Ghost of Clough

Solomon popping up in the box to make it 5
 

Solomon popping up in the box to make it 5
 

Solomon popping up in the box to make it 5
 

Plange seems to take his chances with ease looking at a couple of those goals ?

Shouldn't Cresswell have been included in the first team squad for today?

Obviously just warming up last night! 
 

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

Yeah, I had a quick look myself and I'm scratching my head as to where I saw it. I suppose there is a chance that conclusion was arrived at based on what could be appealled with any chance of a punishment being handed out.
The second charge was broken down in to 5 particulars. The EFL withdrew the 1st of those.
2. EFL felt FRS 102 means amortisation of players should be on as straight line basis. Dismissed and no chance of winning on appeal.
3. ERVs (assigning an estimated value prior to the expiry of a contract). Due to us not disclosing the policy clearly, the EFL misunderstood, thinking it was an assigned value at the end of the contract. Dismissed, and no chance of winning on appeal.
4. Reliability (not certainty) of ERVs. I suppose there's a chance this one could be overturned. However, the appeal is based on the evidence previously provided, and whether the verdict reached is fair based on that evidence. FRS 102 states 'expectation', rather than the EFLs case of 'entitlement'. For example, despite Bielik's injuries, we may still expect to sell him for £6m. It doesn't mean we will get £6m.
5. Disclosure of policy. We were already found guilty of this one. If appealing the punishment, it should be noted that it had no impact on our P&S position, and therefore can not be punished for failing it. That means no points deduction. It's a fine at most for deliberately misleading the EFL (due to not responding to their queries on the matter).
 
Summary: if it is the entire charge, there is zero chance of #1-3 beijg any different to the decisions already made. It would take a massive Gibson to overturn #4. A maximum punishment of a 'slap on the wrist for #5.

Yeah, I had a quick look myself and I'm scratching my head as to where I saw it. I suppose there is a chance that conclusion was arrived at based on what could be appealled with any chance of a punishment being handed out.
The second charge was broken down in to 5 particulars. The EFL withdrew the 1st of those.
2. EFL felt FRS 102 means amortisation of players should be on as straight line basis. Dismissed and no chance of winning on appeal.
3. ERVs (assigning an estimated value prior to the expiry of a contract). Due to us not disclosing the policy clearly, the EFL misunderstood, thinking it was an assigned value at the end of the contract. Dismissed, and no chance of winning on appeal.
4. Reliability (not certainty) of ERVs. I suppose there's a chance this one could be overturned. However, the appeal is based on the evidence previously provided, and whether the verdict reached is fair based on that evidence. FRS 102 states 'expectation', rather than the EFLs case of 'entitlement'. For example, despite Bielik's injuries, we may still expect to sell him for £6m. It doesn't mean we will get £6m.
5. Disclosure of policy. We were already found guilty of this one. If appealing the punishment, it should be noted that it had no impact on our P&S position, and therefore can not be punished for failing it. That means no points deduction. It's a fine at most for deliberately misleading the EFL (due to not responding to their queries on the matter).
 
Summary: if it is the entire charge, there is zero chance of #1-3 beijg any different to the decisions already made. It would take a massive Gibson to overturn #4. A maximum punishment of a 'slap on the wrist for #5.

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

Yeah, I had a quick look myself and I'm scratching my head as to where I saw it. I suppose there is a chance that conclusion was arrived at based on what could be appealled with any chance of a punishment being handed out.
The second charge was broken down in to 5 particulars. The EFL withdrew the 1st of those.
2. EFL felt FRS 102 means amortisation of players should be on as straight line basis. Dismissed and no chance of winning on appeal.
3. ERVs (assigning an estimated value prior to the expiry of a contract). Due to us not disclosing the policy clearly, the EFL misunderstood, thinking it was an assigned value at the end of the contract. Dismissed, and no chance of winning on appeal.
4. Reliability (not certainty) of ERVs. I suppose there's a chance this one could be overturned. However, the appeal is based on the evidence previously provided, and whether the verdict reached is fair based on that evidence. FRS 102 states 'expectation', rather than the EFLs case of 'entitlement'. For example, despite Bielik's injuries, we may still expect to sell him for £6m. It doesn't mean we will get £6m.
5. Disclosure of policy. We were already found guilty of this one. If appealing the punishment, it should be noted that it had no impact on our P&S position, and therefore can not be punished for failing it. That means no points deduction. It's a fine at most for deliberately misleading the EFL (due to not responding to their queries on the matter).
 
Summary: if it is the entire charge, there is zero chance of #1-3 beijg any different to the decisions already made. It would take a massive Gibson to overturn #4. A maximum punishment of a 'slap on the wrist for #5.

The introduction of Bielik to the team increased the confidence of the rest of the team. We all saw that confidence drop the instant Bielik was injured.

Trialist only wins penalties

Unpopular opinion: Cresswell's better at winning FKs than Martin 

Whyteleafe FC I think.

3 home wins will do me, as long as they're Barnsley, Boro and Derby ?

Just a reminder about this game tonight ?

It's the U23s turn to play Blackburn this Friday. Live on RamsTV, with kickoff at 7pm.
It'll be a tough game with them being 2nd in the table and our U23s being depleted due to first team duties. The U18s play on Saturday, stretching the squads as much as possible.

The introduction of Bielik to the team increased the confidence of the rest of the team. We all saw that confidence drop the instant Bielik was injured.

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

Dave Mackay. Player-manager