Animal is a Ram

Interesting thread 

Interesting thread 

Interesting thread 

Safe to say the Wycombe owner isn’t as well-informed as he thinks . . . 

A perfect summary - and much that I thought too. Thanks.

Sorry to milk this one, but perhaps the programme could be called Early Dawes.
 

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)

While heart says agree - head is just trying to understand the reasons and not just dismissing it off hand, as that is dangerous and arrogant.
 

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?

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 too am just catching up with the RC interview. He's 100% a lawyer, isn't he, jeez.
I understand this one *a little* more than the Boro claim. But he seems conflated with some of the timelines, and where some of the blame falls.
Perhaps this is a symptom of there being multiple parties and all the information is not out there - especially this factor of the Boro/Wycombe claims being the road block. RC says it isn't the case, the admins say it is, the EFL seems to have intimated that it is. That point needs to be made clear, ASAP. I don't care by who.
What is out there, is the timeline, and the findings of the disciplinary events - and if I'm not mistaken, seems to clash with what RC has the biggest issues with?

People forget that Jordan and White are ONLY interested in clicks/listeners - the truth; what is right or wrong; or common sense are a long way down their list of concerns - they say whatever they consider will generate the biggest response, regardless of how much hogwash they may appear to be speaking......

Hey Siri, what is the definition of derisory?
Here's what I found on the web...
 

Didn't one of the commissions say that proceedings were delayed because of the Middlesbrough actions? Or did I dream that...

I imagine a negotiation between Margaret Beckett and Rick Parry would go something like this :

2MP's in Middlesbrough - andy.mcdonald.2nd@parliament.uk (Labour) and simon.clarke.mp@parliament.uk (Conservative)
My email to these two MPs:-

Gentlemen

I am writing to you both as sitting MP's for the Middlesbrough constituencies in the hope that you might take up the case of Derby County with Steve Gibson.

In case you are not aware of the situation I will summarise. Mr Gibson has had a long-standing feud with our previous owner, Mel Morris, given how Morris conducted himself in particular regarding the financial rule of the EFL. Morris put Derby County in administration and has effectively run away from the mire that has left the club in.

Middlesbrough FC have brought a claim for compensation against DCFC for approx £45m, against a club who are seeking new investment to protect the future of this original member of the Football League.

The basis of the claim is secret but seemingly has to do with DCFC allegedly overspending and that being the (sole) reason why Middlesbrough failed to win promotion in one or more seasons.

Irrespective of the chances of success of such a claim succeeding in court, it will not go away, the EFL insist it has to be dealt with (despite it not yet being won in court) and there now exists the very real possibility of my club going out of existence, following the likes of Bury (potentially as soon as 1 February). We have been deducted the maximum 21 points as our punishment and believe we should be able to take our medicine and move on. But cannot with two Swords of Damocles hanging over us.

How do you believe your constituents feel about Mr Gibson continuing down this course of action? From message boards the answer is that many could not stomach Middlesbrough FC being a significant cause of the bankruptcy of a fellow club. The importance of football clubs to communities and local areas will not be lost on either of you.

We have potential buyers waiting in the wings but they cannot proceed because of this (and another) opportunistic claim against the club (not against the man who orchestrated this not against the EFL who delayed their decisions to allow DCFC to survive last season)

I am not a constituent of either of you but I implore you both to look into this and ask if the people you represent would want the end game of this process to be the extinguishing of such a venerable and famous institution such as Derby County Football Club.