Jump to content

Indy

Member
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Indy

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

726 profile views
  1. Indy

    EFL appeal

    And he didn’t understand the role of an expert witness
  2. Indy

    EFL appeal

    Thanks for this. The Middlesbrough application is outrageous. Trying to assert that they are an affected ‘party’ as they finished the place below us that year - even though the regulations specifically say the EFL acts on behalf of the collective of clubs in this respect - and seeking compensation directly from us for not getting to the premier league through the playoffs. It’s a stretch! Good news is that I would say the ruling that rejects this argument is a precedent for Wycombe considering making a similar argument if our incoming punishment doesn’t reverse their relegation.
  3. Indy

    EFL appeal

    That’s how I read it. The strange thing is that the commission (with accountancy experience), and a succession of auditors, interpreted our method as reasonable. But the EFL and a panel with no accountants didn’t. IIRC the original report admonished the EFL accountancy expert for not understanding the role of an expert witness because he argued that the EFL position was preferable, rather than giving testimony as to whether what we had done was reasonable (even if different to what the EFL might prefer). This seems to be the same. The fact that other methods are possible is irrelevan
  4. Indy

    EFL appeal

    Commission ruled we valued contracted players accurately. Panel disagreed.
  5. Indy

    EFL appeal

    My other half scrolls down and only reads the last paragraph of Daily Mail articles. The rest is clickbait.
  6. Indy

    EFL appeal

    Yes. That was the opinion of the panel (no accountancy expertise). The original ruling from the commission (including an accountant) went into great detail on this and concluded we were compliant (as did three years of auditors signing off accounts). And it’s going back to the same commission (and accountant) to determine the punishment and by implication admit to their own incompetence in the original ruling.
  7. Indy

    EFL appeal

    I wonder if the EFL just want to get some kind of paper victory so they can try and lump some legal costs back on us. Our sanction might be irrelevant, as long as they can claim we were in the wrong (as happened to Birmingham).
  8. Indy

    EFL appeal

    I think that’s harsh. The club statement puts a lot in context about the original ruling and who has been involved in this one. If the media (and the public) relied on the EFL statement they’d think we broke the law, and have no knowledge of the discrepancy in accountancy expertise, or Boro’s determination to insert themselves into another club’s proceedings. I think the EFL statement is pretty misleading with omissions and implied wrongdoing.
  9. Indy

    EFL appeal

    Who nicked it off me (post on here earlier)!! 🙂
  10. Indy

    EFL appeal

    That would be my assumption. Otherwise it would mean a panel with accountancy expertise, adjudicating on accounts that have been cleared by auditors, would give priority over their own expertise and that of auditors, to a new panel with zero accountancy expertise. That’s why I think this makes no sense. To levy a large punishment (or any punishment really) would mean accepting that their original ruling was incorrect as determined by non-experts.
  11. Indy

    EFL appeal

    This bit confuses me. So the arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of accountancy legality. And that is referred back to the commission (including the accountant) who went into a fair amount of detail about why accountancy law wasn’t broken, to decide on a punishment. Makes no sense.
  12. Indy

    EFL appeal

    IIRC didn’t the EFL’s argument rest on the interpretation of their own regulations saying a method must be “applied consistently” which they retrospectively defined as consistent with other clubs? The panel said there was no legal definition of consistent in this case, and DCFC’s interpretation of it being consistent over time (ie we didn’t change the methodology each year to suit ourselves) was reasonable.
  13. Indy

    EFL appeal

    So all three criteria have to apply. Assuming any evidence put forward is credible and relevant (otherwise why bother), this means they’d have to have something wasn’t available before? Is that right?
  14. Indy

    EFL appeal

    Forgot about that. Did we think that the reason we hadn’t submitted was because we were waiting for the appeal to conclude and determine if they expected us to change amortisation policy (rather than just clarify the system we use more fully) and then amend figures accordingly?
  15. Indy

    EFL appeal

    I think it should be made public if the EFL’s appeal means we are under a soft transfer embargo. If so, then that risks torpedoing our preparations regardless of the outcome of the appeal anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.