EFL Verdict

[hintonsboots]

17 minutes ago, BucksRam said:

Just seen the following on a FB thread under a Derbyshire Live post:

"While I don’t doubt that the EFL will seek to impose a points deduction if Derby’s accumulated losses in the revised accounts for the three year period exceed £39m, they’d be legally ‘courageous’ (in the Sir Humphrey Appleby sense of the term) to do so.

The EFL approved Derby’s accounts for each of those three years and the player amortisation policy was expressly called out.

The legal principle of estoppel would, therefore, seem to apply, especially as it’s readily surmised that Derby’s financial actions in the second and third years were discretionary and predicated on the EFL’s acceptance of the prior years’ accounts.

If, for instance, Derby’s accumulated losses in the first and second years were (say) £30m, the club could easily argue they could have curtailed third year expenses to keep that year’s loss below £9m.

Unless the EFL wants to claim that that Derby procured their approval of those accounts via material misrepresentation (given they apparently accepted the accounts unconditionally), one would think an injunction against a penalty for a retrospective breach of FFP would succeed.

The EFL may think they’re above the law but they’re not".

Anyone one here with more legal nous than me (that's almost everyone then) comment on this? Tosh, or does it hold any credence?

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law. It is meant to prevent people from being unjustly wronged by the inconsistencies of another person's words or actions.

Certainly would apply to the EFL.

[Indy]

4 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law. It is meant to prevent people from being unjustly wronged by the inconsistencies of another person's words or actions.

Certainly would apply to the EFL.

I think we have already argued estoppel in relation to our version of amortisation and had it rejected. It depends if any new penalty considers this part of the same argument, or if we were making a new argument of estoppel based on new figures. Could be argued either way, I think. 

[Reggie Greenwood]

19 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think we have already argued estoppel in relation to our version of amortisation and had it rejected. It depends if any new penalty considers this part of the same argument, or if we were making a new argument of estoppel based on new figures. Could be argued either way, I think. 

I bet Mr De Marco would know and has probably already advised DCFC. 

[BucksRam]

28 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law. It is meant to prevent people from being unjustly wronged by the inconsistencies of another person's words or actions.

Certainly would apply to the EFL.

 

22 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think we have already argued estoppel in relation to our version of amortisation and had it rejected. It depends if any new penalty considers this part of the same argument, or if we were making a new argument of estoppel based on new figures. Could be argued either way, I think. 

Thanks both ?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

32 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think we have already argued estoppel in relation to our version of amortisation and had it rejected. It depends if any new penalty considers this part of the same argument, or if we were making a new argument of estoppel based on new figures. Could be argued either way, I think. 

Emmm... We haven't been to court to argue the legality yet I don't think......Have we?

[StarterForTen]

39 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

I bet Mr De Marco would know and has probably already advised DCFC. 

Makes you wonder if this legal principle is what the Cub keep making references to actions being 'unlwafull'? They used the term consistently in their statements.

[Indy]

40 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Emmm... We haven't been to court to argue the legality yet I don't think......Have we?

We argued it in the initial charge saying that the EFL had accepted our figures so they couldn’t now argue that our amortisation method was invalid. If the EFL argue that the reworked accounts follow on from not accepting the amortisation approach, they could argue that the failed estoppel argument applies to the restated accounts.

As has been said though, I’m sure Nick de Marco would make a strong case on our behalf. 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

Having seen the reasons for our ongoing embargo I am more worried about the fact we owe HMRC money and that we have defaulted on transfer instalments than the EFL nonsense.

[i-Ram]

28 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Having seen the reasons for our ongoing embargo I am more worried about the fact we owe HMRC money and that we have defaulted on transfer instalments than the EFL nonsense.

Fawazesque.

[Curtains]

Being under transfer embargo is ok as it stops us wasting money on big money signings

The Academy players will have to step up along with free transfers and 6 month loans 

[Curtains]

Reading and Hull also under embargo.

More and more Championship clubs will start to struggle financially I’m sure. 

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, StarterForTen said:

Makes you wonder if this legal principle is what the Cub keep making references to actions being 'unlwafull'? They used the term consistently in their statements.

This thread is probably too serious to be de-railed by puns, but I'll scout around for opinions on that.

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

This thread is probably too serious to be de-railed by puns, but I'll scout around for opinions on that.

Could it amount to a signals failure?

[Spanish]

2 hours ago, BucksRam said:

Just seen the following on a FB thread under a Derbyshire Live post:

"While I don’t doubt that the EFL will seek to impose a points deduction if Derby’s accumulated losses in the revised accounts for the three year period exceed £39m, they’d be legally ‘courageous’ (in the Sir Humphrey Appleby sense of the term) to do so.

The EFL approved Derby’s accounts for each of those three years and the player amortisation policy was expressly called out.

The legal principle of estoppel would, therefore, seem to apply, especially as it’s readily surmised that Derby’s financial actions in the second and third years were discretionary and predicated on the EFL’s acceptance of the prior years’ accounts.

If, for instance, Derby’s accumulated losses in the first and second years were (say) £30m, the club could easily argue they could have curtailed third year expenses to keep that year’s loss below £9m.

Unless the EFL wants to claim that that Derby procured their approval of those accounts via material misrepresentation (given they apparently accepted the accounts unconditionally), one would think an injunction against a penalty for a retrospective breach of FFP would succeed.

The EFL may think they’re above the law but they’re not".

Anyone one here with more legal nous than me (that's almost everyone then) comment on this? Tosh, or does it hold any credence?

The DC2 findings are worth a read.  The DC are clear in that they do not expect the EFL to sign off the accounts.  They rely on accounting standards, auditors and the honesty of all the clubs.  They are not above the law because ultimately the club will seek legal redress and this maybe the reason they didn’t send this to LAP I guess.  However, all the clubs need to follow the rules which apply to all of them.  I have always felt that if retrospective points relegated us we would attempt an injunction to stop the league season commencing, maybe that is fanciful?  The only issue left now is will we be penalised points in 21/2 of course

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, Spanish said:

The DC2 findings are worth a read.  The DC are clear in that they do not expect the EFL to sign off the accounts.  They rely on accounting standards, auditors and the honesty of all the clubs.  They are not above the law because ultimately the club will seek legal redress and this maybe the reason they didn’t send this to LAP I guess.  However, all the clubs need to follow the rules which apply to all of them.  I have always felt that if retrospective points relegated us we would attempt an injunction to stop the league season commencing, maybe that is fanciful?  The only issue left now is will we be penalised points in 21/2 of course

Now we've got the appeal out of the way I think it seems right to revisit the 'fairness/legality' of penalising us for following the rules as allowed by the EFL. I can't see how they can be excused - is it the clubs fault that the EFL didn't(?) understand the process they'd agreed we could use for amortisation?!

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Now we've got the appeal out of the way I think it seems right to revisit the 'fairness/legality' of penalising us for following the rules as allowed by the EFL. I can't see how they can be excused - is it the clubs fault that the EFL didn't(?) understand the process they'd agreed we could use for amortisation?!

Water under the bridge now Roy.  I still think the efl feel we did not follow the rules, they decided not to appeal for whatever reason.  Thankfully DC2 did not get swayed by the professor.  No point in discussing this apart from the EFL do not sign off on accounts.  Change my mind by all means but I prefer to follow the DC more than theEFL or LAP.

[Curtains]

The EFL are a bunch of wasters full stop. 

[Steve How Hard?]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

This thread is probably too serious to be de-railed by puns, but I'll scout around for opinions on that.

That's a truly awful pun. Give your head a woggle.......erm I mean wobble. 

[Taribo]

58 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

This thread is probably too serious to be de-railed by puns, but I'll scout around for opinions on that.

trains

[Olton Ram]

Whatever we do Steve Gibson will dib-dib-dob us in and the EFL will try to have us by the ging-gang-goolies.