duncanjwitham

What did Derby do? We failed P&S due to non-compliant accounts¹, were late submitting accounts², and followed the the EFLs processes to get the matter resolved³.
 
Wycombe
1. EFL procedures determined the previously submitted accounts were non-compluant and a punishment in line with EFL procedures was handed out 
2. EFL rules state this infraction is punished with an embargo until accounts are submitted. This has been the case. There are reports that the delay in submitting those accounts was a result of waiting for a verdict from DC/LAP. The first set of missing accounts was for the 18/19 season which were due by the end of June 2020 - several months after we were charged. 
3. EFL procedures followed.
Seems to be Wycombe's claim should be against the EFL.
 
Middlesbrough
1. EFL procedures were followed which resulted in a points deduction not being applied in the season which Gibson wanted (18/19) nor the season the EFL themselves wanted (20/21)
2. EFL processes followed. This does not impact Gibson's claim as missing accounts would only have an impact on the league table in future seasons (19/20 onward)
3. EFL procedures followed.
Middlesbrough's claim should be against the EFL for not spotting/investigating any potential wrong-doing sooner, so that Derby could have been penalised in what should have been the correct season (18/19)

I assume his "expertise" is all around accountancy/football-finance, not the intricacies of insolvency law. 

I was in the middle of replying, but there's a much simpler argument here...
The 2018/19 accounts are inherently tied in with 2016/17 and 2017/18 because of the rolling 3 year FFP window.  Even if we submit the 2018/19 accounts on time, or immediately following the LAP decision, we still can't determine where they fall in FFP terms without waiting for the 3 restated sets of accounts.  So there's no way we can be deducted points for them in time to affect that season.
And I suspect it's quite possible (without checking), that if we used the original versions of those accounts as we filed at the time, alongside the straight-lie 2018/19 set, we're probably fine too.  The stadium sale was in the previous year, so we have a bit of leeway.
 

New MFC Statement:
Is Steve Gibson Handsome?
Yes, Steve Gibson is a very good looking man who doesn't have hair that resembles pibic hair.
Is Steve Gibson in the right?
Of course he is.
Is Derby wrong?
Of course.
Is a claim the same as a debt?
Yes.
Should Derby pay MFC and beg for the mercy of Steve Gibson?
Yes.
Has Steve Gibson suffered erectile disfunction since MFC finished 7th in 2019?
No absolutely not.

This seems to be the crux of it for me too. Which, seems doubly poor when this information, unlike a lot of what he moans on about, is not only not subject to NDAs/confidentiality/etc., but is freely available.
How could we possibly submit accounts any earlier, when there was still an argument as to the form they should take?

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.

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.

I assume his "expertise" is all around accountancy/football-finance, not the intricacies of insolvency law. 

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.

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.

I assume his "expertise" is all around accountancy/football-finance, not the intricacies of insolvency law. 

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.

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).

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.

Juventus 1973

But the claim wasn't concluded in Autumn 2020...
The original hearing result was August 2020, when we were basically cleared of everything.
The EFL appeal result was May 2021.
The decision on Sanction was June 2021.
The agreed decision on FFP issues was November 2021.

As an accountant who has known many (and is married to one) it is not generally a profession renowned for great verbal extrovert communicators. It attracts certain characters usually. They are finance professionals and its unfair to compare their communications, if they are by nature traditional accountants, with slick PR machines from the EFL and other clubs. I would rather have bad communicators who know their stuff and get a job done than slick salesmen type accountants who generally lack substance, attention to detail, technical skills and brains. 
 
can you not see what the efl, boro and WW are doing with their statements - trashing the admins. Its a coordinated stance which based on the comments here is working!
 

Furthermore, having listened to it more closely, does nobody find it extremely interesting that this guy volunteered to go on Radio Derby?
Why is that? Who is his audience?
It's you. It's Derby fans. That's why he asked "how much do the administrators expect to make from the Derby case?". "Why do they keep missing the deadlines they promised you?"
He's paying close attention to Derby fans becoming disgruntled with the administrators and picked those very same talking points to bring up. He explains very little about why he has a case, and spends most of it laying into Quantuma.
Because he wants to squash our solidarity. I have concerns over Quantuma as well but don't take his word on it. He wants us to fight with them rather than with him

What have Quantuma done? They didn’t just release a statement on Friday night, they released a hand grenade which has exploded spectacularly, fans have latched onto it creates momentum and within 2 working days parliament are involved. They’ve not spoken because they haven’t needed to.
EFL have nearly spontaneously combusted with their statement last night. Basically implied their insolvency rules are open to interpretation and subject to change, in other words they make it up as they go along ???
Boro come out today citing systematic cheating as the basis for their claim on a set of arguments already settled and ruled upon by disciplinary commissions (ie stadium sale) and also the same arguments as the case they brought to the LAP which was ruled against, no systematic cheating was found in ANY of the judgements in the original IDC, subsequent LAP, and final IDC ruling, all they have is subjective opinion.
Wycombe, while RD gave Couhig the platform to prove he’s a sharp lawyer, they also let him reveal his reasons for the action, which proves they absolutely have no case at all because the IDC did not rule on the Derby sanction, the fine of £100k and the restatement of accounts until after the season had ended, therefore there is no way the points could have been applied earlier, the whole process we also know was delayed by Boro’s failed action, the LAP judgement told us this.
They have all questioned the actions of Quantuma, of course they are going to!! They want to deflect from the weakness of their arguments and all those parties are concerned about how they’re being portrayed. Are Quantuma bothered, maybe/maybe not but it’s not about saving public face it’s about getting a deal done no matter how dirty it gets. They’ve not spoken to Boro and Wycombe because they don’t believe the claims and have a legal way around them potentially, so they weren’t priority, doing a deal with HMRC was absolute priority, while Pauline Latham said we wasn’t entirely happy about her meeting with the administrators, I’m sure I read another post say she believes it has implied Quantuma have a deal with HMRC. In fact we go back to Quantuma’s statement last Friday and that also implies they have a deal in place with everyone (or at least a route forward) except Boro and Wycombe. The events of the last few days have refocused everyone and led all parties to say they’re willing to come to the table to try and sort this out - maybe that is what they wanted and exactly what was needed.
The MPs are now challenging ALL parties to get this deal done and that is the right approach and Quantuma will be under pressure to deliver on their requirements.
 

He's a teacher, not an accountant.

Boro (Gibson) have (has) a clear vendetta. They've been more involved in our P&S and administration issues than the EFL themselves. They've even changed opinion on what we did wrong halfway through this entire process. Since April 2019,  it was the stadium valuation, and it wasn't until mid 2021 that they locked in on the amortisation policy instead (coinciding with the LAP decision)