duncanjwitham

Think you’re right on the 14 days, my mistake, alcohol required this evening!!

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.

Their statement yesterday indicated there was also something else beside the amortisation. I assume that has to be the stadium still, since I can’t believe there’s something else massive in the accounts that nobody has spotted in 7 years of heavy scrutiny.

If it is the stadium sale, we just refer to the decision of the EFL disciplinary and say go away.

Their statement yesterday indicated there was also something else beside the amortisation. I assume that has to be the stadium still, since I can’t believe there’s something else massive in the accounts that nobody has spotted in 7 years of heavy scrutiny.

We know one is close though, we were on the verge of naming one last week.  The issue is whether is “named tomorrow” close or “once ‘Boro/Wycombe are sorted” close.

Because Reading have had the penalty applied in the correct season. They exceeded limits in the P&S period up to 2021, which means a penalty in the 21/22 season.
Couhig (incorrectly) believes Derby's penalty should have been applied to 20/21 season for failing the periods ending in 2017, 2019 and 2021.
As was pointed out from the interview yesterday, Couhig doesn't know the correct information, notably timescales, P&S periods, P&S rules, nor EFL procedures.

I've just steeled myself and listened to a bit of his interview (genuinely couldn't face it last night).  He seems hopelessly muddled about the timeline of things, and I still can't tell exactly which set of accounts he's actually talking about. 
He starts off as if he's talking about the restated accounts for 2015-2018, when he talks about the results of the appeal and being forced to restate "financials".  We know we complied with the deadlines we were given on these, albeit with one small extension that changes nothing.
But he seems to be talking about the 2018/19 accounts at various points too (the first of the 2 sets we didn't publish at all) - when he references the Morris interview about overspend etc.  He seems to be suggesting that we deliberately didn't publish that set of accounts because we know we would overspend in them.  But we don't know that - Morris's interview only referenced an overspend if we followed the EFL's preferred model, we have no idea what the figure was under our model.  The appeal result was announced in July 2021, which is after the date we would have published the 18/19 accounts - which would have been April 2020 (over a year before the appeal result).  At that point, we hadn't even had the first hearing yet.
So, if I'm understanding his garbled rantings, his argument seems to be that as soon as the LAP decision came down in July 2021, and before the DC2 sanction hearing, we should have immediately submitted the outstanding 2018/19 and 19/20 accounts with the EFL's preferred model.  Even though we had no legal compulsion to submit them (beyond the usual requirement to submit accounts), and were still in dispute with the EFL over the exact form of them.  Even if you argue we should have submitted them promptly (which I don't disagree with, really), the obvious point is either alongside the 2015-18 accounts, or immediately following their acceptance. Not months before when we're still (perfectly legally) arguing our position.
For his own sake, I hope it's just a case of him not really understanding the issues and his legal guys have a better grasp, but he's utterly clueless on pretty much everything - the timelines, our case, the EFL's disciplinary process, admin rules, everything.

We know one is close though, we were on the verge of naming one last week.  The issue is whether is “named tomorrow” close or “once ‘Boro/Wycombe are sorted” close.

We know one is close though, we were on the verge of naming one last week.  The issue is whether is “named tomorrow” close or “once ‘Boro/Wycombe are sorted” close.

This topic will be updated with the latest information, news and tweets on the current situation for those unable to follow the forum during the day.
Please help by forwarding any of the above to myself by private message only as I receive email notifications.  
Thank you.

Well I have worked in business for many years and in all modesty I understand boring things like accounts better than most, I suspect.

I was unaware of Derby's accounting policy because I followed Derby's football, not their finances. Until January 2020 when the first publicity about the EFL charge came out. I thought then that it was very unlikely that EFL would overturn an indpendent professional's valuation of PPS, and so it proved. I though then that the allegation about amortisation, as it was described in the press as depreciating to non zero values at end of contract coudl not possibly be true. And it wasn't, that wasn't what Derby were doing, and that part of the charge was dropped.    

So really even after the publicity in January 2020 there was no reason for me to believe we were doing anything wrong. In August 2020 the IDC gave it's opinion which was basically the same as mine. EFL appealed but not aware on what grounds becasue the IDC decision which I read in full,  seemed pretty overhwlemingly to destroy the EFC case, including their expert who didn't even know what his duty as expert was meant to be.
Only in May 2021 did I start to supect ther wa sreally a problem when the LAP surprsingly oeverturned the ID judgment. But unti lMM's RD interview in September 2021 it wasnt confirmed that w ehad broken teh FFP , and even then only on the EFL's preferred amortsiation method which i snot a mandatory requirement.
So the idea we should all have known MM was breaking the rules, if I (for example) didn't know until September 2021, i think is just ridiculous and offensive to all Rams fans. Couhig should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute.
 

The size is still relevant if the claims end up being £50m+. 25% of that is probably still too much.
But the upside is, we don’t get kicked out of the league for not paying them, IIRC. We just get the -15 point penalty if we fail to pay non football creditors 25%.

The question was "what happens if they're not football creditors". If that's the case, and if the claims get quashed out of existence when we leave admin, then it's fine.
If there's the possibility of them just opening new claims against us after we leave admin, even if we're technically a completely different company that just happens to have the DCFC name and golden share, then we may as well give up now.

The admins kick off the exit plan they have. A preferred bidder is chosen, they put in enough funding to cover the rest of the season. The exit is sorted and signed off by creditors, We sell to that bidder, exit admin and carry on. 
Obviously there are a lot of potential hurdles in there, and no guarantees of anything. But it's a viable plan to recovery.

The admins kick off the exit plan they have. A preferred bidder is chosen, they put in enough funding to cover the rest of the season. The exit is sorted and signed off by creditors, We sell to that bidder, exit admin and carry on. 
Obviously there are a lot of potential hurdles in there, and no guarantees of anything. But it's a viable plan to recovery.

I *think* so, it's not clear. But the references to the Morris interview and automatic points deductions, can only refer to us not submitting the 2018/19 accounts on time, and not getting the automatic deduction applied in 2019/20 (the year Wycombe were in the Championship).