Jump to content

Tribunal Update


Shipley Ram

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Quote

The appeal is specific to the second charge only, which considered the Club’s policy regarding the amortisation of intangible assets.

There will be no further comment at this time.

Well I guess we got told off for that one already. I imagine they're hoping to fine us enough to pay their lawyers bill! #bar stewards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not entirely surprised by that even though it was weird that that potential issue came out of the blue.

the IDC trashed the evidence of the EFl expert witness on the valuation.

the amoritisation issue was less clear cut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all knew this was coming, honestly wouldn't surprise me if we was now found guilty but a slap on the wrist as Birmingham was. They just need that mini victory to fist bump each other over at the Christmas party.

Such a pathetic organisation, seriously pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, admira said:

Does the second charge carry a lesser punishment if found guilty? 
 

Maybe the EFL waited until we had £11m in the bank. £11m fine anyone? 

So based on my understanding of the report released by the independant board was that they DID determine that our policy was not explained clearly enough.

They also said that after it was explained with further clarity during the process of the hearing, both the independent board and the EFL (unless I misinterpreted) accepted it (the policy concept) didn't breach the rules.

However - the lack of clarity in itself was a breach of a rule - so the EFL might simply be seeking some actual punishment for that lack of clarity; as the independent board merely acknowledged it broke a ruling on clarity but didn't punish us for it. 

 

That would be my guess; anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their case was an absolute shambles, the independent panel ruled that we had done absolutely nothing wrong on both counts, the only reason they could be appealing is to disrupt our signings.

I cant put into words how angry I am with this, absolute shambles.

If this has put us back into a soft embargo we are absolute screwed.

Although I'm sure Mel wouldnt be too disappointed having a reason to not spend any cash ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...