May Contain Nuts

Given what happened after he went it is hard to think getting rid was the slam dunk correct decision that it should have been.
Maybe we’d have picked up when Bielik was fit, maybe he’d not have played Bielik for 15 odd games in a row, during a shortened season, on a cow field of a pitch after he was coming off a year long injury. No one really knows but doubt he’d have been much worse than what we got. 
Ultimately if we had never signed Rooney we’d have been able to replace Cocu with an actual manager rather than hiring someone just so we didn’t have to play them anymore. As well as Cocu not being hamstrung by having to pick him in the first place. 
Nice guy anyway. Was nice to have someone like that representing the club.

Too much poo had passed by the time he went to realistically think he'd have turned it around.
Once heads drop to a certain level under one manager, for any reason, there's very little chance of coming back from it without a new manager coming in, or a wholesale revitalisation of the playing squad

If they wanted it to end just as much as we do, they wouldn't have appealed the original panel's decision, or they'd accept that the 100k fine is enough.
They would say that they accept the panel's decision and although it isn't the outcome they desired they see it as the end of the matter and are satisfied that they took reasonable steps to ensure a suitable punishment was handed out.
It's their league, they don't really answer to anyone and they can run it how they see fit, and even if many of the problems they face are a result of their own incompetence they've shown that they will do everything in their power to disguise their own faults (rather than address them) by aggressively going after their member clubs to enact extremely OTT punishments that don't fairly match the discretions at hand, punishments which threaten the very existence of clubs and cause untold misery to supporters of the club and distress to staff at all levels.
Paradoxically their current display of flexing their muscles to prove their power to everyone is completely undermined by them cowering to the demands of a handful of bitter (and in Boro's case) hypocritical member clubs. 
With this attitude fully ingrained in the organisation and with so much process designed in their favour, why are they so scared of the threat of being sued by Boro, Barnsley & Wycombe?
All these legal threats from other clubs are just that, threats, posturing.
We have Derby fans saying that we should de-escalate the situation and accept whatever poo is thrown our way rather than aggressively defending our position. They say we're making an enemy of the EFL and being treated accordingly, out fault for poking the bear 
Ultimately though we're only fighting an internal process, can you imagine how vindictively the league would carry out their processes against us if we were actually trying to sue them?
Nobody is going to sue the EFL, it's not worth the treatment, the harassment, of their club that would follow. 
 
 
 
A bit more, but it's going a little too far into the conspiratory view of things...
As alluded to earlier, the EFL, or specifically Rick Parry, seems to be scared whitless by the threats of one Steve Gibson, you have to wonder why exactly this is, what hold does Gibson have over Parry?
Well, a bit of reading...
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-efl-chairman-rick-parry-16977927
There's a more than grotty whiff of Parry wanting to making amends with Gibson about the whole thing. 
Make no mistake this is about far more than Derby County bending some unwritten rule on amortisation.

The stuff mentioned in the link has nothing to do with the EFL? Their run-ins mentioned on the link were specifically with Liverpool and the Premier League. 
Gibson's gunning for everyone, I think, it seems to just be the way he is. He's killing two birds with one stone here, or attempting to.
 

I had forgot the Boro point deduction but I doubt that has much to do with this situation, Other than Gibson might still have daggers for Parry.
As for the threat to the EFL of being sued, both of us can speculate on that, but fwiw I don’t think it is as unlikely as you think. Indeed it is always possible Mel Morris is lining that up as his coup de grace. We really have no idea what is going on behind closed doors. This case has ballooned out of all proportion, and ultimately I suspect, along with the implications from Covid, it will bring about a huge reorganisational change by the member 72 clubs. The EFL is ducked.

When the new petri dishes arrive.

We've had the Belper Moo, they just need to change it to the Belper Baa

Best case scenario any club deciding to go along this route has ran both figures concurrently and knows exactly how much extra leeway the unique policy created, which has informed their spending, keeping them within limits, just.
Worst case scenario, this is Derby County we're talking about so I wouldn't pin my hopes on that being the case 
 

We've had the Belper Moo, they just need to change it to the Belper Baa

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

Would Davies even be fit for the first game?

They haven't even changed the rules, Roy. They have just found a second set of experts who agree with their interpretation of the rules as they didn't like the fact that the first set of experts didn't agree with them.
To be fair to the EFL, I think they explained their objections rather better the second time around. However, that does not excuse them from the fact that the regulations as they stand do not specifically state the method of amortisation that a club should use. This means there is no definitive right or wrong, just "qualified" opinion. 
Add to that the fact they didn't spot this for themselves for three whole years, and only seem to think it has been worth spending time and money on after they lost the main aspects of the original case ("well we can't get them for that so we'll try and push this!") then I think there is good reason for Derby County FC, our lawyers,  auditors, the IDC and most supporters to feel aggreived. 
I say most supporters because I am well aware that there are one or two who persistently want to believe the EFL version rather than the club's,  although why any right minded supporter would want to do this when there is no actual regulation to back this up is totally beyond me! 

Not even one rule, because there were no set rules.

You're correct. I was looking at the original DC decision and not the LAP decision, so that's my bad. 

Coconut  
others have pointed these things out or agreed with my comments but I accept I am more outspoken than most. We should all have strong feelings about it because our club’s conduct has been lamentable and foolish. Heads should roll (but they won’t) 
 
I’ve set out a few extracts below from the judgement.  I attached these to an earlier post. Against these, the club statement is a disgraceful, disingenuous whitewash. 
 
Before you read the extracts below:
 appeals tribunals of this sort do not like to comment on behaviour,  they just apply the rules. That’s their job. The last thing they want to do is accuse parties of dishonesty, though sometimes they have to. And when they do they typically use the precious understatement which lawyers go in for. Against this, the comments below are really damning.  The final one, 28 (which has gone viral on Twitter) is a shocker because the tribunal is basically saying: you’re liars. It’s no good our fans pretending it says something else. And it’s deeply worrying the club will not take its medicine. I’ve been a pretty staunch supporter of MM for many years but on this he needs to be called out 
.......................................................
24 These explanations by the Club were at best confusing and at worst seriously misleading. As appears below, they misstated the principles relating to ‘residual values’ (which were always nil at the end of the period of the player contract) (see DC decision [52][58][223b] and [228a]) and wrongly stated that they assumed an ‘active market’, which they did not do.
26 ...the note of the meeting records that the policy was said by the Club to be “in line with that disclosed in the Club’s accounts” (which was quite wrong) and records the explanation that “the Club used residual values when assessing each Player’s amortisation charge” (which was also quite wrong). Given the confusion, which was at least largely the fault of the Club, the criticism of EFL by DC seems remarkably harsh,
28. The DC made disclosure orders in relation to documents in the Club’s control relevant to the accounting treatment. However, the Club did not produce a single document evidencing or relating to the accounting treatment adopted and confirmed that none existed.    

Would Davies even be fit for the first game?

Not even one rule, because there were no set rules.

Not even one rule, because there were no set rules.

Don't look directly at the sun