Elwood P Dowd

26 minutes ago, ram59 said:

It’s not just the wages, the clubs other overheads need to be paid, Tax, Maintenance, rates, loans etc.

I suppose watching the 1966 final at the time, as a teenager, I never really understood how important the game was. I certainly didn’t think it would be 55 years later before I saw England in a major final and when I did I would be be a grey haired, retired, OAP, with Great-grand Children

I will still be kicking and heading every ball tonight, but perhaps without the same vigour that I did when I was a teenager.

Come on England ??????? 

8 minutes ago, Spanish said:

I think the efl now require funds lodged in escrow, much more certain than POF

I agree it is normal to lodge funds in an escrow account and the deposit of such funds is a step closer to completion than is POF.

You do get the impression that Derby may not be on the EFLs Xmas card list.

Once we provide the amended accounts it would be reasonable to expect that the EFL would lift the Soft Embargo whilst they go through the accounts (remember the innocent until proven guilty test) but I don’t think that the EFL would consider that such a test would apply to them.

It would be grossly unfair for the EFL to keep the Soft Embargo in place whilst they spend 6 months going over Derby’s accounts with a fine tooth comb.

Derby were to be burned at the stake but the EFL forgot the matches?

“Gibson sleeps with the fishes” is the phase

20 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Given that the EFL are in charge of the rules, who are they pressing for a change from? 

I suspect that the source of the deep disappointment is the shredding of their reputation as a competent regulator.... 

I think that reputation was lost a long time ago

I would imagine Derby would have redone their accounts, using the “approved” amortisation, months ago, what the outcome of the redone accounts is, I have no idea. Now the EFL have stated they are not going to appeal the punishment it will be, if the redone accounts are within FFP, in Derby interest to submit the accounts to the EFL as quickly as possible to get this soft transfer embargo lifted.

It will be nice to clean up for a change

You might like the National Anthem of Lichtenstein just listen to the tune?

I wonder what Wycombe what to sue us for, Derby are being “Dealt” with by the EFL, under the EFL rules. 
 

I am at a loss as to what Wycombe would sue us for, without bringing the EFL into the mix!!!!

Give or take 48 hours?

I’m inclined to think that if serious buyers were in the process of buying Derby then they would be professional enough to keep their business activities quiet until everything had been concluded.

The problem with “No News” is that it is neither good or bad, it’s simply neutral, hence the comfort I take from the first sentence in this post?

http://www.igp-web.com/Carlow/Burials_03.htm

Walt Disneys ancestors

Erik was delusional  ?

No, we need to look to the future, a good player in the past but time to move on.

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

ducking embarrassing really but I understand if you disagree

20) We heard factual evidence on behalf of the Club by:

a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as

i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL

ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and

iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally’

21) Given a) The numerous suggestions made in Mr Morris’ witness statements about the EFL (and in particular Mr Harvey and Mr Craig) having some sort of ‘agenda’ against the Club and/or him, b) The manner in which certain witnesses were cross-examined, and 8 c) The suggestions made in the Club’s closing submission about aspects of the FA’s factual evidence we make it clear at the outset that we considered that each of the factual witnesses called by the EFL from whom we heard gave their evidence honestly and were doing their best to help us on the relevant issues.

Regardless of how Mr Morris might perceive the way that he and the Club are viewed by the EFL, we reject any suggestion that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way tainted by animosity or dislike (and, for the avoidance of doubt, reject any suggestion that such animosity or dislike was established on the evidence before us), or that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way unreliable as a result.

This was from the DC, the tribunal that pretty much dismissed all the claims against the club

 

"They would say that wouldnt they" .................... Mandy Rice-Davies et al

17 minutes ago, Spanish said:

I think the calculation confirmation is sent before the audited accounts are finalized.  I don't think the EFL 'sign off' the accounts as such and the estoppel the club tried to use didn't work.  It looks like the EFL took the accounts on face value and whoever was involved in the initial discussions was not part or forgot about the discussions.   So the audited accounts relied on the disclosure which was not clear enough to flag up the new process.  What is missing is a letter clearly stating that this would be out new process and a response from EFL confirming that this change was permissible.

What is the point of the club submitting the accounts to the EFL if the EFL simply "rubber stamp them" through, I have avoided the words "sign off" as they normally signify some sort of proactive\oversight process. I considered the original estoppel aproach to be fairly sound but that was based on the assumption that the EFL actualy "went through" the accounts with some rigor and would have contacted the club if they had any questions.  

It does make me wonder if there are other clubs accounts in which the disclosure which was not clear enough to flag up a new  process and the EFL either didn't spot it or didn't question it.

But why, if the accounts were confusing the EFL , didnt the EFL contact the club for clarification, it does seem to be the resonable course of action. What is the point of the EFL signing off the acounts if they dont understand the contents or felt that the accounts were confusing.  What would have happen if the EFL had simply not signed off the accounts.

I am simply puzzled by the value added to the accounting process by the EFL signing off the acounts.

1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Just thinking about slogans we can have to emphasis the American-ness of our beloved sports franchise.

"Rooting tooting Rams Action!"

"The best all American Entertainment in the tri-county area!"

"Star Spangled Soccer like you've never seen it before!"

"Wayne Rooney - 4 more years!"

"Ask not what your club can do for you, but how much money can you spend on your club"

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And any kind of long throw in, corner or other set piece"

Doesn’t really matter as long as  we can beat Forest 3 touchdowns to nil twice a season ?

1 minute ago, ramsbottom said:

FUNKIN GREAT NEWS!!!

Looked a complete chancer since day uno 

And a real odd ball as well

Alonso not buying Derby is the only good news we’ve had for some time.

1 hour ago, Rev said:

Rehash of other articles.

Nothing new.

The article is well researched, they use Twitter ????

32 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

It's just possible that the investors don't want their names made public until it is all done and dusted....if the rich people want it to be confidential they have every right to their privacy - it realy doesn't matter how nosey Derby fans are or how entitled they feel about being privy to the info...

Pretty sure that Alonso would have to tell the EFL who is providing the money, but no reason at all for that to be public knowledge until it's been rubber stamped......

I agree, with the money laundering regulations the source of the funds to buy the club would be one of the first questions to be addressed. 
 

if there is consortium and I would imagine there is, then that fact would need to be disclosed. 
 

I suppose it’s a fact that the EFL and Mel’s legal team need to know and we don’t, it will probably be revealed at a later date!

The chap at the EFL who will give the "Fit and Proper" approval is probably the same chap who based the value of Pride Park on Morecambe's ground, I'm not confident that diligence and good sense are particularly common attributes at the EFL?