Embargo.

[Sparkle]

4 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

It’s certainly not sporting, which is what football is supposed to be.

Gone are the days when the batsman “walked” mores the pity. 
 

In the context of the make up of the championship it seems the only way to compete with parachute payment clubs is to seek out and take advantage of loopholes.

 

A bit like taking a quick free quick while the opposition aren’t ready ?

it’s not disallowed and accepted 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Sparkle

[G STAR RAM]

22 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Professor Pope

His evidence pretty much got laughed at by the IDC.

[Gaspode]

12 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

It’s certainly not sporting, which is what football is supposed to be.

Gone are the days when the batsman “walked” mores the pity. 
 

In the context of the make up of the championship it seems the only way to compete with parachute payment clubs is to seek out and take advantage of loopholes.

 

Pretty much every business in the country looks for loopholes to gain an advantage - and when the competition is so skewed by parachute payments, clubs that want to be competitive have to look for any opportunitiees they can - it's up to tthe governing body to close loopholes when they become apparent, not to punish teams retrospectively because the goveerning body were too incompetent to manage the rules correctly....

[ilkleyram]

14 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

It’s certainly not sporting, which is what football is supposed to be.

Gone are the days when the batsman “walked” mores the pity. 
 

In the context of the make up of the championship it seems the only way to compete with parachute payment clubs is to seek out and take advantage of loopholes.

 

WG Grace notoriously never walked so perhaps those days never actually existed. Wherever there are rules there are loopholes to exploit and when you have a sport whose very essence is increasingly skewed by excessive finance that authorities and regulators are seemingly powerless or unwilling to control, then loopholes in their rules will be challenged, pushed and exploited by those who can. 

[Grumpy Git]

43 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

Is this good or bad? 

Its a step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

[Sparkle]

Thought of the day 

if we received twice what we paid for the transfers of the likes of Butterfield, Johnson, Anya, Blackman etc would the EFL still be asking us to redo the way we value our players? 
if not then why not?  

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

His evidence pretty much got laughed at by the IDC.

Which was a mistake, if they had reviewed it then justified why it was not appropriate, then the appeal may have fallen short.  He is a professor after all, you may not agree with him but show him some respect.  You clearly believe you know better than him though so perhaps I should show you the same amount of respect 

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Which was a mistake, if they had reviewed it then justified why it was not appropriate, then the appeal may have fallen short.  He is a professor after all, you may not agree with him but show him some respect.  You clearly believe you know better than him though so perhaps I should show you the same amount of respect 

They did that. Just look at the quotes I posted on the previous page. 

[kevinhectoring]

47 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

Is this good or bad? 

Well I think it means a third party was trying to get the companies struck off and they have given up trying. So must be good I reckon 

[Wolfie]

40 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Gaining advantage using a loophole is not 'sneaky and underhand'! 

So you agree with me that we did gain an advantage then?. Despite the club claiming we didn't (which is the point I was making)

[Grumpy Git]

12 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

Its a step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

I notice the same action has been done today for "Stadium DCFC" (another of MM's many companies).

[Alty_Ram]

Forgive my total ignorance on the subject , but in layman's terms what do these announcements re Academy and Sevco actually mean ?

[Gladram]

14 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

They did that. Just look at the quotes I posted on the previous page. 

But they aren't 'experts'? just IDC members, so it needed countering by another expert to enable them to form this view. I think this is why the LAP found against us.

[G STAR RAM]

19 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Which was a mistake, if they had reviewed it then justified why it was not appropriate, then the appeal may have fallen short.  He is a professor after all, you may not agree with him but show him some respect.  You clearly believe you know better than him though so perhaps I should show you the same amount of respect 

Where have I shown him a lack of respect? 

I couldn't care less if he is a Professor or the king, what he said was wrong and pretty much everyone educated in the matter appeared to agree on that.

Having worked as an accountant/auditor for 23 years I would like to think I do have a bit of an idea what I am talking about and to be honest could not care less how much respect you show to either me as an individual or my opinion. 

If you think I'm wrong by all means tell me why but just saying Mr Pope is a professor does not hold much weight in the debate I'm afraid.

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

9 minutes ago, Alty_Ram said:

Forgive my total ignorance on the subject , but in layman's terms what do these announcements re Academy and Sevco actually mean ?

It means the companies can continue to operate without the risk of being struck off (i.e. ceasing to exist) in about six weeks time.

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

So you agree with me that we did gain an advantage then?. Despite the club claiming we didn't (which is the point I was making)

We also gain an advantage by selling our tickets for higher prices than other clubs and the sponsorship deals.

The club are correct that we have gained no advantage as the amortisation will just appear in another years accounts, the total amortisation however will be the same.

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Where have I shown him a lack of respect? 

I couldn't care less if he is a Professor or the king, what he said was wrong and pretty much everyone educated in the matter appeared to agree on that.

Having worked as an accountant/auditor for 23 years I would like to think I do have a bit of an idea what I am talking about and to be honest could not care less how much respect you show to either me as an individual or my opinion. 

If you think I'm wrong by all means tell me why but just saying Mr Pope is a professor does not hold much weight in the debate I'm afraid.

Didn't hold much weight with DC1 either did the poor Prof.

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

30 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well I think it means a third party was trying to get the companies struck off and they have given up trying. So must be good I reckon 

This was a formal action by Companies House due to non-filing of documents.

Lack of annual confirmation statements and accounts are the two things that twist their knickers.

The outstanding confirmation statements were filed yesterday which seems to have been enough for them to discontinue the strike off proposals.

Can't really understand why these were outstanding - it only takes a few minutes to do online and costs £13 per company. If they couldn't afford £13 till now things must have been bad! 

But the fact that it's been discontinued is good news.

PS Expect Mr P on OTIB to now burn more midnight oil to come up with another conspiracy theory. Had some weird idea that Mel was getting these companies struck off to avoid FFP issues.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Half Fan Half Biscuit

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

15 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well I think it means a third party was trying to get the companies struck off and they have given up trying. So must be good I reckon 

It could be that companies house have put in petition themselves to have them struck off as they cant be arsed to chase it.  You can safely assume there was no liability attached to these or creditors would petition to prevent it.  It could have a knock on regarding existing directorships though as you immediately get put under more scrutiny to force compliance. Seeing as one relates to the academy, you would hope it isn't attached to the company still as the name suggests, otherwise the queen might be our new landlord if ought was deemed to be owing.

[atherstoneram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Gaining advantage using a loophole is not 'sneaky and underhand'! 

 Section 5 of EFL rules seems to contradict that remark.

4.4 Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement). Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.