duncanjwitham

The fact they had our stadium 'valued' by a valuer that had zero experience in valuing football grounds, and appointed an expert witness on the amortization issues that had no experience with football finances or day-to-day accounting, would be a decent starting point.  And all at the expense of the other clubs in the league too.

There were definitely a few hints in some of the written reports about Mel pretty much refusing to engage with the EFL over this stuff, so I do wonder if they tried to discuss it with us and we just refused (“our accountants have signed it off, so it’s none of your businesses” type stuff).  Hard to know exactly where to apportion blame when both parties seem tragically incompetent.

The fact they had our stadium 'valued' by a valuer that had zero experience in valuing football grounds, and appointed an expert witness on the amortization issues that had no experience with football finances or day-to-day accounting, would be a decent starting point.  And all at the expense of the other clubs in the league too.

The fact they had our stadium 'valued' by a valuer that had zero experience in valuing football grounds, and appointed an expert witness on the amortization issues that had no experience with football finances or day-to-day accounting, would be a decent starting point.  And all at the expense of the other clubs in the league too.

The fact they had our stadium 'valued' by a valuer that had zero experience in valuing football grounds, and appointed an expert witness on the amortization issues that had no experience with football finances or day-to-day accounting, would be a decent starting point.  And all at the expense of the other clubs in the league too.

The fact they had our stadium 'valued' by a valuer that had zero experience in valuing football grounds, and appointed an expert witness on the amortization issues that had no experience with football finances or day-to-day accounting, would be a decent starting point.  And all at the expense of the other clubs in the league too.

Would be interesting to see how that would play out in our case. We lost one-off playoff final games against 2 over-spending teams. I'd say we absolutely have a case that we were uniquely affected.

Would be interesting to see how that would play out in our case. We lost one-off playoff final games against 2 over-spending teams. I'd say we absolutely have a case that we were uniquely affected.

We didn’t just take it, we massively improved on it, by locating it in not-Middlesbrough.

Would be interesting to see how that would play out in our case. We lost one-off playoff final games against 2 over-spending teams. I'd say we absolutely have a case that we were uniquely affected.

Would be interesting to see how that would play out in our case. We lost one-off playoff final games against 2 over-spending teams. I'd say we absolutely have a case that we were uniquely affected.

Would be interesting to see how that would play out in our case. We lost one-off playoff final games against 2 over-spending teams. I'd say we absolutely have a case that we were uniquely affected.

Would be interesting to see how that would play out in our case. We lost one-off playoff final games against 2 over-spending teams. I'd say we absolutely have a case that we were uniquely affected.

Would be interesting to see how that would play out in our case. We lost one-off playoff final games against 2 over-spending teams. I'd say we absolutely have a case that we were uniquely affected.

I might be reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the DC took the approach of "we're all accountants here, let's just talk through what you're doing and see if it's okay", whereas the LAP took the opposite approach - "this is a legal court, for legal matters, you must prove every thing you're doing is legal from first principles".  That's where the weird disconnect between the 2 reports comes from. The DC one is accountants talking to each other, the LAP is the lawyers getting sniffy because they don't understand what's being talked about and don't like being made to look stupid by asking.

I might be reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the DC took the approach of "we're all accountants here, let's just talk through what you're doing and see if it's okay", whereas the LAP took the opposite approach - "this is a legal court, for legal matters, you must prove every thing you're doing is legal from first principles".  That's where the weird disconnect between the 2 reports comes from. The DC one is accountants talking to each other, the LAP is the lawyers getting sniffy because they don't understand what's being talked about and don't like being made to look stupid by asking.

I might be reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the DC took the approach of "we're all accountants here, let's just talk through what you're doing and see if it's okay", whereas the LAP took the opposite approach - "this is a legal court, for legal matters, you must prove every thing you're doing is legal from first principles".  That's where the weird disconnect between the 2 reports comes from. The DC one is accountants talking to each other, the LAP is the lawyers getting sniffy because they don't understand what's being talked about and don't like being made to look stupid by asking.

I might be reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the DC took the approach of "we're all accountants here, let's just talk through what you're doing and see if it's okay", whereas the LAP took the opposite approach - "this is a legal court, for legal matters, you must prove every thing you're doing is legal from first principles".  That's where the weird disconnect between the 2 reports comes from. The DC one is accountants talking to each other, the LAP is the lawyers getting sniffy because they don't understand what's being talked about and don't like being made to look stupid by asking.

I might be reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the DC took the approach of "we're all accountants here, let's just talk through what you're doing and see if it's okay", whereas the LAP took the opposite approach - "this is a legal court, for legal matters, you must prove every thing you're doing is legal from first principles".  That's where the weird disconnect between the 2 reports comes from. The DC one is accountants talking to each other, the LAP is the lawyers getting sniffy because they don't understand what's being talked about and don't like being made to look stupid by asking.

I might be reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the DC took the approach of "we're all accountants here, let's just talk through what you're doing and see if it's okay", whereas the LAP took the opposite approach - "this is a legal court, for legal matters, you must prove every thing you're doing is legal from first principles".  That's where the weird disconnect between the 2 reports comes from. The DC one is accountants talking to each other, the LAP is the lawyers getting sniffy because they don't understand what's being talked about and don't like being made to look stupid by asking.

I’m still struggling to figure out what you actually think was going to happen. Are you saying Sharp was going to get on the end of the sideways ball and roll it into the net? Because there’s no chance he does (cleanly anyway) - the ball goes at least 5 yards sideways, almost behind him with the way his momentum is carrying him, and it’s chipped high off the ground too.  To get a shot off from that position, he’s probably going to have to stop his momentum, shift sideways, pivot 360 degrees, maybe wait for the ball to drop, and get a shot off as he comes back around to face goal.  There’s already a defender back on the line by that point, and there’s another right where the ball lands too. There’s no way that’s an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
The most rational argument for a red card is he wouldn’t have passed it if he didn’t think Roos was going to foul him, but then you’re giving decisions on what might have happened, not what actually happened. If Roos had stopped a yard short, everything he did would have been perfectly legal, and Sharp would still probably have squared it.
And obviously I would have been shouting for it, like every fan shouts for everything to go their way. That doesn’t mean it would have been the right decision. You can’t referee games based on what each set of fans is shouting for.

Which goal scoring opportunity did it stop? Sharp no longer has the ball at his feet when he’s fouled, so how is he supposed to have a clear goal scoring opportunity?

So why did Sharp pass the ball? To be a red card, it basically has to be a foul that stops a player who’s about to score a goal.  Passing the ball to a teammate is the thing you can do that makes it the most obvious that you *weren’t* about to score.

I’m still struggling to figure out what you actually think was going to happen. Are you saying Sharp was going to get on the end of the sideways ball and roll it into the net? Because there’s no chance he does (cleanly anyway) - the ball goes at least 5 yards sideways, almost behind him with the way his momentum is carrying him, and it’s chipped high off the ground too.  To get a shot off from that position, he’s probably going to have to stop his momentum, shift sideways, pivot 360 degrees, maybe wait for the ball to drop, and get a shot off as he comes back around to face goal.  There’s already a defender back on the line by that point, and there’s another right where the ball lands too. There’s no way that’s an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
The most rational argument for a red card is he wouldn’t have passed it if he didn’t think Roos was going to foul him, but then you’re giving decisions on what might have happened, not what actually happened. If Roos had stopped a yard short, everything he did would have been perfectly legal, and Sharp would still probably have squared it.
And obviously I would have been shouting for it, like every fan shouts for everything to go their way. That doesn’t mean it would have been the right decision. You can’t referee games based on what each set of fans is shouting for.

Which goal scoring opportunity did it stop? Sharp no longer has the ball at his feet when he’s fouled, so how is he supposed to have a clear goal scoring opportunity?