been impacted if retrospective penalties were applied to the 'correct' season (as per the Birmingham and Reading cases)
 
Scenario 2. Penalties are awarded in one package once the figures are known for the period ending in 2021.
Final figures for the 20/21 season until the end of June 2021, over a month after the season had ended. These had to be audited, submitted and reviewed. Penalty wouldn't be applicable until the 21/22 season.
 
So why 18/19 and 20/21? Well, it can only be because those seasons in question were part of a period in which we failed P&S. As stated in Scenario 2, the full financial details were not known at the time the season had ended. An expedited review of the accounts meant the following season had already been well under way before a decision could have been reached.
Again, why 18/19 and 20/21 if they form part of a 3 or 4 year monitoring period, rather than any other season?
 
Then you have a whole host of questions, such as whether they have the right to claim against the club despite following the EFL's procedures, the size of the claims, the claim that they would have been 6th/avoided relegation if Derby were penalised, etc...

In theory, there's nothing stopping a court stepping in and ordering the EFL to perform (or abstain from) specific actions regarding our administration.  What I can't figure out is how that interacts with the arbitration mechanism in the EFL rules.  Are we forced to use that mechanism instead of getting an injunction (as it's a dispute between the club and the league), or can we just have at it.

In theory, there's nothing stopping a court stepping in and ordering the EFL to perform (or abstain from) specific actions regarding our administration.  What I can't figure out is how that interacts with the arbitration mechanism in the EFL rules.  Are we forced to use that mechanism instead of getting an injunction (as it's a dispute between the club and the league), or can we just have at it.

Mate, what are you even talking about? I never said there was a preferred bidder, they claimed they were in a position to announce one and clearly something changed. As of what I said in my post. 

They can also kick the club out of the league if they don't pay 100% of football creditors.  So any buyer needs to know for sure that that isn't going to happen either or they won't commit to buying.

They can also kick the club out of the league if they don't pay 100% of football creditors.  So any buyer needs to know for sure that that isn't going to happen either or they won't commit to buying.

Not sure that’s quite right. The October 2020 claim was ‘Boro trying to either latch into the EFL’s appeal, or start their own appeal. They were denied both times on the grounds they had no jurisdiction or standing.  The 14 days thing only applies to appeals. They are free to file a general notice of arbitration against any club, at any time, for any reason.  Which is what they’ve apparently done in January 2021.
The way I see it, any argument over the stadium should be shot down straightaway. The rules are clear that only the league can initiate disciplinary cases. By trying to rerun the charge that we have already been completely cleared of, they are trying to start a disciplinary case, and have no jurisdiction. That also applies to any brand new claims they make.  They need to raise their case with the EFL and get them to prosecute it.
For the amortisation issue, they maybe have some grounds, but there is ample precedent in existing EFL disciplinary cases that you can’t correlate overspending with specific sporting outcomes, to suggest they have no case.  I’m sure there’s also a reference (in DC2, I think) that states that points deductions are deterrents, they are not meant to be corrective actions to level things up again. So there’s no argument there. You can also argue that if DC2 had felt that ‘Boro had been sufficiently harmed, then they had the power to award them compensation, but actively chose not to.

Not sure that’s quite right. The October 2020 claim was ‘Boro trying to either latch into the EFL’s appeal, or start their own appeal. They were denied both times on the grounds they had no jurisdiction or standing.  The 14 days thing only applies to appeals. They are free to file a general notice of arbitration against any club, at any time, for any reason.  Which is what they’ve apparently done in January 2021.
The way I see it, any argument over the stadium should be shot down straightaway. The rules are clear that only the league can initiate disciplinary cases. By trying to rerun the charge that we have already been completely cleared of, they are trying to start a disciplinary case, and have no jurisdiction. That also applies to any brand new claims they make.  They need to raise their case with the EFL and get them to prosecute it.
For the amortisation issue, they maybe have some grounds, but there is ample precedent in existing EFL disciplinary cases that you can’t correlate overspending with specific sporting outcomes, to suggest they have no case.  I’m sure there’s also a reference (in DC2, I think) that states that points deductions are deterrents, they are not meant to be corrective actions to level things up again. So there’s no argument there. You can also argue that if DC2 had felt that ‘Boro had been sufficiently harmed, then they had the power to award them compensation, but actively chose not to.

In context, I agree. It could be more or less the update Toby Perkins gave on twitter, which wasn't great. I don't really expect much more than that until something moves.
It's something of a mexican stand off between Quantuma, the EFL, WW+Boro with Mike Ashley watching and waiting to see at what point he should step in to his maximum benefit, or walk away. And given the general bastadry of Mike Ashley as a businessman, it would be foolish to think he wouldn't if the price wasn't right.
WW+Boro are least likely to move because they risk nothing by maintaining their current position. Won't move because they don't have to. Gibson is a fanatic on this. His mouthpieces utting around he'd take a lot less than £45m is hardly the generous good guy of the piece he thinks it makes him. No one compelled Gibson to take this action, BTW, and his stated grievence was the EFL did not enforce their rules, which they now have.
The EFL may feel they can't move becuase of the way they've interpreted their regs, but also under pressure to not see DCFC go under. Won't move because they don't think they can, but possibley might under external pressure.
Quantuma, don't think they can move becuase bidders won't take on WW+Boro risk. Would like to move but can't.
In all honesty, the best likely outcome is DCFC are rescued at the last minute, probably by Ashley but the club in a terrible state and creditors getting absolutly rinsed. Other plausible scenarios include variations on "new"" DCFC being technically a contiunation of Derby County but in effect went bust and was restructured. Worst case, we all know.