PistoldPete

Feel free to put it in twatter. I don’t do it because it’s full of , well the clues in the name.

I think the administrators would be better placed to know what Derby’s projected cash flows were before COVID struck compared with what actually happened. And what the prospects of an insolvency event would otherwise have been.They are better qualified , being insolvency practitioners after all and they have access to the books. 
 
I suggest that the fact that a professional firm in that situation making the appeal that they are may well mean they don’t entirely agree with your statement. And frankly I will go with their judgement , not yours if you don’t mind.

Just did. It said "Tyler Durden".

1) they do not implement the maximum possible.. they try and get the maximum they can.Why? The rules do not insist they have to get maximum penalties possible , or even any penalties at all. Why can they not judge each case on its merits? And why even bring charges they don't actually succeed with?
2) see earlier in this thread with exact quotes from IDC hearings. Also EFL statement they were disappointed we only got a fine. 
3) See IDC appeal (when we were fined £100k)
4) John Percy of the national press, the  Daily Telegraph quoted that EFL sources were "shocked"
5) Kevin Hectoring, I believe
6) FOr alleged breach of amortisation rules, EFL sought penalty point deduction. There is no scale of penalties for this  , so no penalty points were deducted, but EFL wanted it anyway. For stadium sale , allowed under the rules EFL were trying to punish us, but failed. But like I say there is nothing to say the EFL has to go right up to the maxium penalty allowed under the ruiles anyway. They can judge each case on it merits. But no they go for the adversarial route every time.
   
 

No need for that. I think if you read past judgments at appeals hearings it is very obvious that EFL press for maximum punishment they can. They tried to get us relegated when the punishment was in fact only £100k fine . And claimed we "deliberately broke FFP rules" which the IDC said was rubbish we couldn't possibly have known we were in breach of FFP if our own auditors said it was OK.

etc etc.
So no bias from me , I form my opinion based on the evidence that is plain for all to see, and from EFL's own statements. 
In this case the rules state there is an automatic 12 point penalty , but we can appeal on grounds of force majeure. There is no doubt that COVID is a force majeure event. EFL are quoted as being "shocked" that we are appealing. Why on Earth should they be shocked? Were they shocked when Wigan appealed, with considerably less merit? 
I have no probelm with the 12 point penalty being applied automtically but after we have appealed someone else suggested we could reach an agreement with EFL on what the penalty should be. I am just saying I see no prospect of that on EFL's past perfmormance, they press for the maximum penalty they can get away with.
 

Just did. It said "Tyler Durden".

I suggest if you want more facts  from me, read this thread from start to finish. I am not going to repeat for every person what has already been said before. 
 

I suggest if you want more facts  from me, read this thread from start to finish. I am not going to repeat for every person what has already been said before. 
 

I suggest if you want more facts  from me, read this thread from start to finish. I am not going to repeat for every person what has already been said before. 
 

Maybe the BBC know something we don't about the outcome of our appeal...on their match report today for Hull Vs Barnsley they stated on their website "Hull beat Barnsley 2-0 in the bottom of the table Championship match"

No need for that. I think if you read past judgments at appeals hearings it is very obvious that EFL press for maximum punishment they can. They tried to get us relegated when the punishment was in fact only £100k fine . And claimed we "deliberately broke FFP rules" which the IDC said was rubbish we couldn't possibly have known we were in breach of FFP if our own auditors said it was OK.

etc etc.
So no bias from me , I form my opinion based on the evidence that is plain for all to see, and from EFL's own statements. 
In this case the rules state there is an automatic 12 point penalty , but we can appeal on grounds of force majeure. There is no doubt that COVID is a force majeure event. EFL are quoted as being "shocked" that we are appealing. Why on Earth should they be shocked? Were they shocked when Wigan appealed, with considerably less merit? 
I have no probelm with the 12 point penalty being applied automtically but after we have appealed someone else suggested we could reach an agreement with EFL on what the penalty should be. I am just saying I see no prospect of that on EFL's past perfmormance, they press for the maximum penalty they can get away with.
 

No need for that. I think if you read past judgments at appeals hearings it is very obvious that EFL press for maximum punishment they can. They tried to get us relegated when the punishment was in fact only £100k fine . And claimed we "deliberately broke FFP rules" which the IDC said was rubbish we couldn't possibly have known we were in breach of FFP if our own auditors said it was OK.

etc etc.
So no bias from me , I form my opinion based on the evidence that is plain for all to see, and from EFL's own statements. 
In this case the rules state there is an automatic 12 point penalty , but we can appeal on grounds of force majeure. There is no doubt that COVID is a force majeure event. EFL are quoted as being "shocked" that we are appealing. Why on Earth should they be shocked? Were they shocked when Wigan appealed, with considerably less merit? 
I have no probelm with the 12 point penalty being applied automtically but after we have appealed someone else suggested we could reach an agreement with EFL on what the penalty should be. I am just saying I see no prospect of that on EFL's past perfmormance, they press for the maximum penalty they can get away with.
 

I wouldn't expect the verdict itself to do any such thing.  But the panel's write up, whatever the verdict, will no doubt report how the EFL were pushing for punishment (which incidentally they are not bound to do) and so will almost certainly provide further evidence of their vendetta against us. A leopard does not change it spots, and the only way we will see any change is if the EFL's regulatory functions are removed from them. When that happens it will not be before time.    

I don't think any of that will happen. EFL wil not agree to any less then 12 point deduction for admin, and 9 or more for breaking FFP according to their preferred amortisation.  EFL will press for embargo whatever happens and to be honest I  can understand that... we just have to get out of the hard  embargo we are under. 

Amortisation going forward has never been an issue. If EFL had said they wanted amortise on Basis A or Basis B I wouldn't give a frig. It's the fact that they implicitly agree to the basis we had then change their minds (or rather a change at the top with Parry coming in changes things) . That's what has really messed us about.
 
 

True. But problem is we know very little of what happened yesterday. I suppose the club is protecting the Derby player by not naming him, which is fair enough. And we don't know what was said or who said it.

No it's an independnt panel. But when they do their write up they will refer to the evidence they were given. EFL evidence will be slanted .. Maguire says they will claim we overspent in 2017-18 or whatever. All pretty irrelevant to the force majeure argument but they just want to make us look bad.

I wouldn't expect the verdict itself to do any such thing.  But the panel's write up, whatever the verdict, will no doubt report how the EFL were pushing for punishment (which incidentally they are not bound to do) and so will almost certainly provide further evidence of their vendetta against us. A leopard does not change it spots, and the only way we will see any change is if the EFL's regulatory functions are removed from them. When that happens it will not be before time.    

I don't think any of that will happen. EFL wil not agree to any less then 12 point deduction for admin, and 9 or more for breaking FFP according to their preferred amortisation.  EFL will press for embargo whatever happens and to be honest I  can understand that... we just have to get out of the hard  embargo we are under. 

Amortisation going forward has never been an issue. If EFL had said they wanted amortise on Basis A or Basis B I wouldn't give a frig. It's the fact that they implicitly agree to the basis we had then change their minds (or rather a change at the top with Parry coming in changes things) . That's what has really messed us about.
 
 

I wouldn't expect the verdict itself to do any such thing.  But the panel's write up, whatever the verdict, will no doubt report how the EFL were pushing for punishment (which incidentally they are not bound to do) and so will almost certainly provide further evidence of their vendetta against us. A leopard does not change it spots, and the only way we will see any change is if the EFL's regulatory functions are removed from them. When that happens it will not be before time.    

I have heard football fans singing about No Surrender to the IRA, so I think it something to do with being anti catholic. What that has to do with football I have no idea.  

It's not Gods though is it? Its dodgy refs and linos. That isn't bad luck, it's bad officiating. 

It's not Gods though is it? Its dodgy refs and linos. That isn't bad luck, it's bad officiating. 

And despite being without Ravel Morrison ? I would say on his recent form it was an advantage not having him today.

It's not Gods though is it? Its dodgy refs and linos. That isn't bad luck, it's bad officiating. 

I am liking Festy a lot.