kevinhectoring

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.
I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.
I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

He is no more a specialist than anyone else.
He is someone who, somehow, has his opinions listened to more than others.
The fact that the IDC disagreed with his interpretation of the amortisation issue just goes to show that he is just a person with an opinion, that goes to the trouble of analysing accounts.
I really dont see how 'football finance' is an area that anyone can be an expert in, football clubs produce the same accounts as everyone else.

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.
I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.
I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.
I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.
I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

This is bluster. I don't believe you, if you are suggesting that before setting the wolves on us you had an informed view that our interpretation of frs 102 was wrong. It's a highly technical question and your expertise is in a different area. And if you reflect on the LAP judgement, you'll see that a major pillar of the decision was not the technical analysis at all (they were all lawyers). Instead it was the finding that the IDC was wrong in disregarding the EFL's expert evidence, in circumstances where we put none forward.
I can see you might have looked at our accounts and noticed that we were applying an amortisation policy that was different to that applied by the other clubs.  This doesn't explain the zeal with which you put us in the cross hairs. And so the inference will be that the whole thing was an exercise in self promotion; or that you chose to damage Morris and by extension, us 

Disingenuous  
The ‘whistle blower’ chose to ‘blow a whistle’ in our direction whilst remaining silent on the transgressions at other clubs. 
That’s not whistle blowing, it’s a vendetta. 
 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

Disingenuous  
The ‘whistle blower’ chose to ‘blow a whistle’ in our direction whilst remaining silent on the transgressions at other clubs. 
That’s not whistle blowing, it’s a vendetta. 
 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

Disingenuous  
The ‘whistle blower’ chose to ‘blow a whistle’ in our direction whilst remaining silent on the transgressions at other clubs. 
That’s not whistle blowing, it’s a vendetta. 
 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

I know, and I agree with you.
I do love a good bust though, can’t lie.

Disingenuous  
The ‘whistle blower’ chose to ‘blow a whistle’ in our direction whilst remaining silent on the transgressions at other clubs. 
That’s not whistle blowing, it’s a vendetta. 
 

I agree there may be some benefits in Stretford’s involvement. I think together he and WR may have the ability to influence players and even their agents. But if Stretford continues to get a slice of WR’s earnings from football and has influence over CK, that’s an awkward situation and one that could make the CEO’s job very difficult 

The issue isn't with reappointing Rooney. The issue is with sacking him if he's not performing. I find it highly unlikely that Stretford would be impartial if that decision needed to be taken.

1 week's cashflow doesn't sound much but doesn't the May salary run fall in that week ?? That's quite a hefty cheque and certainly confirms the commitment  

1 week's cashflow doesn't sound much but doesn't the May salary run fall in that week ?? That's quite a hefty cheque and certainly confirms the commitment