RadioactiveWaste

Anyone else getting a bit of passive-aggressive DC-on-LAP action from this paragraph:

Just missing some sarcastic air-quotes around "the LAP has found".

Is Benitez on loan at Everton until our takeover is complete or what? 

Oh dear , how sad........NEVER MIND !!

from the Beeb
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57701348
 
The EFL are 'deeply disappointed'. Oh dear.

Because at the arse end of a relegation scrap, he's hardly going to say, 'oh by the way, if I do manage to get us relegated, the first thing I'll do is duck off and leave you lot to it' is he? 

Outrageous ducking headlines in the media though

That is exactly what I said. They’re not appealing because their lawyers are telling them not to and not because they think we might get a bigger punishment next season.

Stupid American buys Derby and wants to move club to LA (LA Rams) thinking you can move the "franchise" when realises mistake  stops all funding of club as result.
 

Erik Alonso appointed as Head of fan engagement 

Yeah, them cyclists run on dope.

They aren’t appealing because they can’t find a mistake in the ruling. You can’t just appeal for a laugh, you actually have to have a coherent argument as to why the original judgment was wrong. Whah-whah-whah-I-don’t-like-it unsurprisingly doesn’t count.
Seriously, everyone with an interest in this should read the written reasons. They aren’t *that* long and are fairly readable for a layman. The arguments they lay out for why they've given the punishment are very clear and logical to me.

THIS case IS over.

Nick De Marco reaction on twitter
Delighted for Derby County. The idea of any points deduction, let alone a retrospective one, was a nonsense in the circumstances. The full written reasons of the DC make clear why any points deduction would be wholly disproportionate and I urge anyone interested to read them.

Here's what saved us from a points deduction last season:
"62) Before we leave this section, we record that, had we taken a different view of the Club’s conduct – and in particular, had we concluded that the Club had indeed been reckless or dishonest in its decision to implement and operate the amortisation policy, that the Club had acted other than in good faith and/or that the Club had deliberately misrecorded or attempted to conceal the amortisation policy that it had implemented and was operating – we would have taken a far harsher view as to the gravity of the Club’s conduct."

New "squad harmony" role given to...
 
 
.... Rebecca Vardey

There’s also a section in there stating that we have 2 possible amortisation models under consideration, a straight line one, and a non-straight one that we believe is FRS102 compliant. So expect everything to kick off again if we go with option 2 for the restated accounts…

Hey … efl .. Gibson 

Mel's got a new masterplan to avoid breaching FFP calcs?

"Regrettably"
 
the EFL are Bamford Gibsons to the end 

Surely that statement means that we didn't break the existing rules?

............"and will now press for a rule change".
Doesn`t that statement, an admission of their oversight and incompetence  tell you all you need to know?

How so? If we fail FFP with our revised accounts, we’ll get a points deduction anyway regardless of if they’d appealed. 
 
I think it is simply a case of, as their lawyers say, they do not have a strong enough case to appeal the punishment already handed out. Any penalty for a subsequent FFP failure penalty is totally separate. 

Well every club has To provide summaries by 1 March failure to do so results in an embargo and I don’t think audited accounts have been produce so that I think we can assume the embargo will not be lifted until those matters are resolved sorry to say

Corner turned??
 

 
 

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.