EFL appeal

[SamUltraRam]

1 hour ago, TuffLuff said:

One thing that’s maybe quite interesting is if it comes down to whether the extra money gave us an advantage. Before any mocking commences it’s not like the money was used to be a player not attainable to someone else in the league. Or overspending to the point of proving everyone out of the market. You know it’s not like spending £15 mill on Assombalonga, for example.

The amm. policy essentially about covering up poor ownership rather than about an advantage, that Morris was either making poor appointments or sacking managers before their time was fairly due. It certainly wasn’t part of the plan from day 1, it came in later once the overspending became an issue.

That's a good point. Maybe part of our defence should be that by overspending, we've input silly money into other Championship teams income. Who else would have been daft enough to give Reading £3m for Blackman or Huddersfield £5m for Butterfield ?

They should be grateful really ?

[Pearl Ram]

16 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

I think the forum rules say that you can insult people as long as they are neither members of the forum, nor part of DCFC.

As you say, if they joined the forum and posted their comments, we could reply in a non-insulting way!

But, there is the complication that nearly everyone is anonymous, so how do we know whether or not they are already members?!

As I understand it, mild profanity is not actually thought of as insulting - so I guess you can continue to stick up two fingers to them! (My only caveat is that, in the main, insults can be in the eye of the beholder. So, if someone tells you that they feel insulted by having Rik Mayall sticking up two fingers - rather than them finding it amusing and smiling - then, you should probably stop once they have told you!

Oh you would know if they were to post on here. One in particular makes that Kevin McGuire is it ? the one credited with blowing the whistle on us to the EFL, look like Andy Pandy.

Would your caveat also apply should someone point out to you they thought your reply condescending and asked you politely to refrain from quoting them in the future ?

And it’s Ade Edmundson by the way.

[i-Ram]

3 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

This is an excellent article and an example of why The Athletic is worth paying for.

Two things stuck out to me in particular.

This sounds pathetic from us:

 

It is pathetic. We are a complete laughing stock really and everyone is taking the piss. What was Pearce doing? Couldnt he have asked Claire Ince to speak up for us, or was she having her hair done that day?

[RandomAccessMemory]

3 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

This sounds pathetic from us:

I’m not quite sure why there is so much furore about this particular snippet today on social media, all of this has been known since the IDC decision.

It made comment to the club referencing Transfermarkt and it wasn’t the only way they calculated values, it’s not new news.

[duncanjwitham]

8 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I’m not quite sure why there is so much furore about this particular snippet today on social media, all of this has been known since the IDC decision.

It made comment to the club referencing Transfermarkt and it wasn’t the only way they calculated values, it’s not new news.

I think the big thing for me is, the club clearly knew they were doing something a bit unusual. So if I was them, I'd be documenting the hell out of it.  There would be spreadsheets for every player with the values we'd plugged in to get the final figures, with printed and dated copies, the rationale for any oddities (player X is valued at £Ym on transfermarkt but we think he's worth £Zm because...) and so on.  If the club can't produce that, then they've either been sloppy with their record-keeping (bad), they never had a process and made up figures to fit what we needed for the accounts (very bad), or they never did this process at all and invented it post hoc to cover their backsides (very, very bad).  Obviously I hope it's just sloppy record-keeping, but it's an open goal for social-media speculation.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, TuffLuff said:

One thing that’s maybe quite interesting is if it comes down to whether the extra money gave us an advantage. Before any mocking commences it’s not like the money was used to be a player not attainable to someone else in the league. Or overspending to the point of proving everyone out of the market. You know it’s not like spending £15 mill on Assombalonga, for example.

The amm. policy essentially about covering up poor ownership rather than about an advantage, that Morris was either making poor appointments or sacking managers before their time was fairly due. It certainly wasn’t part of the plan from day 1, it came in later once the overspending became an issue.

2 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

I don't think it has given us an advantage. Mel only did all this to try and actually compete. It's farcical that clubs coming down have these parachute payments. It's just killing the league. We're now sat down the bottom of the table, why do we need any more punishment.

It wouldn't be whether we gained any advantage - it would be whether we attempted to gain an advantage compared wit us not changing policy. Wanting to compete against parachute payments also isn't a good defence.

[RandomAccessMemory]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It wouldn't be whether we gained any advantage - it would be whether we attempted to gain an advantage compared wit us not changing policy. Wanting to compete against parachute payments also isn't a good defence.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.

Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

[Eatonram]

I genuinely swear, even if this was happening to Forest, a part of me would be thinking that this is starting to look like a vendetta........Leeds on the other hand.

[Sparkle]

7 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

I genuinely swear, even if this was happening to Forest, a part of me would be thinking that this is starting to look like a vendetta........Leeds on the other hand.

It is a vendetta no question and every club should be aware it’s them next 

[EdinRam]

4 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

This is an excellent article and an example of why The Athletic is worth paying for.

Two things stuck out to me in particular.

This sounds pathetic from us:

And this tells you everything you need to know about how little the EFL care about protecting football clubs:

Can nobody see that this football club is the laughing stock of the football pyramid. Its an absolute joke 

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 minute ago, EdinRam said:

Can nobody see that this football club is the laughing stock of the football pyramid. Its an absolute joke 

I don't think that many other people are paying attention to our plight.

[Stive Pesley]

3 hours ago, TuffLuff said:

One thing that’s maybe quite interesting is if it comes down to whether the extra money gave us an advantage

Surely it's a provable fact (through our lack of promotion, and subsequent near death experience with League 1) that we gained no advantage whatsover

And therein lies the biggest joke of all - if you ACTUALLY ignore the rules and get such an advantage that you are promoted (eg QPR) then they can't touch you

What is even the point of punishing teams in our position?

Isn't the biggest punishment the one we have brought up on ourselves - by being crap

 

 

 

[Ellafella]

20 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

It is a vendetta no question and every club should be aware it’s them next ...

...if they try and point out the utter stupidity of agreeing the Sky TV contract which totally undersells Championship football compared with the Premier League; Because that was what "Derby County" did and this last few "lost" cases is the "pay back" from the EFL. It's the Dead horse's head inside Mel's divan. ?

[Jimbo Ram]

21 minutes ago, EdinRam said:

Can nobody see that this football club is the laughing stock of the football pyramid. Its an absolute joke 

I thought you had said bye at least twice..

[EdinRam]

1 minute ago, Jimbo Ram said:

I thought you had said bye at least twice..

Changed my mind, I don't see why I should leave because of a few bad apples. I don't see why people think I'm another clubs fan. I can see this horror show for what it is and not a denyer like some on here. We need to get mel out of our club 

[RoyMac5]

5 hours ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Just so we’re clear, these were the original 5 respects in which the EFL said our amortisation was contrary to FRS 102.

1. Was dropped before the IDC when the EFL realised they had misunderstood our approach and that we didn’t have a non-zero value at the end of their contracts, ie. when they are worth zero because of Bosman.

2. IDC dismissed, LAP substituted their decision below.

3 and 4. Dismissed by both the IDC and the LAP.

5. IDC original decision stands.

These are the two things the IDC have to decide on ‘punishment’ (from the list I posted before) for.

What happens next is anyone’s guess, but this is not (at least at this point) about us having overspent in that 3 year period.

The way I understand it is if the IDC simply says we need to restate our accounts for that period, as our ‘punishment’ for the 2 decisions above, to make them compliant, only then (if we have gone over the P&S limit) is the point at which a new charge would be bought for that.

So, I guess this is about what punishment we should get for having non compliant accounts for those years, and what, if any, mitigating factors there are for that.

This sounds spot on, has anything to the contrary been said in the posts after it?

[TuffLuff]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It wouldn't be whether we gained any advantage - it would be whether we attempted to gain an advantage compared wit us not changing policy. Wanting to compete against parachute payments also isn't a good defence.

Well yeah that’s my point really, although I’m not looking to defend Morris/Pearce on this. I fully understand what I’m saying is atleast on some dodgy ground

But is it somewhat arguable that it wasn’t looking to gain an advantage, like it wasn’t thought out to get an extra £10million because there isn’t that £10mill+ player who we got that no one else could (ie a McCormack or Assombalonga). Again it was more a knock on effect of the poor management/ownership policy and as far as I can tell that’s what Morris is trying to hide. It’s not like we built a super squad of proven players with that money.

Essentially managers were rebuilding at the start of every season, but not selling the players they didn’t want. 

[Ramarena]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

It is a vendetta no question and every club should be aware it’s them next 

Here’s the thing. Other clubs are piling in but half the league are up poo creek!

Do they think the EFL has their backs?

[Topram]

Is it true we are under Embargo again? If so we are totally screwed if we can’t add to this squad 

[Eatonram]

Just hope the club keep us informed over the next few weeks on ownership sand the EFL sanction hearing. Is the date set?