Tamworthram Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 In all seriousness, please don't let this thread descend into an endless round of puns like some of the others have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BathRam72 Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 16 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: In all seriousness, please don't let this thread descend into an endless round of puns like some of the others have. You're joking.....right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 2 hours 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 I've got to agree with you here. I'm struggling to think of a reason why estoppel couldn't be used in the original case which would mean it can be if we're charged for overspending. I would say that the submitting the accounts in good faith should result in a reduction in the penalty though. If we had known we couldn't use our amortisation policy we would have recruited/sold differently to remain compliant under a standard method. r_wilcockson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 3 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Could it amount to a signals failure? I'm not sure changing the pun category so soon is allowed! RadioactiveWaste and 48 hours 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hintonsboots Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 1 hour ago, Tamworthram said: In all seriousness, please don't let this thread descend into an endless round of puns like some of the others have. I couldn’t bear it. ariotofmyown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olton Ram Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 7 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? Mr broken record here. There are all sorts of statements on here claiming the EFl ‘approved our accounts’. Problem is, they only understood how we were doing the amortisation shortly before the first hearing. So even if they ‘approved them’ - which is very doubtful - they did so under a misunderstanding. So, who was responsible for the misunderstanding? Well, the DC blamed the club and the EFL. And the LAP said it was the club’s fault, and they said much worse about us. We have been very lucky (so far) and - as Pearce is now at last saying - we should kiss and make up with the EFl. Estoppel ? Forget it, we should take our medicine and stop fighting with them RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eatonram Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Mr broken record here. There are all sorts of statements on here claiming the EFl ‘approved our accounts’. Problem is, they only understood how we were doing the amortisation shortly before the first hearing. So even if they ‘approved them’ - which is very doubtful - they did so under a misunderstanding. So, who was responsible for the misunderstanding? Well, the DC blamed the club and the EFL. And the LAP said it was the club’s fault, and they said much worse about us. We have been very lucky (so far) and - as Pearce is now at last saying - we should kiss and make up with the EFl. Estoppel ? Forget it, we should take our medicine and stop fighting with them Well the medicine is the current DC punishment which we will take. You keep saying we should stop fighting. This is difficult whilst ever the EFL keep throwing punches (to use your fight analogy) How exactly do we achieve what you are suggesting? I'd love to know. Reggie Greenwood 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean (hick) Saunders Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 (edited) Why do we think it’s taking so long? Assume we can change amortisation only in accounts? In which case 5 min job and a week checking (if I’m being generous). Why wait (we know we are in Champ next year even if we bust ffp) Edited July 8, 2021 by Dean (hick) Saunders Tamworthram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truckle Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 I was thinking of a way to address the misleading narrative around us and the EFL that is making so many other fans dislike our club when actually they should be worried about when the EFL might come for them. So I wrote this article, if you like it and can be arsed we could put it on a few other fans sites. I bet Mr Pop in Bristol would love it. The Wrong Coloured Shorts (wixsite.com) eezzeetiger, Eatonram, Mucker1884 and 5 others 4 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 6 hours 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. Except that the DC's comments don’t say what they mean other than we owed or owe HMRC money and have not paid transfer instalments. It doesn’t say whether that’s all transfer instalments or just one minor one. Say, for example, that we didn't pay the PAYE bill on the month's wages we didn’t pay when we thought the Sheikh was going to pay but that since then we have paid the HMRC? Say that transfer instalments were due in January and we thought the Sheikh was going to pay them but didn’t, but since then we have paid them. In both those situations we shouldn’t be so worried. The trouble with the DCs comments is that there is no context and no detail so you can read into them whatever you like. It may actually not be a problem any more; it may be a problem that will be solved with new owners and that everyone involved is cool and dandy with the whole thing; it may be a matter of considerable concern. Take your pick because your guess is as good as anybody’s. But it is a guess. Vulcanboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 1 minute ago, ilkleyram said: Except that the DC's comments don’t say what they mean other than we owed or owe HMRC money and have not paid transfer instalments. It doesn’t say whether that’s all transfer instalments or just one minor one. Say, for example, that we didn't pay the PAYE bill on the month's wages we didn’t pay when we thought the Sheikh was going to pay but that since then we have paid the HMRC? Say that transfer instalments were due in January and we thought the Sheikh was going to pay them but didn’t, but since then we have paid them. In both those situations we shouldn’t be so worried. The trouble with the DCs comments is that there is no context and no detail so you can read into them whatever you like. It may actually not be a problem any more; it may be a problem that will be solved with new owners and that everyone involved is cool and dandy with the whole thing; it may be a matter of considerable concern. Take your pick because your guess is as good as anybody’s. But it is a guess. These are EFL comments and I’m not sure why they would quote them today if they had been paid. I don’t think these are past indiscretions that we are to be punished for even though they no longer exist. Many clubs apparently filed their accounts late but they are not under embargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 52 minutes ago, Spanish said: These are EFL comments and I’m not sure why they would quote them today if they had been paid. I don’t think these are past indiscretions that we are to be punished for even though they no longer exist. Many clubs apparently filed their accounts late but they are not under embargo. Para 89, page 44 of the latest DC report - quoting the EFL's reasons for (some of) our embargoes. But neither the EFL nor the DC give any context to the indiscretions that led to the embargoes - no dates, no quantum, no information. So it’s impossible to know for sure whether it is still a problem, whether it is (or was) a relatively large (or small) problem and therefore anyone’s guess as to whether it’s something to worry about. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFC1388 Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 5 minutes ago, ilkleyram said: Para 89, page 44 of the latest DC report - quoting the EFL's reasons for (some of) our embargoes. But neither the EFL nor the DC give any context to the indiscretions that led to the embargoes - no dates, no quantum, no information. So it’s impossible to know for sure whether it is still a problem, whether it is (or was) a relatively large (or small) problem and therefore anyone’s guess as to whether it’s something to worry about. Or not. They will still be a problem as they are listed as active embargoes, the new EFL website about it is live so once 1 or more are sorted they would get removed. But you're right about whether it is a small/large problem. I must admit when I read it in the DC report I thought the unpaid transfer fees would have been old emarboes and resolved but clearly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wignall12 Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 2 hours ago, ilkleyram said: Except that the DC's comments don’t say what they mean other than we owed or owe HMRC money and have not paid transfer instalments. It doesn’t say whether that’s all transfer instalments or just one minor one. Say, for example, that we didn't pay the PAYE bill on the month's wages we didn’t pay when we thought the Sheikh was going to pay but that since then we have paid the HMRC? Say that transfer instalments were due in January and we thought the Sheikh was going to pay them but didn’t, but since then we have paid them. In both those situations we shouldn’t be so worried. The trouble with the DCs comments is that there is no context and no detail so you can read into them whatever you like. It may actually not be a problem any more; it may be a problem that will be solved with new owners and that everyone involved is cool and dandy with the whole thing; it may be a matter of considerable concern. Take your pick because your guess is as good as anybody’s. But it is a guess. Taking Covid into account I would think a lot if clubs are behind on transfer payments , think about it , what makes better headlines ? .....Football clubs are in a mess due to restricted income ...or The Pariah of the Football League Derby County have failed to pay their dues and demands and have "Systematically cheated the System! " The big wooden spoons have been out in force because it's Click bait and it's poisoning other clubs fans view of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 7 hours ago, ariotofmyown said: This thread is probably too serious to be de-railed by puns, but I'll scout around for opinions on that. I think that line of enquiry should be leaved (sic?) well alone ariotofmyown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 2 hours ago, ilkleyram said: Para 89, page 44 of the latest DC report - quoting the EFL's reasons for (some of) our embargoes. But neither the EFL nor the DC give any context to the indiscretions that led to the embargoes - no dates, no quantum, no information. So it’s impossible to know for sure whether it is still a problem, whether it is (or was) a relatively large (or small) problem and therefore anyone’s guess as to whether it’s something to worry about. Or not. Have you not read the live EFL website that @RoyMac5quoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 1 hour ago, Wignall12 said: Taking Covid into account I would think a lot if clubs are behind on transfer payments , think about it , what makes better headlines ? .....Football clubs are in a mess due to restricted income ...or The Pariah of the Football League Derby County have failed to pay their dues and demands and have "Systematically cheated the System! " The big wooden spoons have been out in force because it's Click bait and it's poisoning other clubs fans view of us. Then those other clubs would also be listed here: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes eezzeetiger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: Mr broken record here. There are all sorts of statements on here claiming the EFl ‘approved our accounts’. Problem is, they only understood how we were doing the amortisation shortly before the first hearing. So even if they ‘approved them’ - which is very doubtful - they did so under a misunderstanding. So, who was responsible for the misunderstanding? Well, the DC blamed the club and the EFL. And the LAP said it was the club’s fault, and they said much worse about us. We have been very lucky (so far) and - as Pearce is now at last saying - we should kiss and make up with the EFl. Estoppel ? Forget it, we should take our medicine and stop fighting with them Hell no Why should we stop fighting them when we have not done anything wrong even p.s lap and dc all said we did nrothing wrong in the first I say we keep fighting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 25 minutes ago, Spanish said: Have you not read the live EFL website that @RoyMac5quoted? Well I’ve gone back a few pages and can’t see where @Roymac mentions a live EFL page but if it’s the same one that @Ghost of Clough has just quoted above I think it reinforces the point I was making which is that we have been, and are, under embargoes for various reasons but that we don’t have enough information to know how serious that is (other than being under embargo at all is limiting our potential transfer activity and is,therefore, serious). The detail available - how much we owe HMRC, for example, for how long and whether the debt is increasing or decreasing or staying the same, whether it’s covid related or not, is not being published. Ditto the other reasons for embargo. We know that one of the reasons for embargo is the non-publication of accounts but we don't know all the reasons why we have not done so - was it covid related, was it inefficiency on our part, was it because the disciplinary case made producing the accounts impossible (because we didn’t know which amortisation system to use and didn’t want to exacerbate the situation or duplicate the work if we had to resubmit the accounts)? The only thing we know with certainty is that we are in embargo for a number of different reasons. What we don’t know is how serious (or not) those reasons may be. jono 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now