Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,069 profile views
  1. Indy


    The mighty Wolfsbane.
  2. Bullet 3 of that description includes delivering coaching sessions. I think it’s partly about overseeing the coaching development so that academy players can progress smoothly into a first team situation. That’s my reading of the job description.
  3. Not the only one. Pretty sure Sam Rush starred in Dr No.
  4. We argued it in the initial charge saying that the EFL had accepted our figures so they couldn’t now argue that our amortisation method was invalid. If the EFL argue that the reworked accounts follow on from not accepting the amortisation approach, they could argue that the failed estoppel argument applies to the restated accounts. As has been said though, I’m sure Nick de Marco would make a strong case on our behalf.
  5. I think we have already argued estoppel in relation to our version of amortisation and had it rejected. It depends if any new penalty considers this part of the same argument, or if we were making a new argument of estoppel based on new figures. Could be argued either way, I think.
  6. I was going to ask the forum what people thought about this guys credibility. He says a lot of things that I’m liking - which is an obvious red flag!
  7. I would laugh so hard if this happened. I think this figure would not just mean we were within P&S limits, but would also give us substantial room for new owners to spend on new players …
  8. Their statement is pathetic. If your own lawyers are telling you there’s no grounds for appeal (as DCFC had said in their own statement a week ago), then carrying on talking as if we’d done something worth a points deduction is deeply unprofessional. Prattling on about rule changes due to something we’d done is also unprofessional. They drafted the original rules, and could easily have said straight line amortisation is the only permitted method. The fact that they didn’t is their own oversight. Petulant, idiotic organisation.
  9. This sounds like the worst kind of he said she said made up b@ll@cks.
  10. Indeed. Boro made that case as they tried to get themselves added as injured parties as part of the appeal. It was thrown out. Wycombe’s issue is the timing and delay of this process which DCFC had no control over. Wycombe’s beef is with the EFL, and Boro (whose appeal mentioned above added six months to the process apparently). Wycombe should be suing them, if anyone.
  11. But I think we are only restating P&S due to changes in player values and the amortisation rates. Wouldn’t affect any other line on the accounts.
  12. I don’t think so. The ground valuation and sale is not linked to the amortisation. The only relevance is that the profit from the sale covered the losses from player values being amortised.
  13. Exactly. The wider football public who aren’t paying attention haven’t even grasped that we’ve not been found guilty of a P&S breach, and that the stadium sale charges brought at the same time were dismissed.
  14. But this article is the top article on my Derby County newsnow feed, meaning it has been tagged with our club name. So anyone who did an internet search wanting to learn more about what all this Derby/EFL business is about may be directed to this article. The fact that it’s been shared on here is not the problem.
  • 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.