Two season transfer ban.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

2 hours ago, RammingStone66 said:

I thought it was reported that the Alonso deal was: Take on the club's debt, a payment of 2.5mil to Mel upfront then another 2.5mill in 6 months. EFL wanted him to pay 20mill of the debt off upfront but he wouldn't tell them where the money to pay it was from and kept stalling on actually paying it.

If that was true I wonder what the deal is now

That is exactly what I'd heard but Cocu Alonso circus/deal was never going to happen so any shrewd business brain would be looking to offer no more than £1 if the debts are all to be settled, substantial (allegedly) and there is no real assets such as stadium and training ground

[RammingStone66]

44 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

That is exactly what I'd heard but Cocu Alonso circus/deal was never going to happen so any shrewd business brain would be looking to offer no more than £1 if the debts are all to be settled, substantial (allegedly) and there is no real assets such as stadium and training ground

I'm glad someone remembers that two. I haven mentioned it to a few people and I was starting to think I had imagined it ? yeah with how high the debts were reported to be at that time I couldn't get my head round the 2x2.5 mill payments. I think it was supposed to be 40mill in debts to take on and that's why the EFL wanted 20 mill paying off straight away.......which also made me think they didn't trust Alonso at all. 

[RoyMac5]

 

[Comrade 86]

Far be it from me to suggest that the EFL are a snivelling bunch of feckless trough sniffers, but is the HMRC charge really something they should be concerning themselves with? I'd have thought any sanctions relating to this particular matter should fall under the jurisdiction of HMRC themselves. Not sure they require any additional support from sherry-slurping, bungle-gibsons like the EFL, whose only claim to fame seems to be making a colossal clusterfuck of the job with which they are tasked. Seems to me that HMRC are quite capable of any required enforcement measures themselves without any such 'aid' ?‍♀️

[Gaspode]

17 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Far be it from me to suggest that the EFL are a snivelling bunch of feckless trough sniffers, but is the HMRC charge really something they should be concerning themselves with? I'd have thought any sanctions relating to this particular matter should fall under the jurisdiction of HMRC themselves. Not sure they require any additional support from sherry-slurping, bungle-gibsons like the EFL, whose only claim to fame seems to be making a colossal clusterfuck of the job with which they are tasked. Seems to me that HMRC are quite capable of any required enforcement measures themselves without any such 'aid' ?‍♀️

I suppose the theory is that HMRC don't mess about when money is outstanding so a charge from them could put the club out of business - which is what FFP was intended to address when it was first proposed....

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

22 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Far be it from me to suggest that the EFL are a snivelling bunch of feckless trough sniffers, but is the HMRC charge really something they should be concerning themselves with? I'd have thought any sanctions relating to this particular matter should fall under the jurisdiction of HMRC themselves. Not sure they require any additional support from sherry-slurping, bungle-gibsons like the EFL, whose only claim to fame seems to be making a colossal clusterfuck of the job with which they are tasked. Seems to me that HMRC are quite capable of any required enforcement measures themselves without any such 'aid' ?‍♀️

????????? made me chuckle, well done @86 Hair Islands ????

[duncanjwitham]

5 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I suppose the theory is that HMRC don't mess about when money is outstanding so a charge from them could put the club out of business - which is what FFP was intended to address when it was first proposed....

It's also a competition-fairness thing. They don't want one club spending money on players instead of paying HMRC while everyone else is abiding by the rules.

[cheron85]

48 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

Ooooooooooo oh the hokey cokey... Oooooooooooo oh the hokey cokey... 

 

26 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Far be it from me to suggest that the EFL are a snivelling bunch of feckless trough sniffers, but is the HMRC charge really something they should be concerning themselves with? I'd have thought any sanctions relating to this particular matter should fall under the jurisdiction of HMRC themselves. Not sure they require any additional support from sherry-slurping, bungle-gibsons like the EFL, whose only claim to fame seems to be making a colossal clusterfuck of the job with which they are tasked. Seems to me that HMRC are quite capable of any required enforcement measures themselves without any such 'aid' ?‍♀️

If it's in the rules then I think they have to flag a breach of those rules

I think the question mark against the EFL is application of their own rules 

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, Gaspode said:

I suppose the theory is that HMRC don't mess about when money is outstanding so a charge from them could put the club out of business - which is what FFP was intended to address when it was first proposed....

I understand that Gaspode, but this smacks of closing the gate before the horse is even in the field. The EFL are demanding that Mel shows proof of funding. Fair enough I suppose, but if he does so, the HMRC situation becomes utterly moot.

I'm afraid they are simply tying the club in knots for reasons I've already outlined too many times to warrant doing so again. I can accept the charges levied if we are given a fair crack at addressing them. What sticks in my craw is the total lack of consistency either in terms of the current situation, or historically. Again, the obvious historical examples have been cited ad nauseum.

I'd resist any EFL sanctions on that very basis, though I appreciate that stance leaves me in a diminishing minority. When I read posts saying 'let's just take the 9 point hit and move on', I can't help but ask on what basis, but then perhaps I'm just being stubborn ?‍♂️

[jono]

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I understand that Gaspode, but this smacks of closing the gate before the horse is even in the field. The EFL are demanding that Mel shows proof of funding. Fair enough I suppose, but if he does so, the HMRC situation becomes utterly moot.

I'm afraid they are simply tying the club in knots for reasons I've already outlined too many times to warrant doing so again. I can accept the charges levied if we are given a fair crack at addressing them. What sticks in my craw is the total lack of consistency either in terms of the current situation, or historically. Again, the obvious historical examples have been cited ad nauseum.

I'd resist any EFL sanctions on that very basis, though I appreciate that stance leaves me in a diminishing minority. When I read posts saying 'let's just take the 9 point hit and move on', I can't help but ask on what basis, but then perhaps I'm just being stubborn ?‍♂️

You’re not being stubborn. It’s perfectly correct that anyone should take any punishment due, but only if rules are seen to have been applied equally amongst all participants. If that isn’t the case then standing up for yourself is the only course of action. 

[cheron85]

2 minutes ago, jono said:

You’re not being stubborn. It’s perfectly correct that anyone should take any punishment due, but only if rules are seen to have been applied equally amongst all participants. If that isn’t the case then standing up for yourself is the only course of action. 

If you let a bully win he'll just come back and do it again

If you stand up to them you may well get the snot beaten out of you but you'll have showcased to others that their behaviour isn't acceptable 

We're currently getting seven shades of snot beaten out of us but I don't see that as a reason to back down and let the bully have their way

[Gaspode]

17 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I understand that Gaspode, but this smacks of closing the gate before the horse is even in the field. The EFL are demanding that Mel shows proof of funding. Fair enough I suppose, but if he does so, the HMRC situation becomes utterly moot.

I'm afraid they are simply tying the club in knots for reasons I've already outlined too many times to warrant doing so again. I can accept the charges levied if we are given a fair crack at addressing them. What sticks in my craw is the total lack of consistency either in terms of the current situation, or historically. Again, the obvious historical examples have been cited ad nauseum.

I'd resist any EFL sanctions on that very basis, though I appreciate that stance leaves me in a diminishing minority. When I read posts saying 'let's just take the 9 point hit and move on', I can't help but ask on what basis, but then perhaps I'm just being stubborn ?‍♂️

I'm not defending them in any way when it comes to their pettiness and vindictive nature to DCFC, but if they claim to be trying to protect clubs from financial ruin (laughable in our case where they seem to be doing the opposite), then the threat from HMRC is probably the greatest, which is why I can understand them including it  - if they ignore HMRC, then clubs could potter along knowing they weren't paying HMRC (which has happened) and then being wound up. The point of sanctions are to drive behaviours away from threats to the club's future - HMRC have a big stick and are happy to use it so from a risk point of view, they need to be considered.....

[atherstoneram]

Personally i don't think we are in possession of all the facts and never will be, there are probably issues that cannot be disclosed to the public for whatever reason. Fans keep going on about conspiracies etc which i don't think is true. If MM thought or had proof of any conspiracies i have no doubt that he would make sure it somehow got leaked to mainstream media organisations. On here it all depends on which side of the fence you are looking over. 

[Ram-Alf]

45 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I'd resist any EFL sanctions on that very basis, though I appreciate that stance leaves me in a diminishing minority. When I read posts saying 'let's just take the 9 point hit and move on', I can't help but ask on what basis, but then perhaps I'm just being stubborn ?‍♂️

Welcome to my world, I'm unable to post on here as to what i'd like to do to those snivelling, Ballsack tea bagging piles of excrament without being given a lifetimes ban from here

[Olton Ram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

This is why supporting Derby is so much more fun than supporting anyone else. Other teams get to celebrate goals, promotions or trophies. We can celebrate one less EFL charge!

YYYYYYEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

 

[Tombo]

I liked the pre Lampard/Cole/Cocu/Rooney world we lived in where the papers didn't bother writing about us.

No knock on Rooney because he's started this season a lot brighter than we looked last year but the sooner we can put an end to Celebrity DCFC the better

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I understand that Gaspode, but this smacks of closing the gate before the horse is even in the field. The EFL are demanding that Mel shows proof of funding. Fair enough I suppose, but if he does so, the HMRC situation becomes utterly moot.

I'm afraid they are simply tying the club in knots for reasons I've already outlined too many times to warrant doing so again. I can accept the charges levied if we are given a fair crack at addressing them. What sticks in my craw is the total lack of consistency either in terms of the current situation, or historically. Again, the obvious historical examples have been cited ad nauseum.

I'd resist any EFL sanctions on that very basis, though I appreciate that stance leaves me in a diminishing minority. When I read posts saying 'let's just take the 9 point hit and move on', I can't help but ask on what basis, but then perhaps I'm just being stubborn ?‍♂️

Totally agree 

[Bob The Badger]

On 05/09/2021 at 08:22, TigerTedd said:

Are we still paying for Blackman?

Not sure, but fortunately we only have two more instalments left on Derek Hales.

[BucksRam]

15 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Totally agree 

Totally agree with your totally agree. 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Does anybody know who is waiting for what and more importantly why?