Woodley Ram

I think there are a few words in there that could fall into the potentially liable category and at he least be incorrect. 'Systematically cheat', 'years upon years of violating the rules' and 'having some trouble paying its creditors'. 
Couhig would need to prove that Derby had a system in place to cheat the FFP, whilst you could argue that Derby have been found guilty of this with the amortisation. Derby have never hidden the policy, and it was signed off by the auditors. there is a difference between proving someone cheated and someone did something incorrectly. Derby have never tried to hide the policy or accounts so what ever you think about it proving cheating would be difficulty.
Years upon years of violating rules. Well one rule not more than one. Again Derby have been upfront with the policy and if asked to change by the EFL would have done. For me this is the one (apart from the rules part) that is the most accurate.
Trouble paying its creditors, he must have some information that we don't, I have never heard that we have failed to pay creditors, players yes but not creditors. I think unless he knows something we don't then he could have problems with that.
If I was Derby I would pass the FFP and then sue him.      

Fairly spot on but we couldn’t sue Wycombe but we certainly could sue the chairman for those comments and it would make great reading in court how he tries to justify his opinion.

I think there are a few words in there that could fall into the potentially liable category and at he least be incorrect. 'Systematically cheat', 'years upon years of violating the rules' and 'having some trouble paying its creditors'. 
Couhig would need to prove that Derby had a system in place to cheat the FFP, whilst you could argue that Derby have been found guilty of this with the amortisation. Derby have never hidden the policy, and it was signed off by the auditors. there is a difference between proving someone cheated and someone did something incorrectly. Derby have never tried to hide the policy or accounts so what ever you think about it proving cheating would be difficulty.
Years upon years of violating rules. Well one rule not more than one. Again Derby have been upfront with the policy and if asked to change by the EFL would have done. For me this is the one (apart from the rules part) that is the most accurate.
Trouble paying its creditors, he must have some information that we don't, I have never heard that we have failed to pay creditors, players yes but not creditors. I think unless he knows something we don't then he could have problems with that.
If I was Derby I would pass the FFP and then sue him.      

I think there are a few words in there that could fall into the potentially liable category and at he least be incorrect. 'Systematically cheat', 'years upon years of violating the rules' and 'having some trouble paying its creditors'. 
Couhig would need to prove that Derby had a system in place to cheat the FFP, whilst you could argue that Derby have been found guilty of this with the amortisation. Derby have never hidden the policy, and it was signed off by the auditors. there is a difference between proving someone cheated and someone did something incorrectly. Derby have never tried to hide the policy or accounts so what ever you think about it proving cheating would be difficulty.
Years upon years of violating rules. Well one rule not more than one. Again Derby have been upfront with the policy and if asked to change by the EFL would have done. For me this is the one (apart from the rules part) that is the most accurate.
Trouble paying its creditors, he must have some information that we don't, I have never heard that we have failed to pay creditors, players yes but not creditors. I think unless he knows something we don't then he could have problems with that.
If I was Derby I would pass the FFP and then sue him.      

I think there are a few words in there that could fall into the potentially liable category and at he least be incorrect. 'Systematically cheat', 'years upon years of violating the rules' and 'having some trouble paying its creditors'. 
Couhig would need to prove that Derby had a system in place to cheat the FFP, whilst you could argue that Derby have been found guilty of this with the amortisation. Derby have never hidden the policy, and it was signed off by the auditors. there is a difference between proving someone cheated and someone did something incorrectly. Derby have never tried to hide the policy or accounts so what ever you think about it proving cheating would be difficulty.
Years upon years of violating rules. Well one rule not more than one. Again Derby have been upfront with the policy and if asked to change by the EFL would have done. For me this is the one (apart from the rules part) that is the most accurate.
Trouble paying its creditors, he must have some information that we don't, I have never heard that we have failed to pay creditors, players yes but not creditors. I think unless he knows something we don't then he could have problems with that.
If I was Derby I would pass the FFP and then sue him.      

I think there are a few words in there that could fall into the potentially liable category and at he least be incorrect. 'Systematically cheat', 'years upon years of violating the rules' and 'having some trouble paying its creditors'. 
Couhig would need to prove that Derby had a system in place to cheat the FFP, whilst you could argue that Derby have been found guilty of this with the amortisation. Derby have never hidden the policy, and it was signed off by the auditors. there is a difference between proving someone cheated and someone did something incorrectly. Derby have never tried to hide the policy or accounts so what ever you think about it proving cheating would be difficulty.
Years upon years of violating rules. Well one rule not more than one. Again Derby have been upfront with the policy and if asked to change by the EFL would have done. For me this is the one (apart from the rules part) that is the most accurate.
Trouble paying its creditors, he must have some information that we don't, I have never heard that we have failed to pay creditors, players yes but not creditors. I think unless he knows something we don't then he could have problems with that.
If I was Derby I would pass the FFP and then sue him.      

They haven’t pissed Gibson off. ?

How can you possibly know this before a ball has even been kicked and the transfer window has closed?
As for lowest point, of course it isn't. 

it would be good if we could get a Derby MP to raise this at PM's question time 

There needs to be some type of Government body that sits above the EFL that can look into the way that they operate.
I have no issue with the EFL going after us or anyone else for breaching FFP, that is part of what they are there for. However what is not acceptable is the way there go about things.
- they should not be influenced by outside parties
- they should be aligned as much as possible with the football clubs when they issue press statements
- they should inform clubs when they intend to issue press statements
- transfer embargo's should be a last resort and instances where they are responsible for the loss of a Jack Marriott should not happen
- They should not issue prejudicial statements such as the Wycombe/Derby one until it is justified (Derby are regulated)
- They should not look to treat a club in a different and prejudicial way to others (Retrospective relegation) 
I think the EFL operational mandate and leadership needs to be investigated

There needs to be some type of Government body that sits above the EFL that can look into the way that they operate.
I have no issue with the EFL going after us or anyone else for breaching FFP, that is part of what they are there for. However what is not acceptable is the way there go about things.
- they should not be influenced by outside parties
- they should be aligned as much as possible with the football clubs when they issue press statements
- they should inform clubs when they intend to issue press statements
- transfer embargo's should be a last resort and instances where they are responsible for the loss of a Jack Marriott should not happen
- They should not issue prejudicial statements such as the Wycombe/Derby one until it is justified (Derby are regulated)
- They should not look to treat a club in a different and prejudicial way to others (Retrospective relegation) 
I think the EFL operational mandate and leadership needs to be investigated

Some questions:
So does this mean the transfer embargo is now lifted? 
How could the EFL have given a retrospective penalty for a season that has ended (they have never done that before)
Why did the EFL release the Wycombe/Derby fixture list message. ( you might say things not do them) 
How will this affect new ownership and transfers
If we are guilty of FFP (regarding the resubmitted accounts) what is the max penalty
Can we sue the EFL for the loss of Marriott, the fixture list comment, defamation of Derby's name 
 
It interesting to see DCFC have not issued a comment, I guess they are talking to the lawyers first

Some questions:
So does this mean the transfer embargo is now lifted? 
How could the EFL have given a retrospective penalty for a season that has ended (they have never done that before)
Why did the EFL release the Wycombe/Derby fixture list message. ( you might say things not do them) 
How will this affect new ownership and transfers
If we are guilty of FFP (regarding the resubmitted accounts) what is the max penalty
Can we sue the EFL for the loss of Marriott, the fixture list comment, defamation of Derby's name 
 
It interesting to see DCFC have not issued a comment, I guess they are talking to the lawyers first

Some questions:
So does this mean the transfer embargo is now lifted? 
How could the EFL have given a retrospective penalty for a season that has ended (they have never done that before)
Why did the EFL release the Wycombe/Derby fixture list message. ( you might say things not do them) 
How will this affect new ownership and transfers
If we are guilty of FFP (regarding the resubmitted accounts) what is the max penalty
Can we sue the EFL for the loss of Marriott, the fixture list comment, defamation of Derby's name 
 
It interesting to see DCFC have not issued a comment, I guess they are talking to the lawyers first

Oh, I have no idea. Not pretending to be ITK, don’t worry. I was just adding some insight about Arison, as I’ve followed a team he runs for some time. 

You didn’t, it’s what I thought you meant from your post, I have reread and agree with you

Wendies accounting offence was much worse than ours   But we misled the EFl and we will get punished for that. Overall I think we’ll get off more lightly than they did 

so its Friday and my question is ....does Saturday and Sunday count as this week or next......is the list released today or Sunday? 

I thought Rasiak went to spurs

I thought Rasiak went to spurs

I think the phrase 'there by the grace of god go I'  if they had sold the stadium at the right time they would have stayed up. If we had been found guilty at the original hearing and not on appeal then we would most likely have gone down. 
fine margins, but we both need to learn from this 

as does his performances for Ireland, where he is a full international and now not just a regular starter but being praised increase his value? 
My thoughts that Brighton give us (not loan) Clarke plus 3-5 mil plus a sell on clause 

as does his performances for Ireland, where he is a full international and now not just a regular starter but being praised increase his value? 
My thoughts that Brighton give us (not loan) Clarke plus 3-5 mil plus a sell on clause 

I really enjoyed it, there was enough detail without getting bogged down as some books do, and thank you for getting the autographs on it. would you consider doing an audio version of the book?

German Newspaper..........quite good with fish & chips & mushy peas & scraps, with lashings of vinegar!