Big Bad Bob Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Philmycock said: There's intelligent investing and there's Blackman-Butterfield investing, he didn't invest in the correct scouting/football managers He did back the manager. How many times have people critised the owner for not backing the manager? Plenty. And I don't recall the majority of fans being unhappy with the managerial appointments, just the usual minority who would grumble even if Guardiola or Klopp would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 25 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said: I blame his dad and his grandad before him, and his dad and his grandad before that going back generation after generation. Which is pretty much the path Richard took to represent the ROI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsRam77 Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 On 10/11/2021 at 18:23, Tyler Durden said: I'd just start playing silly beggars now and field a youth team every game and wait for the other clubs to start squealing that they want results up to this point against us annulled as it was an unfair advantage for the other teams. Well boro can duck right off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 49 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: But did you make her whine ? They are raisin kids now kevinhectoring and Miggins 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said: You heard right, I took her home, Cooked her a great meal, Picked her up and lay her on the bed...and you know what...I got Nun. Blue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 8 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said: I took her home, Cooked her a great meal, Picked her up and lay her on the bed...and you know what...I got Nun. Ah well best not to get into the habit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 8 hours ago, TuffLuff said: Gist of it on Radio Derby earlier was that the administrators were due to be interviewed tomorrow but that’s no longer happening and that there could be an announcement by the weekend but everyone is still in talks. Trying to work out what this might mean ‘still in talks’ is a chink of light ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammiesdad Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said: Trying to work out what this might mean ‘still in talks’ is a chink of light ...? My bet is announcement 6 pm tonight just before a big England game ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Rammiesdad said: My bet is announcement 6 pm tonight just before a big England game ! Yes good call. Hoping to hear nothing for several days and then to discover Percy’s scoop was a bum steer from someone in Middlesborough who is trying to destabilise a deal. Clutching at straws I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Rammiesdad said: My bet is announcement 6 pm tonight just before a big England game ! We are still about a week away from moving to a preferred bidder status. Surely any strategy on the Efl situation would have to be agreed with the successful bidder whoever that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawhillram Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: Trying to work out what this might mean ‘still in talks’ is a chink of light ...? Still in Talks about the business plan, in other words another way for the efl to keep control over us to make sure we don’t finish higher than boro kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 11 hours ago, CBRammette said: Thanks I hadnt read that before Oddly it wasn't even mentioned in the Appeal hearings report. You would think it was a very relevant fact. But the ICAEW are only an accounting body, the Appeal panelists were all lawyers and they are much more knowledgable of course about everything especially accounting matters. Reggie Greenwood and CBRammette 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: Ah well best not to get into the habit I got into the habit of seeing her Sister kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 Is it official yet or are they still waiting for Steve Gibson and Kieran Maguires sign off? Kingpin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladram Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 1 hour ago, PistoldPete said: Oddly it wasn't even mentioned in the Appeal hearings report. You would think it was a very relevant fact. But the ICAEW are only an accounting body, the Appeal panelists were all lawyers and they are much more knowledgable of course about everything especially accounting matters. The appeal didn't reexamine the information. It was looking at the procedure followed. Primarily the weight of evidence from each side and decided that the EFL had an expert witness who said our amortisation policy was wrong. We didn't counter this with our own expert. Therefore they should of accepted the EFL's experts evidence. They're knowledge as accountants shouldn't have any weight. They're there to judge on the information presented at the hearing. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 9 minutes ago, Gladram said: The appeal didn't reexamine the information. It was looking at the procedure followed. Primarily the weight of evidence from each side and decided that the EFL had an expert witness who said our amortisation policy was wrong. We didn't counter this with our own expert. Therefore they should of accepted the EFL's experts evidence. They're knowledge as accountants shouldn't have any weight. They're there to judge on the information presented at the hearing. Wasn't the phrase"an error in law" by not giving additional weight to the expert witness? Gladram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, Gladram said: The appeal didn't reexamine the information. It was looking at the procedure followed. Primarily the weight of evidence from each side and decided that the EFL had an expert witness who said our amortisation policy was wrong. We didn't counter this with our own expert. Therefore they should of accepted the EFL's experts evidence. They're knowledge as accountants shouldn't have any weight. They're there to judge on the information presented at the hearing. Part of having an expert witness provide evidence is the the jury (or panel of judges in this case) decide on the competence of the witness. You can't just have someone rock up and claim to be an expert and then be required by law to take it on faith that they are. The 3 judges on the panel clearly listened to Prof Pope's evidence and decided he was unfit to be an expert witness - there are repeated statements in their written report about him being unaware of the very rules he was giving evidence on, him not understanding his actual role as an expert witness and generally not being at all useful. It's quite frankly bizarre that that would all be ignored by the appeals panels. Obviously we should have presented our own expert witness, but I do wonder if we thought the point we lost on was so self-evident that we didn't actually need to prove it was true. We basically lost because the EFL argued that when FRS102 says "from use and disposal" it actually only allows "from use" and the other 2 words are entirely superfluous. If you're going argue that words don't mean the things they mean, then we'd still be there now arguing over every word in the dictionary. Indy, PistoldPete, RadioactiveWaste and 2 others 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladram Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 11 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: Part of having an expert witness provide evidence is the the jury (or panel of judges in this case) decide on the competence of the witness. You can't just have someone rock up and claim to be an expert and then be required by law to take it on faith that they are. The 3 judges on the panel clearly listened to Prof Pope's evidence and decided he was unfit to be an expert witness - there are repeated statements in their written report about him being unaware of the very rules he was giving evidence on, him not understanding his actual role as an expert witness and generally not being at all useful. It's quite frankly bizarre that that would all be ignored by the appeals panels. Obviously we should have presented our own expert witness, but I do wonder if we thought the point we lost on was so self-evident that we didn't actually need to prove it was true. We basically lost because the EFL argued that when FRS102 says "from use and disposal" it actually only allows "from use" and the other 2 words are entirely superfluous. If you're going argue that words don't mean the things they mean, then we'd still be there now arguing over every word in the dictionary. I agree with what you say but the original question was why the appeal panel hadn't mentioned ICAEW, I was attempting to answer this. They didn't reexamine the evidence just looked at the procedure followed and decided there was an error in law. duncanjwitham 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 24 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Wasn't the phrase"an error in law" by not giving additional weight to the expert witness? So they should have referred it back to the IDc so they could consider the report again and Derby’s lawyers could have cross examined him on the obvious flaws in his report. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Gladram said: I agree with what you say but the original question was why the appeal panel hadn't mentioned ICAEW, I was attempting to answer this. They didn't reexamine the evidence just looked at the procedure followed and decided there was an error in law. But so what? There was an error in law Supposedly that they didn’t consider the evidence from Prof Pope . but that evidence even when considered has to be weighed against the evidence that an auditor and an Icaew review has signed off the accounts. And an independent panel including an accountant were happy with that . Indy, RadioactiveWaste and Eatonram 1 2 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