StarterForTen

The EFL's rule on the minimum strength of a playing squad even for a club under an embargo is there to protect the integrity of the competition. By including the players used for the Chorley game in calculating Derby's current squad strength they would be arguing against the very reason the rule was introduced in the first place.
If Derby had fielded the same team they did for the Chorley game for an end of season match with little consequence to the Rams (but possibly could effect other issues i the division) they would be done for fielding an under-strength team.

The EFL's rule on the minimum strength of a playing squad even for a club under an embargo is there to protect the integrity of the competition. By including the players used for the Chorley game in calculating Derby's current squad strength they would be arguing against the very reason the rule was introduced in the first place.
If Derby had fielded the same team they did for the Chorley game for an end of season match with little consequence to the Rams (but possibly could effect other issues i the division) they would be done for fielding an under-strength team.

The EFL's rule on the minimum strength of a playing squad even for a club under an embargo is there to protect the integrity of the competition. By including the players used for the Chorley game in calculating Derby's current squad strength they would be arguing against the very reason the rule was introduced in the first place.
If Derby had fielded the same team they did for the Chorley game for an end of season match with little consequence to the Rams (but possibly could effect other issues i the division) they would be done for fielding an under-strength team.

The EFL's rule on the minimum strength of a playing squad even for a club under an embargo is there to protect the integrity of the competition. By including the players used for the Chorley game in calculating Derby's current squad strength they would be arguing against the very reason the rule was introduced in the first place.
If Derby had fielded the same team they did for the Chorley game for an end of season match with little consequence to the Rams (but possibly could effect other issues i the division) they would be done for fielding an under-strength team.

The EFL's rule on the minimum strength of a playing squad even for a club under an embargo is there to protect the integrity of the competition. By including the players used for the Chorley game in calculating Derby's current squad strength they would be arguing against the very reason the rule was introduced in the first place.
If Derby had fielded the same team they did for the Chorley game for an end of season match with little consequence to the Rams (but possibly could effect other issues i the division) they would be done for fielding an under-strength team.

The EFL's rule on the minimum strength of a playing squad even for a club under an embargo is there to protect the integrity of the competition. By including the players used for the Chorley game in calculating Derby's current squad strength they would be arguing against the very reason the rule was introduced in the first place.
If Derby had fielded the same team they did for the Chorley game for an end of season match with little consequence to the Rams (but possibly could effect other issues i the division) they would be done for fielding an under-strength team.

...or just a big 'For Sale' sign?

...or just a big 'For Sale' sign?

...or just a big 'For Sale' sign?

If the EFL get their way, our home kit will be the Wycombe home kit!

Excellent information.
Your final sentence is the crux!

In the hope that they don't count our U23 game vs Chorley, I count 19 to have played in a real first team game: Marshall, Roos, Byrne, Ebosele, McDonald, Buchanan, Forsyth, JBrown, Knight, Bird, Bielik, Shinnie, Sibley, Watson, Hutchinson, Lawrence, Jozwiak, Kazim, Stretton
Davies' extension would make it 20, Wisdom's 21.
The Chorley game adds 8 to the list: Bardell, Williams, Solomon, LThompson, Aghatise, Ibrahim, Duncan, Cybulski
I find it strange that a 'professional goalkeeper' is defined as someone with 5 starts, whereas someone of 'professional standing' only needs to have come on as a sub for the final second of a single game.
Further down on the EFL page, it is stated considerations will be given in the circumstances of Academy players. Given 3 of the Chorley 8 are still 2nd year scholars, they should be exempt from the 'professional' list.
They also state considerations will be made for Championship clubs with fewer than 24 'established players' - those with 5 starts. This would actually cut our list down to just 14, or 16 if Davies and Wisdom extend their deals. If excluding those under 21, it's even lower at 10.
Summary: it's up to the EFL if they want to let us sign anyone

So does the appeal decision now mean Wycombe are incoming with they £15m writ?
Good luck with that!

Club to appeal the verdict now that the EFL have decided not to. Nick Di Marco has a blank week in his diary that he needs to fill with £500/hour work.

That statement from the EFL is very aggressively worded considering they are talking about one of their member clubs!
Surely, if the re-submissions show the Club remained within the P&S limits (as we will find out in due course) then a six-figure fine for what is an accounting policy misdemeanour is absolutely all the punishment should be.
Given the tone of the statement, you have to suspect that the EFL feel that the Club will not be within the limits and they very much feel the accounting policy was not a misdemeanour at all but blatant bending of the rules, and that Derby have 'got away with it'.

So does the appeal decision now mean Wycombe are incoming with they £15m writ?
Good luck with that!

Seen as you've got a couple of statues in there already, surely there's a place for Rooney as well?

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.
The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.
It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.
 
 

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.
The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.
It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.
 
 

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.
The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.
It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.
 
 

if the restatement shows no breach we should get that out asap.  Deters an appeal and certainly puts the LAP in a position where they should find it difficult to relegate us.  

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.
The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.
It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.
 
 

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.
The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.
It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.
 
 

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.
The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.
It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.
 
 

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.
The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.
It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.