Wycombe threaten to sue and send us into admin. if we stay up!

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That's the issue I guess. Who decides what's allowable? 

I think this is something clarified in the hearing about the stadium sale. I could be wrong on that though.

If it's in anyway in a grey area I'd expect the EFL to try to object to it.

[NottsRam77]

14 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Sounds like potentially we have some hitherto unused special profits outside of the 40m we made by revaluing the stadium up to 80m most recently. 

This would make Gibson explode if it's allowable. 

Ironically … and U really couldn’t stcript it .. it’s the efl who have presented us with this opportunity

disclaimer: if what is being said is true 

[Gringo]

16 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That's the issue I guess. Who decides what's allowable? 

It’s allowable 

[MikeS]

2 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Agreed. But we were in the wrong. Read the judgment. We tried to ‘game’ for some benefit but secured none. None of that though excuses the shitshow performed by the EFL.

After all this horrendously protracted affair, the only misdeed which the club has been found guilty of so far is failing to "exercise due care" in relation to an important obligation", the amortisation of players.

The panel found the use of a different (otherwise well-used ) system was a breach of League rules and had not been clearly set out enough in the accounts. However, it thought that it had not been proved that the club gained an advantage over other clubs or allowed the club to spend more money on players than permissible. Therefore, no sporting sanction was applicable for the breach.

Now we wait for the re-worked accounts. If they prove (if.....!) to be within the limits, then a lot of people will have egg on their faces and owe an apology to the club and its owner.

[NottsRam77]

19 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That's the issue I guess. Who decides what's allowable? 

The accountants ? If it’s Legal then it’s fine surely 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

The accountants ? If it’s Legal then it’s fine surely 

Our amortisation was legal don't forget. 

[NottsRam77]

Just now, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Our amortisation was legal don't forget. 

That’s what I’m thinking too 

I’m hoping uncle Mel has played a blinder here 

[Rampage]

Please explain why this took so long. How many hours work did it actually take. Any guesses. My guess is 30 hours. Guess based on how long it would have taken me. This is obviously a joke guess. Enjoy.

[hintonsboots]

6 minutes ago, MikeS said:

 

Now we wait for the re-worked accounts. If they prove (if.....!) to be within the limits, then a lot of people will have egg on their faces and owe an apology to the club and its owner.

A list should be compiled. Or two lists if we use EFL protocol.

[Van der MoodHoover]

30 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That's the issue I guess. Who decides what's allowable? 

Ultimately I think that this really is the EFL as it is a measurement scheme (P&S) that they designed and own. 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Ultimately I think that this really is the EFL as it is a measurement scheme (P&S) that they designed and own. 

That's my thinking, but can they just exclude what they want or are they bound to accept this extra £34m as the stadium sale as a whole was accepted? 

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 minute ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That's my thinking, but can they just exclude what they want or are they bound to accept this extra £34m as the stadium sale as a whole was accepted? 

Will depend on how they've written the rules and any case precedents. If the rules are straightforward and unambiguous then should be easily resolved either way. 

Don't rule out the possibility that we think it's fine, and then the EFL start the "oh no, that's not what we meant...." game again. 

Followed by "efl press for further rule change" headlines. It's a game... 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Will depend on how they've written the rules and any case precedents. If the rules are straightforward and unambiguous then should be easily resolved either way. 

Don't rule out the possibility that we think it's fine, and then the EFL start the "oh no, that's not what we meant...." game again. 

Followed by "efl press for further rule change" headlines. It's a game... 

Hopefully then we will get clear agreement with them either way before submitting. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

3 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Hopefully then we will get clear agreement with them either way before submitting. 

In cases where there is ambiguity it can be difficult to get "sign off" from the regulator. 

But we should learn from experience and at least have a documented meeting with them, prior to submi8 and set out what we are doing and the basis of our interpretation. 

That way you can at least subsequently point to a "non objection" in the event that someone subsequently starts kicking off. 

[RoyMac5]

47 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

In cases where there is ambiguity it can be difficult to get "sign off" from the regulator. 

But we should learn from experience and at least have a documented meeting with them, prior to submi8 and set out what we are doing and the basis of our interpretation. 

That way you can at least subsequently point to a "non objection" in the event that someone subsequently starts kicking off. 

Yes, what really can't be understood is why it wasn't done before when having discussions about areas of 'interpretation'. It's fairly routine you'd think.

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, NottsRam77 said:

That’s what I’m thinking too 

I’m hoping uncle Mel has played a blinder here 

Played a blinder ?. Uncle Bumble has been the creator of his own downfall. @MikeSthinks that a lot of people will have egg on their faces if the revised accounts show us within p&s limits (which I think they probably will). I think a few of you need to give yourself a shake, and wake up and smell the coffee.   Mel is a poo Fawaz.

Mel Morris has taken a good, and greatly admired, footballing team from the top of the division to the bottom in 6-7 years, where we were hanging on to 21st place for the last 5 minutes of the 20/21 season.  We start this new season with just a few experienced Pro’s, none of whom are particularly good IMO, an embargo, and a Manager who has worse approval ratings than Messrs Brown and Jewell (although I am not unhappy with WR). Mel has chopped and changed managers, and therefore playing styles, and overseen some of the worst purchases this club has seen. He has wound up the EFL, and as a club we are considered a bunch of cheats by the majority (not that I care about that). He has even taken the Club’s stadium out of the Club’s direct control to underpin his profligate spending.

Played a blinder ?  Be assured I won’t be there clapping him as he does his open top bus tour of Derby, after he sticks one to the EFL. 

[Derby blood]

5 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Played a blinder ?. Uncle Bumble has been the creator of his own downfall. @MikeSthinks that a lot of people will have egg on their faces if the revised accounts show us within p&s limits (which I think they probably will). I think a few of you need to give yourself a shake, and wake up and smell the coffee.   Mel is a poo Fawaz.

Mel Morris has taken a good, and greatly admired, footballing team from the top of the division to the bottom in 6-7 years, where we were hanging on to 21st place for the last 5 minutes of the 20/21 season.  We start this new season with just a few experienced Pro’s, none of whom are particularly good IMO, an embargo, and a Manager who has worse approval ratings than Messrs Brown and Jewell (although I am not unhappy with WR). Mel has chopped and changed managers, and therefore playing styles, and overseen some of the worst purchases this club has seen. He has wound up the EFL, and as a club we are considered a bunch of cheats by the majority (not that I care about that). He has even taken the Club’s stadium out of the Club’s direct control to underpin his profligate spending.

Played a blinder ?  Be assured I won’t be there clapping him as he does his open top bus tour of Derby, after he sticks one to the EFL. 

Very well put sir, agree wuth all the points u make. 

Just hope we have time, to get a half decent squad together before the kick off has arrived. 

[NottsRam77]

6 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Played a blinder ?. Uncle Bumble has been the creator of his own downfall. @MikeSthinks that a lot of people will have egg on their faces if the revised accounts show us within p&s limits (which I think they probably will). I think a few of you need to give yourself a shake, and wake up and smell the coffee.   Mel is a poo Fawaz.

Mel Morris has taken a good, and greatly admired, footballing team from the top of the division to the bottom in 6-7 years, where we were hanging on to 21st place for the last 5 minutes of the 20/21 season.  We start this new season with just a few experienced Pro’s, none of whom are particularly good IMO, an embargo, and a Manager who has worse approval ratings than Messrs Brown and Jewell (although I am not unhappy with WR). Mel has chopped and changed managers, and therefore playing styles, and overseen some of the worst purchases this club has seen. He has wound up the EFL, and as a club we are considered a bunch of cheats by the majority (not that I care about that). He has even taken the Club’s stadium out of the Club’s direct control to underpin his profligate spending.

Played a blinder ?  Be assured I won’t be there clapping him as he does his open top bus tour of Derby, after he sticks one to the EFL. 

Sorry my comment perhaps got lost in translation I was saying it a little air of sarcasm lol

 

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

Sorry my comment perhaps got lost in translation I was saying it a little air of sarcasm lol

Thank god buddy. I genuinely thought you had flown over the cuckoo’s nest ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

42 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yes, what really can't be understood is why it wasn't done before when having discussions about areas of 'interpretation'. It's fairly routine you'd think.

It should be, but I've seen various approaches in my financial career. 

You have to appreciate the benefits of getting regulators onside and also be a bit humble. 

Where I've seen it go wrong is usually down to egos. I've seen people who literally believe regulators aren't as clever as them and are "pen pushers". 

I hope dcfc have learned some hard lessons.