EFL statement

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

Yosser Hughes ?

Maybe the third Scouser is Kieran Maguire. He works at University of Liverpool. Don't think he's a Liverpool fan though, just an honourary one. Proper Scouse mafia though.    

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

OK so Parry is the one with permed hair and a moustache, and Birch is the one with permed hair and a moustache, so who is the other guy with permed hair and a moustache?  

Ar kid innit eh sof’lad laa

[Indy]

30 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

I never had response from Trevor Birch so I forwarded it to Rick Parry.  We’ve exchanged a few emails today, so much so that we’re now on first name terms ?.  Regarding MFC, he said the original ruling said they had no reason to interfere with the EFL appeal and this is brought on different grounds.  Regardless I think we still have a strong case.

I did add a few points about WWFC and pointed out RC’s interview on RD this week where he said we’d submitted accounts late but the deadline was actually into this season.  He’s highlighted the timeline of the EFL appeal to the final decision, which we pretty much know.  He say that he thinks (put this in capitals saying he did it know the details) WWFC’s point is if we’d submitted revised accounts prior to the June hearing points may have been deducted last season.  I’ve said I hope all parties do get together this week and that RC should be made aware of the Brum & Sheff Wed decisions.  In both cases they basically said that points shouldn’t be deducted near the end of the season as the club can do little to claw them back.  They also say it creates uncertainty for all the clubs.

Now I need a beer!!

It’s true that the original Boro claim is brought on different grounds but it rapidly resolved to the same argument. They said we had competitive advantage from the extra finances our stadium valuation gave us. The panel said extra finance did not automatically lead to competitive advantage, and could definitely not shown to deny Boro a place in the playoffs or beyond. Their case now says that we had competitive advantage from the extra finances our amortisation gave us - but the rest of their argument following that point is the same - and has been dismissed. 
 

We couldn’t submit accounts before they clarified what method we had to use. They just said that it had to be compliant with the regs (I think) - still not specifying straight-line amortisation. 
 

Most of this mess is avoidable if EFL wrote clear regs. And didn’t punish retrospectively where a rule isnt clear. To a certain extent, Leeds had the same problem with ambiguous rules not specifying unsporting behaviour. At least the amortisation rules specified that they must meet auditing requirements …

[Ramos]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Maybe the third Scouser is Kieran Maguire. He works at University of Liverpool. Don't think he's a Liverpool fan though, just an honourary one. Proper Scouse mafia though.    

Think he supports brighton. 

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s true that the original Boro claim is brought on different grounds but it rapidly resolved to the same argument. They said we had competitive advantage from the extra finances our stadium valuation gave us. The panel said extra finance did not automatically lead to competitive advantage, and could definitely not shown to deny Boro a place in the playoffs or beyond. Their case now says that we had competitive advantage from the extra finances our amortisation gave us - but the rest of their argument following that point is the same - and has been dismissed. 
 

We couldn’t submit accounts before they clarified what method we had to use. They just said that it had to be compliant with the regs (I think) - still not specifying straight-line amortisation. 
 

Most of this mess is avoidable if EFL wrote clear regs. And didn’t punish retrospectively where a rule isnt clear. To a certain extent, Leeds had the same problem with ambiguous rules not specifying unsporting behaviour. At least the amortisation rules specified that they must meet auditing requirements …

So why didn't Boro bring their claim about amortisation in 2016 when it was introduced? 

Poor Gibson just gets spiked by his own hypocrisy. Suing EFL for not taking action sooner on the stadium sale. Why didn't he bring a dispute with us or with EFL about the amortisation issue sooner, in 2016, 2017, 2018 or 2019?  

[Indy]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So why didn't Boro bring their claim about amortisation in 2016 when it was introduced? 

Poor Gibson just gets spiked by his own hypocrisy. Suing EFL for not taking action sooner on the stadium sale. Why didn't he bring a dispute with us or with EFL about the amortisation issue sooner, in 2016, 2017, 2018 or 2019?  

I’m guessing because they didn’t understand it.
 

Interesting to note that ‘the deal’ between EFL and Boro is part of that case where Boro petition for inclusion, isn’t it? I think that’s where it says that if we are found guilty, then the EFL will allow Boro to seek compo separately. Now, Parry himself is saying that that panel is a different case to the amortisation issue that we were found guilty of? So does that mean ‘the deal’ and permission to pursue us separately is only in force if we’d been found guilty on the stadium valuation charge - which we weren’t. 
 

If that deal isn’t in force, then shouldn’t regulation 103.1 (prohibiting further legal action) apply?

[Indy]

24 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’m guessing because they didn’t understand it.
 

Interesting to note that ‘the deal’ between EFL and Boro is part of that case where Boro petition for inclusion, isn’t it? I think that’s where it says that if we are found guilty, then the EFL will allow Boro to seek compo separately. Now, Parry himself is saying that that panel is a different case to the amortisation issue that we were found guilty of? So does that mean ‘the deal’ and permission to pursue us separately is only in force if we’d been found guilty on the stadium valuation charge - which we weren’t. 
 

If that deal isn’t in force, then shouldn’t regulation 103.1 (prohibiting further legal action) apply?

Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick, considering they lost that case anyway? Is that why everything is to be considered by an arbitration panel and not in court?

Although it does still say decisions are final and have no right of appeal or further arbitration?

[Foreveram]

4 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

Yosser Hughes ?

Go on gis a job I could run the EFL 

[hintonsboots]

22 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Go on gis a job I could run the EFL 

Have you got an IQ of 23 and with no moral compass and a holiday home in Middlesbrough ?

[Foreveram]

3 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Have you got an IQ of 23 and with no moral compass and a holiday home in Middlesbrough ?

Erm

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Have you got an IQ of 23 and with no moral compass and a holiday home in Middlesbrough ?

The role requires a demonstrable history of villanous behaviour, utter bastardry, duplicity and a willingness to foresake all integrity.

The ideal candidate will have experience of failure, incompetance, and being the public face of a humiliating situation without shame or apology.

[Ewetube]

8 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

The role requires a demonstrable history of villanous behaviour, utter bastardry, duplicity and a willingness to foresake all integrity.

The ideal candidate will have experience of failure, incompetance, and being the public face of a humiliating situation without shame or apology.

Where do I apply?