EFL appeal

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

In that case you have to consider why somebody wouldn't document the hell out of it because maybe  as you say the figures were worked for a purpose.  This is why I have a doubt about the confidence that the reworked figs are similar to those that would have been reported under the standard calculation

I’m hopeful that there won’t be an issue there. The player transfers and contracts are all registered with the FA, so they’re a matter of record, and after that it’s just a case of plugging the numbers in.  There’s no leeway or room for interpretation like there potentially was with our ERV model. 

Obviously that’s assuming that we were truthful when we said we’d done the numbers and they were fine...

[dcfcollie]

Just been thinking - if the panel decided that we could not gain economic benefit from the disposal of the player on the grounds of refusing to be sold, and that hence the only economic benefit any club hope to gain is from the 'use' of that player. What happens when the player refuses to play for the club and hence serving no benefit or 'use' despite still being in contract?

[B4ev6is]

Well in the past accounts efl were fine with until banker gibson stuck his nose in and threw dummy out of his pram and bottle with it. All because we stop boro from going into play offs and then threaten to sue efl if they did not charge Derby who to say that is still not the case.

Hence why I think if I was mel I looking legal damages towards our club against boro and efl.

[Ghost of Clough]

5 hours ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

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.

Spot on.

So much has happened over the past couple of years that I completely forgot about this point. I had assumed, like charge 1, that the EFL were arguing we would have failed P&S without it.

Baswd on the Decision Document from the original hearing, charge 1 specifically claims the stadium sale meant we avoided failing P&S.

However, charge 2 only claims that by having non-compliant accounts, we have breached P&S rules.

 

The LAP have concluded that the accounts are non-compliant so a punishment is required for breaching rules.

The logical punishment to me is a fine and resubmission of the P&S figures using a striaght-line method. The reason a points deduction isn't warranted is because no on field benefit was achieved.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

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

Apart from boro.

[kevinhectoring]

26 minutes ago, dcfcollie said:

Just been thinking - if the panel decided that we could not gain economic benefit from the disposal of the player on the grounds of refusing to be sold, and that hence the only economic benefit any club hope to gain is from the 'use' of that player. What happens when the player refuses to play for the club and hence serving no benefit or 'use' despite still being in contract?

The intangible we are talking about is contractual rights. You have a right to require him to play. You do not have a right to require him to sign for Boro 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

30 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

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

[BaaLocks]

32 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

no on field benefit was achieved.

You'll get no push back on that statement......

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

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.  

The reason for the furore on Twitter is clear. It’s now been widely published that we were asked to produce copies of all documents relating to the amort policy and we told the tribunal that we DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE ONE. I don’t think anyone in their right mind believes us. 

[Spanish]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The reason for the furore on Twitter is clear. It’s now been widely published that we were asked to produce copies of all documents relating to the amort policy and we told the tribunal that we DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE ONE. I don’t think anyone in their right mind believes us. 

only on the 6 month erv review I think, stand to be corrected

[CornwallRam]

54 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Spot on.

So much has happened over the past couple of years that I completely forgot about this point. I had assumed, like charge 1, that the EFL were arguing we would have failed P&S without it.

Baswd on the Decision Document from the original hearing, charge 1 specifically claims the stadium sale meant we avoided failing P&S.

However, charge 2 only claims that by having non-compliant accounts, we have breached P&S rules.

 

The LAP have concluded that the accounts are non-compliant so a punishment is required for breaching rules.

The logical punishment to me is a fine and resubmission of the P&S figures using a striaght-line method. The reason a points deduction isn't warranted is because no on field benefit was achieved.

But doesn't it also follow that the figures become irrelevant to the penalty and all precedent set by previous decisions, guidelines and penalties become meaningless? We're also back into the situation where the EFL can apply any sanction that they deem appropriate. Technically, they don't have to give us a points deduction, because instant relegation was one of the punishments in their power.

Maybe we should all start saying nice things about the EFL.

[B4ev6is]

13 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

But doesn't it also follow that the figures become irrelevant to the penalty and all precedent set by previous decisions, guidelines and penalties become meaningless? We're also back into the situation where the EFL can apply any sanction that they deem appropriate. Technically, they don't have to give us a points deduction, because instant relegation was one of the punishments in their power.

Maybe we should all start saying nice things about the EFL.

Not a chance in hell

[MrPlinkett]

16 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

 

Maybe we should all start saying nice things about the EFL.

good point,  I'll start. 

They are a marginally better organisation than ISIS and the Taliban. 

[kevinhectoring]

30 minutes ago, Spanish said:

only on the 6 month erv review I think, stand to be corrected

this is what I was referring to but i think we may be speaking about slightly different things. It's the last 5 words that are disappointing   

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. 

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

Well in the past accounts efl were fine with until banker gibson stuck his nose in and threw dummy out of his pram and bottle with it. All because we stop boro from going into play offs and then threaten to sue efl if they did not charge Derby who to say that is still not the case.

Hence why I think if I was mel I looking legal damages towards our club against boro and efl.

You are Nick de Marco and I claim my £5

[Gladram]

27 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

But doesn't it also follow that the figures become irrelevant to the penalty and all precedent set by previous decisions, guidelines and penalties become meaningless? We're also back into the situation where the EFL can apply any sanction that they deem appropriate. Technically, they don't have to give us a points deduction, because instant relegation was one of the punishments in their power.

Maybe we should all start saying nice things about the EFL.

Don't think EFL set the sanctions it's either automatic, such as going in to Admin, or imposed by an IDC. Any sanction by the IDC can be appealed. The IDC and appeal panel would take into account previous cases, so the sanction would need to be appropriate. I think we need to be nice to the IDC, which I think we were before.

[CornwallRam]

4 minutes ago, Gladram said:

Don't think EFL set the sanctions it's either automatic, such as going in to Admin, or imposed by an IDC. Any sanction by the IDC can be appealed. The IDC and appeal panel would take into account previous cases, so the sanction would need to be appropriate. I think we need to be nice to the IDC, which I think we were before.

The problem is that we haven't yet been charged with failing P&S. We are effectively now guilty of acting in bad faith, which is punishable directly by the EFL. In addition, we could be forced to restate the accounts, which could make us then also fail P&S, which would result in a separate punishment from the IDC.

Clearly this is only a theoretical situation and I doubt it will happen, but it could be possible.

Personally, I think our biggest problem is that it will take many months to resolve, prevent a takeover and keep us in embargo. By the time it is sorted, points deductions might look a bit irrelevant. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

32 minutes ago, MrPlinkett said:

good point,  I'll start. 

They are a marginally better organisation than ISIS and the Taliban. 

At the risk of being controversial, you could argue that organisation of those might be more competant and effective than the EFL - which is not to comment on what the organisations are trying to do.

Can you imagin the EFL waging asymetic war and a terror campaign against the US military for very long?

Edited May 13, 2021 by RadioactiveWaste

[MrPlinkett]

9 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

At the risk of being controversial, you could argue that organisation of those might be more competant and effective than the EFL - which is not to comment on what the organisations are trying to do.

Can you imagin the EFL waging asymetic war and a terror campaign against the US military for very long?

I can't imagine the EFL organising a conker fight to be fair 

[i-Ram]

23 minutes ago, MrPlinkett said:

I thought that was a trump