Jump to content

EFL appeal


Sith Happens

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Except we follow the EFL's version (known as P&S), whereas UEFA FFP is for UEFA competitions such as the Champions League and Europa League.

Not so quick. The EFL aligned with the Premier League a few years ago. This is why the name changed to p & s. It was done to make life easier for promoted and relegated clubs.

Premier League rules are aligned to UEFA. That's to make life easier for those clubs competing in Europe.

This decision will trickle down to us ... Just a matter of time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LeedsRam1999 said:

About time and this endless persecution of our club can stop. It has never worked. Let’s get an owner in who can spend and take us to the next level

That statement would tend to insinuate that Morris didn't spend......Johnson, Butterfield, Anya, Blackman, Jozefoon must be about 20 million quid just on those lot alone which he would have been better not spending any money on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KentRam14 said:

Cheesus Christ! Are these 'dairy puns' still going ... 

Welcome.

I'm glad the puns haven't put a new member off contributing to the East Midlands foremost football forum.

It's worse elsewhere, I'd red Leicester have even worse on their forum, at least you'll brie amongst friends here.

Edited by Rev
Extra cheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

I’m going to message David . It’s time Edam well puts an end to these ridiculous puns.

What havarti you done???

I know these puns are a bit of a gruyere area, but going straight to the boss is too much.......you need to think caerphilly!

 

Edited by Ramarena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

Heard this on Radio Sheffield tonight, on the Football Heaven program.

 

They had a football finance expert from Sheffield Hallam University on, and there was Derby's situation discussed.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0993ywk

 

Come in at around 26 minutes, where they discuss amortization.

 

Cheers.

Bloke sounded like he didnt have a clue about our situation. Says we could get a point deduction and cant see how we wont be punished yet no mention that we were cleared originally, that the EFL have signed off the policy for a number of years already and the amortization fits within the accountancy rules & regs. 

Edited by DCFC1388
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Bloke sounded like he didnt have a clue about our situation. Says we could get a point deduction and cant see how we wont be punished yet no mention that we were cleared originally, that the EFL have signed off the policy for a number of years already and the amortization fits within the accountancy rules & regs. 

Yes, he’s right when he says it’s complicated but I think he’s missed the point. Main problem for us is: we did not highlight the change in Amortn policy in the notes to the accounts. In breach of the accounting standards.  A cynical EFL, or one adverse to our interests, will say: you changed your policy then tried to slide it by us by not sufficiently explaining it in the notes to the accounts. So we think you tried to mislead us and that warrants serious sanction. Hard argument for the EFl to make given the previous judgement. But the fact they have appealed shows they are full of righteous indignation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yes, he’s right when he says it’s complicated but I think he’s missed the point. Main problem for us is: we did not highlight the change in Amortn policy in the notes to the accounts. In breach of the accounting standards.  A cynical EFL, or one adverse to our interests, will say: you changed your policy then tried to slide it by us by not sufficiently explaining it in the notes to the accounts. So we think you tried to mislead us and that warrants serious sanction. Hard argument for the EFl to make given the previous judgement. But the fact they have appealed shows they are full of righteous indignation

But (and a very important but), that still proves we complied with P&S limits and cannot be punished for that.

It's a fine at most for being misled, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t remember all the detail now, but perhaps they will also challenge the adjudication that we had a robust system. That seemed a charitable judgement based on the fact that we couldn’t provide any documentation to prove it. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...