RoyMac5 Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: I haven’t seen anything outside of their public statements, and the written reasons from their attempt to appeal our initial disciplinary panel hearing. Those written reasons were very clear that ‘Boro also wanted to appeal charge 1 (the sale of Pride Park) as well as get in on the appeal of charge 2 (the amortisation). Their statement from last week stated that they are claiming for other reasons as well the amortisation, so it’s most likely the stadium. I find it hard to believe that there’s something else buried in the accounts that literally nobody else has spotted in 5+ years of heavy scrutiny. Some sort of mardyness over Waghorn? Wasn't that mentioned by that itk Boro fan on their forum? Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bald Eagle's Barmy Army Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 3 things I've learnt from being in administration - I don't like Newcastle Fans, I really don't like Middleborough supporters and where Wycombe is in the UK. Papahet and RadioactiveWaste 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 The_Sheriff, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army, Zag zig and 6 others 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said: Some sort of mardyness over Waghorn? Wasn't that mentioned by that itk Boro fan on their forum? They used “systematic cheating” in their statement, so it’s hard to reconcile that with just one transfer. The complaint was always that our overspending allowed us to beat them to sign Waghorn etc, but that overspending still comes down to either the amortisation issue (which we’ve been punished for) or some other reason (which we haven’t been found guilty of). Hector was the best, RadioactiveWaste and Indy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 13 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said: This is a joke surely. EFL have already made their position abundantly clear so why the necessity to go back and "clarify" what is already public knowledge. So are Boro and Wycombe football creditors or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Foreveram said: If we get new owners in and manage to stay up this season, there will still be fans saying the EFL let us off. FACT. It’s a beautiful thing to behold. Foreveram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 I really hope the Admins have actually put a final bid date down this week and will stick to it. It would also be nice if they have to tell the fans. This has dragged on too long. jimtastic56 and Boycie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Parkstone Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: They used “systematic cheating” in their statement, so it’s hard to reconcile that with just one transfer. The complaint was always that our overspending allowed us to beat them to sign Waghorn etc, but that overspending still comes down to either the amortisation issue (which we’ve been punished for) or some other reason (which we haven’t been found guilty of). In all fairness, they should be paying us compensation because we saved them from acquiring Waghorn duncanjwitham, whiteroseram and RoyMac5 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 10 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: I haven’t seen anything outside of their public statements, and the written reasons from their attempt to appeal our initial disciplinary panel hearing. Those written reasons were very clear that ‘Boro also wanted to appeal charge 1 (the sale of Pride Park) as well as get in on the appeal of charge 2 (the amortisation). Their statement from last week stated that they are claiming for other reasons as well the amortisation, so it’s most likely the stadium. I find it hard to believe that there’s something else buried in the accounts that literally nobody else has spotted in 5+ years of heavy scrutiny. I must be me misreading the situation. I presumed it was as as simple as: they had accepted the finding and that we were guilty of breaching the rules. Our breach resulted in them missing out on the play offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 1 minute ago, Geoff Parkstone said: In all fairness, they should be paying us compensation because we saved them from acquiring Waghorn They got Pulis and Warnock instead….?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 13 minutes ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said: 3 things I've learnt from being in administration - I don't like Newcastle Fans, I really don't like Middleborough supporters and where Wycombe is in the UK. This would be a good new thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: I must be me misreading the situation. I presumed it was as as simple as: they had accepted the finding and that we were guilty of breaching the rules. Our breach resulted in them missing out on the play offs. This is was the relevant bit of their statement: ”The claim is not limited merely to the amortisation issue in respect of which a Disciplinary Panel have already found Derby County to have breached the P&S Rules. Without breaking the confidentiality of the proceedings, in simple terms, MFC allege Derby County and its directors systematically cheated under the P&S Rules and that such cheating affects the integrity of the competition” RoyMac5 and RadioactiveWaste 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 1 minute ago, StaffsRam said: They got Pulis and Warnock instead….?? I mean, how much grief could've been spared everyone if Gibson hadn't thought to himself "this is my last go that's bankrolled by parachute payments, I had better make sure I hire a manager whoes charismatic football and attacking instincts will make Boro a force to contend with this season....and if ye has a baseball hat all the better....yes pulis is my guy...if we're not in the premier League next season it fon only be because of cheating by others" i-Ram and StaffsRam 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 2 hours ago, Wolfie20 said: 99.9% of posters on this thread are just guessing - well that's my guess anyway. We need to find the 0.1% of posters who aren't guessing then. They know what's really happening. Step forward whoever you are..................... RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 21 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: They used “systematic cheating” in their statement, so it’s hard to reconcile that with just one transfer. The complaint was always that our overspending allowed us to beat them to sign Waghorn etc, but that overspending still comes down to either the amortisation issue (which we’ve been punished for) or some other reason (which we haven’t been found guilty of). Our overspending was a breach of FFP but they actually out spent us .. by definition we had no financial advantage whatsoever. In sporting and financial terms They had an advantage over us due to parachute money. We breached a technical rule - which, after due process, has given us a points deduction that has been applied. Saying we cheated is like a two handed man in a fight saying it’s not fair you took your handcuffs off strawhillram, duncanjwitham, Steve How Hard? and 2 others 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 Nice one, @HuddersRam PistoldPete, Reenie, Derby4Me and 21 others 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 28 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: So are Boro and Wycombe football creditors or not? No not yet because we don't owe them any money. But they will be if they win their claims unless there's a legal ruling to the contrary. RadioactiveWaste and kevinhectoring 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggins Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, Nuwtfly said: Big week, Rams fans: how's your nerves? Exhausted with it all but still enough fight left in me. Edited January 24, 2022 by Miggins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramarena Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said: Wycombe are arguing that we contrived to have our punishment applied in the wrong season, to our advantage. Saying we've served our punishment doesn't address that. 'Boro are arguing that our punishment wasn't enough - we should have been given a harsher punishment and should have also been found guilty of things we were cleared of. We've served out punishment doesn't address that. You can be in charge of that message, it will be relevant after the takeover, if Boro and Wycombe continue their shenanigans! Everyone else needs to work on the clear concise message that we’ve been harshly punished (even though we weren’t guilty) and stopping our takeover is just vindictive and malicious! It’s all about messaging right now! Edited January 24, 2022 by Ramarena Dordogne-Ram, jono, i-Ram and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 22 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: This is was the relevant bit of their statement: ”The claim is not limited merely to the amortisation issue in respect of which a Disciplinary Panel have already found Derby County to have breached the P&S Rules. Without breaking the confidentiality of the proceedings, in simple terms, MFC allege Derby County and its directors systematically cheated under the P&S Rules and that such cheating affects the integrity of the competition” They've either got something that hasn't been examined in the charges made by the EFL, in which case, they should present the evidence to the EFL for them to investigate and charge DCFC, or, they are referring to matters already decided. If they are just going to make a mixture of inferences and assertions on the basis they think we spent more than we should have, I'd expect a robust defence to take that appart. duncanjwitham and r_wilcockson 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