Gaspode

I don’t think they’re that good….

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

Pretty sure that’s the case - also banned from suing the EFL.
Folk need to remember that getting to the Championship was Wycombe‘s day in the sun - the biggest thing that has ever happened to them. Now, after failing miserably to stay up, they have an opportunity to be in all the papers again and be interviewed on the radio and on TV. The EFL verdict was like all their Christmases rolled into one and they will milk it as far as they possibly can…expect far more tweets and crowing to the press about how they’ve been cheated out of their rightful place - to be fair it’s all that they’ve got….

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

Innocent question matey - are you actually a Rams fan? You seem to be taking great delight in our current prefdicament and the opportunities it presents to slate the club, its employees and its owner. These are not the actions of someone that would normally class themselves as a fan....

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

The problem is that if the governing body do not state the approach that must be taken, then people will be creative in order to gain an advantage - particualrly whereby the rules prevent owners from competing with others that seem to have an unfair advantage (as is the case with parachute payments) - being creative may be questionable ethically, but it's quite clearly not cheating if the governing body has been too lax to set out (in advance) what is and what isn't allowed. A one line change to the rules when we first started with our 'unusual' depreciation method would have sorted this - the EFL were too incompetent to think through the implications and let it go for several years. We have not breached their rules because their rules are badly written/implemented and allowed us to take the approach that we did.....

Completely not true. Our amortisation method was accepted then the EFL changed its mind. The DC found a minor finding that we should have made it clearer. Everything else we were accused of we were not guilty. The LAP disagreed with the finding, and said at worst we misled the EFL, didn’t say deliberately. That’s now what the LAP will need to determine on the inevitable appeal. 
As for the key question - did we gain an advantage? If we breach FFP and resubmission then yes, if we’re still within limits then no we didn’t!! 
So no the Wycombe chairman’s comments are complete and utter baalocks and also libellous.
Starting to think you’re just a WUM, you may as well be a red dog with some of your comments

Innocent question matey - are you actually a Rams fan? You seem to be taking great delight in our current prefdicament and the opportunities it presents to slate the club, its employees and its owner. These are not the actions of someone that would normally class themselves as a fan....

that's because you haven't been on here long enough.....

And that’s the crazy part - they appealed the part of the original charge that said we weren’t clear enough in explaining to the EFL that we were using a different accounting method - thereby admitting that their own processes were too lax to spot the difference in accounting methods, yet they think that we should have a point deduction because they were too incompetent to sign off the accounts correctly….. what an absolute bunch of winkers they are….. 

Still don’t get how:
- EFL rules don’t state the method of amortisation to be used
- we submit accounts using a legitimate accounting method which the EFL accept
- we submit 2 more years accounts using the same method which the EFL accept
- Keiran ‘finance expert in his own head’ Maguire tells the EFL that we’re doing something different to all the other teams
-EFL charge us over multiple issues and lose
- EFL appeal a small part of the charges and win but now threaten to relegate us if they decide to appeal again.
Surely their appeal was only against the fact that we’d not been clear enough in telling the EFL accountants that we’d used a different accounting technique. The fact that the latest appeal has decided we should have been fined for the issue rather than given a good telling off doesn’t legitimately leave scope for a points deduction for last season - so relegation shouldn’t even be a consideration at this stage.
This is a vindictive statement meant to cause as much trouble as possible - at a time when all clubs are in dire straits due to COVID. Appeals from either side simply drag out this farcical process and cause more damage - the EFL need to remember they have a duty to protect all clubs and not continue to attack us just because their chief exec is best mates with a nasty little man in a Middlesbrough - particularly when they have history of letting clubs with far larger FFP breaches off the hook……

that's because you haven't been on here long enough.....

It appears that the EFL has retrospectively changed their rules on depreciation (because they had’t realised there were different ways to work it out) and have therefore found us in breach of the new rules (that didn’t apply when we originally submitted the accounts and when they signed them off). In any other walk of life, they get laughed out of court but in the football world they’re allowed to make things up as they go along….

You would expect that both parties have been given a deadline by which point any appeal must be submitted. There would then need to be some sort of discussion regarding the fairness of any fine/penalty. Given that this whole process has moved at the speed of an iceberg so far, it’s hard to see how any outcome could be decided before the season has started - particularly if there is any possibility of a subsequent appeal against the next ruling. 
The most sensible outcome is for the EFL to speak with our potential new owner (if the takeover is close) and agree that both sides will accept the £100k and move on. I therefore predict a protracted legal challenge with the entire 2021/22 FL season being thrown into doubt…..

You would expect that both parties have been given a deadline by which point any appeal must be submitted. There would then need to be some sort of discussion regarding the fairness of any fine/penalty. Given that this whole process has moved at the speed of an iceberg so far, it’s hard to see how any outcome could be decided before the season has started - particularly if there is any possibility of a subsequent appeal against the next ruling. 
The most sensible outcome is for the EFL to speak with our potential new owner (if the takeover is close) and agree that both sides will accept the £100k and move on. I therefore predict a protracted legal challenge with the entire 2021/22 FL season being thrown into doubt…..

that's because you haven't been on here long enough.....

The crucial part to remember is that the accounting method we used is not cheating - it’s an acceptable way of depreciating assets and was signed off by both our accountants and the EFLs. It only became an issue when McGuire highlighted it and the EFL decided we were trying to pull a fast one….FFP has backed ambitious owners into a corner where they either get creative in the hope they can gain a small advantage out else think ‘to hell with it’ and chuck the kitchen sink at getting promoted by completely ignoring FFP. We won’t be the last team to suffer at the hands of the EFL and FFP…..

Still don’t get how:
- EFL rules don’t state the method of amortisation to be used
- we submit accounts using a legitimate accounting method which the EFL accept
- we submit 2 more years accounts using the same method which the EFL accept
- Keiran ‘finance expert in his own head’ Maguire tells the EFL that we’re doing something different to all the other teams
-EFL charge us over multiple issues and lose
- EFL appeal a small part of the charges and win but now threaten to relegate us if they decide to appeal again.
Surely their appeal was only against the fact that we’d not been clear enough in telling the EFL accountants that we’d used a different accounting technique. The fact that the latest appeal has decided we should have been fined for the issue rather than given a good telling off doesn’t legitimately leave scope for a points deduction for last season - so relegation shouldn’t even be a consideration at this stage.
This is a vindictive statement meant to cause as much trouble as possible - at a time when all clubs are in dire straits due to COVID. Appeals from either side simply drag out this farcical process and cause more damage - the EFL need to remember they have a duty to protect all clubs and not continue to attack us just because their chief exec is best mates with a nasty little man in a Middlesbrough - particularly when they have history of letting clubs with far larger FFP breaches off the hook……

that's because you haven't been on here long enough.....

Still don’t get how:
- EFL rules don’t state the method of amortisation to be used
- we submit accounts using a legitimate accounting method which the EFL accept
- we submit 2 more years accounts using the same method which the EFL accept
- Keiran ‘finance expert in his own head’ Maguire tells the EFL that we’re doing something different to all the other teams
-EFL charge us over multiple issues and lose
- EFL appeal a small part of the charges and win but now threaten to relegate us if they decide to appeal again.
Surely their appeal was only against the fact that we’d not been clear enough in telling the EFL accountants that we’d used a different accounting technique. The fact that the latest appeal has decided we should have been fined for the issue rather than given a good telling off doesn’t legitimately leave scope for a points deduction for last season - so relegation shouldn’t even be a consideration at this stage.
This is a vindictive statement meant to cause as much trouble as possible - at a time when all clubs are in dire straits due to COVID. Appeals from either side simply drag out this farcical process and cause more damage - the EFL need to remember they have a duty to protect all clubs and not continue to attack us just because their chief exec is best mates with a nasty little man in a Middlesbrough - particularly when they have history of letting clubs with far larger FFP breaches off the hook……