duncanjwitham

He's still parading the line about HMRC having to be paid 100% of what we owe them too, despite extensive explanations from the administrators last weekend about them negotiating with HMRC about how much we're going to actually pay.

I wonder how much of that is due to normal running costs, and how much is additional stuff (interest on the MSD loan, fees to the administrators etc).

Be interesting to see if Thompson starts again. That'll be his 3rd start and then he'll officially count as one of the 25 players we're allowed to use.  It might give us some insight into what the thinking for January is.
Obviously he deserves to start, he's been fantastic so far.

I wonder how much of that is due to normal running costs, and how much is additional stuff (interest on the MSD loan, fees to the administrators etc).

I think this is what's confusing people.  Under the current rules, the actual offence is touching the ball (or interfering with play etc etc) after being stood in an offside position when it was previously played by a team mate.  So the freekick does occur at the point of offence.  Being stood in an offside position, even if the ball was very clearly played to you, isn't an offence until you touch it (or otherwise interfere).

Just charge 1p each time to post “Tom Lawrence” on the board. The weekly post-match meltdowns would generate a fortune.

I'm not really sure why DCFC never pursued QPR for compensation after the full scale of their FFPO breach was revealed. Both they and Leicester breached FFP rules that season. Leicester beat us home and away and QPR away and obviously at Wembley.
Then there's the case of our dear friends Notts Forest : placed under embargo in December 2015 for breaching FFP financial loss limits in season 2014/15, Forest spent big in the summer of 2014, including circa £6M on Britt Assombalonga who scored the equaliser in their 2-1 victory at PP in January 2015. Derby, if you recall, missed out on promotion by 1 point (we had a superior goal difference to the 3 teams tied above us with 1 point more). 
Let's not even think about Villa and their record-breaking wage bill.
If Middlesbrough and Wycombe fans feel hard done-by, don't come to us looking for sympathy or understanding.

Well out of order.

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

My understanding of the sanctions decision (DC2), was that all of the issues to do with the accounting methods/amortization etc was dealt with with the £100k fine.  If restating the accounts then resulted in overspend, that was to be treated purely in terms of it being overspend. There weren't to be additional points added on for the accounting or anything, as that would be us being punished twice for the same thing.

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

Yep I fully understand that and again the truth of everything will never get heard in public. I accept our over spending on mediocre players and I frequently commentated on it but the behaviour and actions of the EFL will get hidden away again 

Wycombe's claim is fallacious anyway.
By their logic, Sheffield Wednesday should have had THEIR original points deduction of -9 applied at the end of the season in which it was determined - 2019/20 - that would have relegated SWFC instead of Charlton. Instead, the Tribunal decided that the purpose of the EFL's regulations was not to punish teams by relegating them without the hope of saving themselves. So they determined that it should be applied to the 20/21 season instead (it was then reduced to -6 points on appeal), which meant that Wycombe finished in 22nd place instead of 23rd. Thus, Derby's PD being applied last season would not have saved Wycombe anyway.
I hope Quantuma are all over this, because Couhig's claim is the biggest load of crud out there, except perhaps for Gibson's claim.
Still, at least it demonstrates to a few people that claims that other club owners want to put DCFC out of business are not fanciful or a symptom of "victim culture". They're not trying to punish Morris now, they're trying to punish US.
 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-5-financial-fair-play-regulations/
“6.4          Any Disciplinary Commission convened pursuant to or otherwise in relation to any matter covered by these Rules shall include at least one member who holds a nationally recognised qualification as an accountant or auditor (but who shall not sit as the chairman of the Disciplinary Commission, who shall be qualified as set out in Regulation 90.3.1) (the Finance Member).
6.5          The Finance Member shall be selected by the Independent Directors of the Board from a panel of Finance Members approved by a simple majority of the member clubs in the Championship division as at the date the panel is presented for approval.  For the purposes of Regulation 90.3.2, the Finance Member shall be deemed to be the member appointed by The League”

Bear in mind that those losses are all rolling 3 year losses, so the actual losses are only a third of what’s quoted there.  The total FFP overspend is about £33m (although it could be higher depending on how those listed figures deal with ‘resetting’ losses in previous seasons). I think that overspend falls into the season we sold the stadium, so it would have been interesting to see if we could have used the reserve valuation thingy at that point - I’m probably mangling this, but we basically ‘stored’ some of the profit from the sale of the stadium for future use, but if we knew where we were on FFP terms we may not have done that at all.  All it takes is using that, and maybe some other action like not signing Bielik, and we’re not that far off hitting the target.

I’ve been mentally calling him Professor Plum since the first DC (for various reasons…). I have to double check every post when I mention his name in case I’ve written the wrong one.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-5-financial-fair-play-regulations/
“6.4          Any Disciplinary Commission convened pursuant to or otherwise in relation to any matter covered by these Rules shall include at least one member who holds a nationally recognised qualification as an accountant or auditor (but who shall not sit as the chairman of the Disciplinary Commission, who shall be qualified as set out in Regulation 90.3.1) (the Finance Member).
6.5          The Finance Member shall be selected by the Independent Directors of the Board from a panel of Finance Members approved by a simple majority of the member clubs in the Championship division as at the date the panel is presented for approval.  For the purposes of Regulation 90.3.2, the Finance Member shall be deemed to be the member appointed by The League”

Bear in mind that those losses are all rolling 3 year losses, so the actual losses are only a third of what’s quoted there.  The total FFP overspend is about £33m (although it could be higher depending on how those listed figures deal with ‘resetting’ losses in previous seasons). I think that overspend falls into the season we sold the stadium, so it would have been interesting to see if we could have used the reserve valuation thingy at that point - I’m probably mangling this, but we basically ‘stored’ some of the profit from the sale of the stadium for future use, but if we knew where we were on FFP terms we may not have done that at all.  All it takes is using that, and maybe some other action like not signing Bielik, and we’re not that far off hitting the target.

But another round of DC and LAP hearings could have added years onto the process. We could still be going through this stuff next season and facing further deductions in league 1.

Ordering a new hearing before a new DC is one of the powers the LAP had under the existing rules.