EFL appeal

[Gaspode]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I said they didn't get points deducted for 'selling their asset'. I did not actually say what their points deduction was for. ?

No, you said they didn’t cheat by selling their asset - the fact that they misrepresented the sale was most definitely cheating…..

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, Jimbo Ram said:

I am sure they said on SKY the appeal related to the lesser charge and a points deduction would be very unlikely.....if they win the appeal hope it will be just a fine...a small one....

It's not a lesser charge. It is the same level of transgression as the stadium sale if that had been upheld. The difference is the size of the P&S breach. The stadium could have meant a £25m breach so upto 12 points, plus another 11 if we were seen to have acted belligerently. 

The difference in the amortisation policy would only be a couple of million, so any punishment would be far lower - probably not even points, but a couple is a possibility. 

I think the fact that the EFL signed off on the policy, that it is a legal accounting method and that it has already been judged within the rules by the original panel means we won't get any punishment at all.

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

No, you said they didn’t cheat by selling their asset - the fact that they misrepresented the sale was most definitely cheating…..

And I repeat, I didn't say what they did cheat at - I am well aware of why they got their points deduction. I was concentrating on showing that the sale of assets was not cheating, as I said before. ?

[Spanish]

11 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

It's not a lesser charge. It is the same level of transgression as the stadium sale if that had been upheld. The difference is the size of the P&S breach. The stadium could have meant a £25m breach so upto 12 points, plus another 11 if we were seen to have acted belligerently. 

The difference in the amortisation policy would only be a couple of million, so any punishment would be far lower - probably not even points, but a couple is a possibility. 

I think the fact that the EFL signed off on the policy, that it is a legal accounting method and that it has already been judged within the rules by the original panel means we won't get any punishment at all.

Hi corny

not sure about whetehr thay signed off on the policy because if so it was ignored for the tribunal;

While the Club did purport to disclose the change in its approach to the amortisation of player registrations in the Notes to its Financial Statements for the years after the financial year ended 30 June 2015, the disclosures made were, as we have found, at the very least ambiguous and in reality incomplete and inaccurate; they did not reflect the realities or substance of what we have found to be the true nature and extent of the Club’s changed amortisation policy. The Club effectively accepted as much – Mr Delve accepted that, had he picked up the (accepted) ambiguity in the Notes, he would have required the Club to change the Notes to explicitly refer to the changes and the new approach. He thus accepted that the Notes in the financial statements for the years to which the Second Charge relates were inadequate

[B4ev6is]

7 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Hi corny

not sure about whetehr thay signed off on the policy because if so it was ignored for the tribunal;

While the Club did purport to disclose the change in its approach to the amortisation of player registrations in the Notes to its Financial Statements for the years after the financial year ended 30 June 2015, the disclosures made were, as we have found, at the very least ambiguous and in reality incomplete and inaccurate; they did not reflect the realities or substance of what we have found to be the true nature and extent of the Club’s changed amortisation policy. The Club effectively accepted as much – Mr Delve accepted that, had he picked up the (accepted) ambiguity in the Notes, he would have required the Club to change the Notes to explicitly refer to the changes and the new approach. He thus accepted that the Notes in the financial statements for the years to which the Second Charge relates were inadequate

They signed off on it so legal efl dont have a leg to stand on and they know it.

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

They signed off on it so legal efl dont have a leg to stand on and they know it.

so why doesn't the tribunal mention it in the summary

[Sheikh n Bake]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Perhaps it was relief - the players finally realising that they weren't quite as bad as @Sheikh n Bake thought (or hoped?) they were.

Get over yourself, jumped-up 'super fans' with your faux 'disgrace'..

I don't consider myself a super fan. I just don't see only being better than Rotherham and Wycombe over the entire season as any sort of success.

These are the same fans who have slagged Waghorn off for 45 games, but he turns up for game 46 and now we are suggesting we offer him a new contract? 

It doesn't make me no less a fan because i haven't got caught up in the emotion of scraping survival on a technicality. 

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, EdinRam said:

You say that but Gibson is partly being proven right when complaining about us

How so? I'd say the complete opposite was true.

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

How so? I'd say the complete opposite was true.

Partly proven wrong?

[Comrade 86]

21 minutes ago, Sheikh n Bake said:

I don't consider myself a super fan

But you have unequivocally put yourself above those fans you slated as being 'embarrassing'. You openly stated you have 'higher standards' too, so there's that.

33 minutes ago, Sheikh n Bake said:

It doesn't make me no less a fan because i haven't got caught up in the emotion of scraping survival on a technicality.

Unlike yourself, nobody is suggesting that your less of a fan. Folk, myself included, are simply taking issue with being labelled 'embarrassing' and your apparent need to piss on everyone's chips. As you were at pains to point out to me, it's a forum. Post and folks will respond. If that holds true for you, it holds true for everyone. 

50 minutes ago, Sheikh n Bake said:

I just don't see only being better than Rotherham and Wycombe over the entire season as any sort of success.

Must have missed all the 'what a superb season' posts. And there was me thinking that fellow Rams fans were just relieved we didn't get relegated ?‍♂️

[Woodley Ram]

I thought this 'appeal' had nothing to do with the stadium but to do with the fact we had not been clear (they are trying to say misleading) about our amortisation policy. 

I have a feeling that if found guilty (and that wouldn't surprise me) then we get no more than a slap on the wrist and yellow card, I'm not sure what more they can do.

I don't know about you lot just want to get this and the ownership issue out of the way and crack on with building for next season. I think the transfer window will be exciting this year, lots of comings and goings

[Comrade 86]

36 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Partly proven wrong?

You've lost me buddy ?

[rynny]

10 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

You've lost me buddy ?

Easily done ?

[CornwallRam]

17 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I thought this 'appeal' had nothing to do with the stadium but to do with the fact we had not been clear (they are trying to say misleading) about our amortisation policy. 

I have a feeling that if found guilty (and that wouldn't surprise me) then we get no more than a slap on the wrist and yellow card, I'm not sure what more they can do.

I don't know about you lot just want to get this and the ownership issue out of the way and crack on with building for next season. I think the transfer window will be exciting this year, lots of comings and goings

No, the appeal isn't about that bit - we've been found 'guilty' of that bit already and accepted it.

The appeal is also not about the stadium - the EFL chose not to appeal that charge.

The appeal is based on the idea that we used an ineligible amortisation policy and gained an unfair advantage from it.

[BathRam72]

Might have been said already.  I think the EFL have just got it in for us and being mardy because they didn't get us first time round. Why wait until we are safe to announce this? Makes me wonder if they would have let it lie had we been relegated and because we didn't go down then they just want to make it as difficult as possible 

[Woodley Ram]

8 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Might have been said already.  I think the EFL have just got it in for us and being mardy because they didn't get us first time round. Why wait until we are safe to announce this? Makes me wonder if they would have let it lie had we been relegated and because we didn't go down then they just want to make it as difficult as possible 

so new chant 'if you dont bloody bounce, if you dont bloody bounce your the EFL'  

[MackworthRamIsGod]

6 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Might have been said already.  I think the EFL have just got it in for us and being mardy because they didn't get us first time round. Why wait until we are safe to announce this? Makes me wonder if they would have let it lie had we been relegated and because we didn't go down then they just want to make it as difficult as possible 

Its obvious isnt it.

They just keep derailing our seasons time and time again, how many transfer windows have we been affected by embargos?

As soon as there is a sniff of a takeover or any kind of good news for the club they hit us with a charge.

The strangest thing about this whole affair is the fact the club have gained absolutely nothing from overspending. The fact we have just avoided relegation and are in a financial mess at the same time as overspending (according to p&s) says to me the rules are wrong.

This is nothing more than Parry vs Mel Morris, a battle of egos and us fans are innocent bystanders caught in the crosshairs.

[richinspain]

10 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Might have been said already.  I think the EFL have just got it in for us and being mardy because they didn't get us first time round. Why wait until we are safe to announce this? Makes me wonder if they would have let it lie had we been relegated and because we didn't go down then they just want to make it as difficult as possible 

No idea if the EFL have got it in for us or not, but if we had been relegated I don't for one second think that they would drop the appeal. They appealed months ago, and would imagine that they would have preferred any possible points deduction (no idea if it really is a possibility) to be this year when it's been obvious for a while now that we were struggling.

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Its obvious isnt it.

They just keep derailing our seasons time and time again, how many transfer windows have we been affected by embargos?

As soon as there is a sniff of a takeover or any kind of good news for the club they hit us with a charge.

The strangest thing about this whole affair is the fact the club have gained absolutely nothing from overspending. The fact we have just avoided relegation and are in a financial mess at the same time as overspending (according to p&s) says to me the rules are wrong.

This is nothing more than Parry vs Mel Morris, a battle of egos and us fans are innocent bystanders caught in the crosshairs.

If we hadn’t done what we did we would have been relegated

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Nicholsons piece in the DET. - Direct from the sun. It' well known by the entire planet the charge regarding the ground sale HAS NOT been appealed.  And what has the size of debt got to do with this charge anyway.  If Morris used the ground sale to service debt or light a bonfire it has no relevance at all. The charge related to the value not what it was spent on.

It says the dispute centres on the size of Derby’s debts and using the sale of their Pride Park stadium to cover those losses, as well as anomalies in the ‘transfer values’ of players.

When the local journalist is reporting such nonsense I struggle to see the point of his job