Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RandomAccessMemory

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah, that's what I've always struggled to get my head around. There are many theories swirling around, some saying the club said one thing and did another. That doesn't make any sense at all with the two statements (EFL's and club's) that were released at the time. The EFL's statement on Sheffield Wednesday, and a further supplementary one that an EFL spokesman made (which said about seeing documents for the first time during their review) after SW's reply statement, went into more detail about the charges. Ours just said recording excess losses, nothing else, it was short compared to th
  2. I think the PFA's issue is that they're claiming the EFL have the legal obligation to consult with both them and the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee (PFNCC) and that this hasn't happened. The Guardian article says so if that's correct they must be claiming that wasn't enough to satisfy that legal obligation?
  3. It's not a standard 12 points like with administration though. I know Sheffield Wednesday have been deducted 12, but the assumption with that is because the stadium sale wasn't accepted for 2017/18 at all, then they went over by £15m or more which means 12 points on the sliding scale. They were found not guilty of the second part, related to deliberately concealing information, which means no additional (up to) 9 points were deducted, for aggravating factors, which means the absolute maximum possible deduction is 21 points. Our case doesn't mean a straight 12 point deduction unless we wou
  4. Why do you think I said if right? 😉 Seriously though, if it is, and a journalist finds out days before the club then that's pretty disgusting.
  5. If the tweet below is right and if the Times article last week actually had any substance with the 'noises around' 'do not sound good' etc, rather than just guesswork and speculation, then it should be pretty easy to narrow down any source.
  6. I can't read the actual article, paywall, but I saw the Stoke Sentinel version earlier today. I think apart from any of his other ramblings he's got his facts wrong about the application of points deductions. As far as I can see that rule is only relevant for 'Insolvency Events', I think it is there to prevent tactically entering administration (something the club can control) when they either know they are safe even with the deduction, or know they are already down regardless, and it only applies after 5pm on the fourth Thursday in March. But this is where I was a little con
  7. Not quite, the article says If it took the finance department 18 months to find the evidence that was in the accounts that anyone can see to charge us then the EFL definitely need a new finance department! 😂 It would also answer a few other questions people have been asking lately! I don't know if he contacted the club, or it's auditors, as suggested though? It doesn't make that clear, though it does say as part of their 'BBC Sports understands' that we were not aware there was any issue, so maybe not, unless because it wasn't the EFL themselves then we couldn't know they actuall
  8. Yep, apparently in June 2018 he contacted the EFL to tell them he didn't think our amortisation policy was correct. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51322797 I remember reading this tweet of his after we were charged I wonder if he thinks our 'good potential defence' for that is either or both of 1. They signed it off for 2 years before (if it was a problem then we should/would have been told/charged previously) 2. He knows/has the evidence that he warned them and they still didn't say anything about it until they decided to charge us in January 2020?
  9. I hope he does well and enjoys his time at MK Dons, he was very good for us for a long time, that hasn't changed. I wish this situation hadn't happened and that he'd been able to play all of last season, we certainly missed him on the pitch for large parts of it. However I have no sympathy for him with how it played out, I think the club did the only thing they could when his poor extracurricular decision making left him unable to do his job for a year. BIB, the websites I've seen say one of the things a tribunal would look at is did you consider another alternative to dismissal e
  10. I've still not read a single plausible reason for the EFL's valuation being less than those of 2007 and 2013. Whatever happens, I'll be eagerly awaiting the release of the written reasoning, as I am for the Sheffield Wednesday case.
  11. There have been an awful lot of leaks in football lately. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this is to try and delay us making any signings by making everyone think we're done for and going to get a hefty deduction? I'm not sure I really believe that would be likely though.
  12. We couldn't 'take the hit' in January. This was always going to the Independent Disciplinary Commission, it isn't us that's held this process up.
  13. He also seems to have misrepresented what the club said in their statement The club statement said the EFL claimed they had made a mistake, not that we said they did, theres a difference?
  14. I thought the same from the part I could read, but he does say "noises around" which is what made me wonder if someone had been talking. The last part I can read (if I copy and paste the article to a document) says so with the "are other" at the end that does sound very speculative as though he has no idea, if we are punished, whether it would be a points deduction or one the other available punishments.
  15. If he does know something, as opposed to just guessing, it means that someone somewhere has been leaking information. Again.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.