EFL appeal

[RoyMac5]

30 minutes ago, Spanish said:

too difficult for me to guess. Much depends on whether the IDC end up a bit pissed that they have been overruled by a group with no accounts expert.  The I in IDC stands for independent if they just kowtow to the EFL it undermines them somewhat .  If we redo the calc with the more standard RV and there is no breach as some have said then I struggle to see why they would put a points penalty down.  Its not just the hope that kills you, it is the uncertainty.

I still am suspicious that we invented a completely new method to deal with the overspending early on but hopefully I am proved wrong

 

Roy, you have any guesses on this?

Dunno. Only a few 'thoughts' as you say. So although plenty seem to think the EFL have it in for us, they surely have to be seen to be following their/our league rules (and how much are they being 'pushed' by Gibson?) and so will be wanting to show they've followed through but not necessarily want to overstep the boundary. There was that bit in one of the reports that said (paraphrase) we 'acted in good faith' when submitting our accounts? We won on the stadium valuation and so that only leaves non-compliant accounts atm. So a biggish fine and resubmit?

I guess then we worry about resubmitting our accounts...

Edit: yeah what @duncanjwithamsaid! ?

Edited May 17, 2021 by RoyMac5

[duncanjwitham]

36 minutes ago, Spanish said:

 What is missing is a letter clearly stating that this would be out new process and a response from EFL confirming that this change was permissible.

I'm not sure that would make a difference.  We basically had that for the stadium sale, and they still charged us.  We tried to argue this point in the tribunal, but the IDC made it clear that the EFL have the right to review submissions at any time.

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm not sure that would make a difference.  We basically had that for the stadium sale, and they still charged us.  We tried to argue this point in the tribunal, but the IDC made it clear that the EFL have the right to review submissions at any time.

It is a much stronger position to be in to have an actual letter to rely upon rather than a few meeting notes.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

With all this talk from Liddle today and every other tit with an opinion about deducting us points now and relegating us.  Can we have back the promotion QPR nicked from us when they were spending 4 x what they were bringing in and we were as in the black as it's possible to be in this league. Far as I recall they were allowed to go up.

[Brammie Steve]

Without all this legal stuff our season would be dead in the water and we'd be discussing the forthcoming Euros!

Should we be grateful?

Nooooooooo!

Edited May 17, 2021 by Brammie Steve

[Jimbo Ram]

23 minutes ago, Brammie Steve said:

Without all this legal stuff our season would be dead in the water and we'd be discussing the forthcoming Euros!

Should we be grateful?

Nooooooooo!

Yes, and watch some of Wazza’s potential signings ?

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, Spanish said:

I think the calculation confirmation is sent before the audited accounts are finalized.  I don't think the EFL 'sign off' the accounts as such and the estoppel the club tried to use didn't work.  It looks like the EFL took the accounts on face value and whoever was involved in the initial discussions was not part or forgot about the discussions.   So the audited accounts relied on the disclosure which was not clear enough to flag up the new process.  What is missing is a letter clearly stating that this would be out new process and a response from EFL confirming that this change was permissible.

The EFL is not responsible for our accounts The auditors are not responsible for our accounts. The directors are. And if the DC accepts the LAP’s very damning version of our weasel-y conduct, then there’s every chance of a points deduction for breaching the rules by filing non-compliant accounts in a very shabby fashion. 

[Reggie Greenwood]

20 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The EFL is not responsible for our accounts The auditors are not responsible for our accounts. The directors are. And if the DC accepts the LAP’s very damning version of our weasel-y conduct, then there’s every chance of a points deduction for breaching the rules by filing non-compliant accounts in a very shabby fashion. 

Which bit and by whom were we praised for being open and honest then ? Surely we can’t weaselly and open and honest ?  

[Reggie Greenwood]

2 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

With all this talk from Liddle today and every other tit with an opinion about deducting us points now and relegating us.  Can we have back the promotion QPR nicked from us when they were spending 4 x what they were bringing in and we were as in the black as it's possible to be in this league. Far as I recall they were allowed to go up.

Include Villa in this as well smashed FFP to pieces and would have been hit hard if they hadn’t stayed up via a tech and Var fault. 

[kevinhectoring]

28 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Which bit and by whom were we praised for being open and honest then ? Surely we can’t weaselly and open and honest ?  

Haha. The club - in its own statement - praised itself for its openness and honesty. We were pilloried by the LAP. And with justification it seems. Heads should roll 

[Spanish]

41 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Include Villa in this as well smashed FFP to pieces and would have been hit hard if they hadn’t stayed up via a tech and Var fault. 

Said it before we’ve missed out twice in 8 years to teams that cheated

[Eddie]

4 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Dunno. Only a few 'thoughts' as you say. So although plenty seem to think the EFL have it in for us, they surely have to be seen to be following their/our league rules (and how much are they being 'pushed' by Gibson?) and so will be wanting to show they've followed through but not necessarily want to overstep the boundary. There was that bit in one of the reports that said (paraphrase) we 'acted in good faith' when submitting our accounts? We won on the stadium valuation and so that only leaves non-compliant accounts atm. So a biggish fine and resubmit?

I guess then we worry about resubmitting our accounts...

Edit: yeah what @duncanjwithamsaid! ?

Some of the things the EFL say and do stink, so 'followed through' is a very apt phrase.

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Haha. The club - in its own statement - praised itself for its openness and honesty. We were pilloried by the LAP. And with justification it seems. Heads should roll 

Were we? 

I could have sworn upon reading the initial responses that both panels said we acted in good faith, sought appropriate advice and made out decisions based on sound logic, accepting that we weren't in any way trying to be deceitful.

In fact it's only your posts that ever seen to claim any different.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Coconut

[kevinhectoring]

14 minutes ago, Coconut said:

Were we? 

I could have sworn upon reading the initial responses that both panels said we acted in good faith, sought appropriate advice and made out decisions based on sound logic, accepting that we weren't in any way trying to be deceitful.

In fact it's only your posts that ever seen to claim any different.

 

Coconut  

others have pointed these things out or agreed with my comments but I accept I am more outspoken than most. We should all have strong feelings about it because our club’s conduct has been lamentable and foolish. Heads should roll (but they won’t) 
 

I’ve set out a few extracts below from the judgement.  I attached these to an earlier post. Against these, the club statement is a disgraceful, disingenuous whitewash. 
 

Before you read the extracts below:

 appeals tribunals of this sort do not like to comment on behaviour,  they just apply the rules. That’s their job. The last thing they want to do is accuse parties of dishonesty, though sometimes they have to. And when they do they typically use the precious understatement which lawyers go in for. Against this, the comments below are really damning.  The final one, 28 (which has gone viral on Twitter) is a shocker because the tribunal is basically saying: you’re liars. It’s no good our fans pretending it says something else. And it’s deeply worrying the club will not take its medicine. I’ve been a pretty staunch supporter of MM for many years but on this he needs to be called out 

.......................................................

24 These explanations by the Club were at best confusing and at worst seriously misleading. As appears below, they misstated the principles relating to ‘residual values’ (which were always nil at the end of the period of the player contract) (see DC decision [52][58][223b] and [228a]) and wrongly stated that they assumed an ‘active market’, which they did not do.

26 ...the note of the meeting records that the policy was said by the Club to be “in line with that disclosed in the Club’s accounts” (which was quite wrong) and records the explanation that “the Club used residual values when assessing each Player’s amortisation charge” (which was also quite wrong). Given the confusion, which was at least largely the fault of the Club, the criticism of EFL by DC seems remarkably harsh,

28. The DC made disclosure orders in relation to documents in the Club’s control relevant to the accounting treatment. However, the Club did not produce a single document evidencing or relating to the accounting treatment adopted and confirmed that none existed.    

[JfR]

27 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

 

Coconut  

others have pointed these things out or agreed with my comments but I accept I am more outspoken than most. We should all have strong feelings about it because our club’s conduct has been lamentable and foolish. Heads should roll (but they won’t) 
 

I’ve set out a few extracts below from the judgement.  I attached these to an earlier post. Against these, the club statement is a disgraceful, disingenuous whitewash. 
 

Before you read the extracts below:

 appeals tribunals of this sort do not like to comment on behaviour,  they just apply the rules. That’s their job. The last thing they want to do is accuse parties of dishonesty, though sometimes they have to. And when they do they typically use the precious understatement which lawyers go in for. Against this, the comments below are really damning.  The final one, 28 (which has gone viral on Twitter) is a shocker because the tribunal is basically saying: you’re liars. It’s no good our fans pretending it says something else. And it’s deeply worrying the club will not take its medicine. I’ve been a pretty staunch supporter of MM for many years but on this he needs to be called out 

.......................................................

24 These explanations by the Club were at best confusing and at worst seriously misleading. As appears below, they misstated the principles relating to ‘residual values’ (which were always nil at the end of the period of the player contract) (see DC decision [52][58][223b] and [228a]) and wrongly stated that they assumed an ‘active market’, which they did not do.

26 ...the note of the meeting records that the policy was said by the Club to be “in line with that disclosed in the Club’s accounts” (which was quite wrong) and records the explanation that “the Club used residual values when assessing each Player’s amortisation charge” (which was also quite wrong). Given the confusion, which was at least largely the fault of the Club, the criticism of EFL by DC seems remarkably harsh,

28. The DC made disclosure orders in relation to documents in the Club’s control relevant to the accounting treatment. However, the Club did not produce a single document evidencing or relating to the accounting treatment adopted and confirmed that none existed.    

The original DC commented on the lack of certain documents:
"15) As we have said, we were provided with a considerable amount of documentation, the vast majority of which was never referenced by anyone before or during the hearing. Despite that however, each party contended that the disclosure given by the other was deficient in various respects and invited us to draw inferences adverse to the ‘disclosing party’ from such alleged deficiencies.

16) While it is correct that the absence of certain documents or categories of documents was surprising, we reject any suggestion that we should draw inferences against either party from the fact that documents were ‘missing’:
    a) During the course of the proceedings the EFL made a Disclosure Application against the Club. An Order was made for the Club to provide certain documentation and to provide witness statements confirming the searches that had been made for relevant documentation and that all documentation relevant to certain issues located by such searches had been provided. The Club provided such documents and witness statements and we are satisfied that, where relevant documents exist, the Club disclosed them;"

Ultimately, the LAP did not explicitly overturn the original DC's finding on that matter, so the original DC's findings will be what they rule upon.

[kevinhectoring]

11 minutes ago, JfR said:

While it is correct that the absence of certain documents or categories of documents was surprising, we reject any suggestion that we should draw inferences against either party from the fact that documents were ‘missing’:

What do they mean, these words in bold? They mean ‘we’ve decided this is all very messy and we’re not going to decide this on the basis of who did and did not make proper disclosure.’ It’s not a finding of fact. It’s an indication of how they have chosen to decide the case.  

 

14 minutes ago, JfR said:

The Club provided such documents and witness statements and we are satisfied that, where relevant documents exist, the Club disclosed them;"

Well let’s see. The DC accepted that the club had NOTHiNG in writing ‘relating to the accounting treatment’!!! No one on the planet could take this seriously. They have simply decided, again, that it’s not desirable  for them to get into the ‘he says she says’ aspects. 
 

Sadly for us, the LAP exposed our misconduct. Why? Maybe because they felt the DC’s decision was wrong and (absent accounting expertise) they needed to justify their overturn on as many grounds as possible. Dunno. Or perhaps because when they reviewed the evidence they felt our conduct was so bad it needed calling out. Certainly seems so from their comments 
 
The LAP is the senior tribunal and you can be sure the DC will not simply disregard these comments from the LAP. 

[B4ev6is]

Or seems to me gibson got in there made charge us with maybe gibson still threatening to sue efl.

[kevinhectoring]

26 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Or seems to me gibson got in there made charge us with maybe gibson still threatening to sue efl.

Other have pointed out: one Irony is the delay Gibson caused may have kept us up this season.  But maybe the reason he caused delay was to stop MM selling 

[kevinhectoring]

6 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

With all this talk from Liddle today and every other tit with an opinion about deducting us points now and relegating us.  Can we have back the promotion QPR nicked from us when they were spending 4 x what they were bringing in and we were as in the black as it's possible to be in this league. Far as I recall they were allowed to go up.

By the way did anyone mention that Liddle grew up in Middlesborough ? 

Edited May 17, 2021 by kevinhectoring

[uttoxram75]

Its pretty obvious that the EFL have nothing to really punish us for, Mel has wound them up about future streaming of live football, he's pushed the system to the limits to meet FFP, he's brought in Lampard and Rooney to the frustration of other owners who would have absolutely done the same if they had the nous.

What they have got is jealous owners like Gibson moaning and snarling in the background putting pressure on them to punish Derby for having the temerity to play the system slightly better than they have.

Villa, Leeds, QPR, Watford, Wolves, Leicester etc, etc, etc, have all cheated and beaten the system over the years and now the EFL have been pressurised into making us the scapegoat. The only problem has been proving that we have done owt wrong.

Our accounts must be the most scrutinised of all time yet all they've got is a subsection about player amortisation that probably makes very little difference in the great scheme of things.

If they had anything on us they would have hammered us by now.