Rob Couhig on Sports Scene at 6

[Oldben]

https://mobile.twitter.com/rcouhig?lang=en

[Edinburgh ram]

He explains throughout the interview that he’s not the bad guy and that he doesn’t want to see Derby liquidated. If he’s so concerned for our welfare then why doesn’t he drop the case and start it up again when we’re out of admin if hers so sure he’s going to win anyway? Both he and Gibson are absolute chancers who have no regard for this clubs welfare and they don’t even have the decency to admit it.

 

[Tamworthram]

9 hours ago, Ellafella said:

 

Exactly what a number of us have been saying and surely any competent lawyer could explain in court thus getting the case dismissed.

I’m sure Couhig is a competent lawyer himself but is deliberately overlooking these basic facts. That’s why I suspect he wouldn’t actually take us to court. He knows a defence barrister would make a better job of pressing him on this simple issue than Ed did.

[AGR]

The interview with the chap from Radio Teeside was what angered me so much last night. Their whole attitude of 'it's not our problem' absolutely stinks. Boro are now up there with Forest and Leeds for me. This should never be forgotten. The Wycombe case is laughable and they have got no chance of anything other than a minor out of court agreement

 

[StaffsRam]

They’re way beyond either Forest or Leeds. We know why those rivalries exist, and banter and a few muppets aside it’s nothing to do with trying to put each other out of business. Boro on the other hand are actively trying to kill us. No matter how this ends, that will never be forgotten. Venom towards Forest and Leeds is to a certain extent faux. Venom towards Boro? After this? Yeah, let’s see how that goes.

[duncanjwitham]

I've just steeled myself and listened to a bit of his interview (genuinely couldn't face it last night).  He seems hopelessly muddled about the timeline of things, and I still can't tell exactly which set of accounts he's actually talking about. 

He starts off as if he's talking about the restated accounts for 2015-2018, when he talks about the results of the appeal and being forced to restate "financials".  We know we complied with the deadlines we were given on these, albeit with one small extension that changes nothing.

But he seems to be talking about the 2018/19 accounts at various points too (the first of the 2 sets we didn't publish at all) - when he references the Morris interview about overspend etc.  He seems to be suggesting that we deliberately didn't publish that set of accounts because we know we would overspend in them.  But we don't know that - Morris's interview only referenced an overspend if we followed the EFL's preferred model, we have no idea what the figure was under our model.  The appeal result was announced in July 2021, which is after the date we would have published the 18/19 accounts - which would have been April 2020 (over a year before the appeal result).  At that point, we hadn't even had the first hearing yet.

So, if I'm understanding his garbled rantings, his argument seems to be that as soon as the LAP decision came down in July 2021, and before the DC2 sanction hearing, we should have immediately submitted the outstanding 2018/19 and 19/20 accounts with the EFL's preferred model.  Even though we had no legal compulsion to submit them (beyond the usual requirement to submit accounts), and were still in dispute with the EFL over the exact form of them.  Even if you argue we should have submitted them promptly (which I don't disagree with, really), the obvious point is either alongside the 2015-18 accounts, or immediately following their acceptance. Not months before when we're still (perfectly legally) arguing our position.

For his own sake, I hope it's just a case of him not really understanding the issues and his legal guys have a better grasp, but he's utterly clueless on pretty much everything - the timelines, our case, the EFL's disciplinary process, admin rules, everything.

[StaffsRam]

Like the Boro claim, it’s another instance of “it would be destroyed in court in 5 minutes”. They’re just playing on the fact that we don’t have time for that.

The EFL should be forced to update their own rules in line with current insolvency legislation (they won’t do it on their own initiative because it will incur the wrath of Pube-head), which would allow us to tell Pube-head and the Ambulance-chaser where they can put their claims.

[RadioactiveWaste]

So in effect his case is based on accounts being overdue at companies House?

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

So in effect his case is based on accounts being overdue at companies House?

I *think* so, it's not clear. But the references to the Morris interview and automatic points deductions, can only refer to us not submitting the 2018/19 accounts on time, and not getting the automatic deduction applied in 2019/20 (the year Wycombe were in the Championship).

[Ram-Alf]

12 hours ago, Sparkle said:

They got less points than us when we were beyond pathetic all season !

If we were beyond pathetic all season, That would make Wycombe more beyond pathetcer...is that a word??

[Kingpin]

2 hours ago, StaffsRam said:

Venom towards Boro? After this? Yeah, let’s see how that goes.

I think venom towards Gibson rather than the club is far more appropriate. When all is said and done it’s been an ego battle between him and MM from day one. Willy waving. 

[StaffsRam]

4 minutes ago, Kingpin said:

I think venom towards Gibson rather than the club is far more appropriate. When all is said and done it’s been an ego battle between him and MM from day one. Willy waving. 

You’re right of course, but I’ll be loving it every single time we tonk the duckers from here on out.

[Gaspode]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Exactly what a number of us have been saying and surely any competent lawyer could explain in court thus getting the case dismissed.

I’m sure Couhig is a competent lawyer himself but is deliberately overlooking these basic facts. That’s why I suspect he wouldn’t actually take us to court. He knows a 6 year old child would make a better job of pressing him on this simple issue than Ed did.

FTFY.....

[Kingpin]

26 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

You’re right of course, but I’ll be loving it every single time we tonk the duckers from here on out.

Damn right.

[Animal is a Ram]

I too am just catching up with the RC interview. He's 100% a lawyer, isn't he, jeez.

I understand this one *a little* more than the Boro claim. But he seems conflated with some of the timelines, and where some of the blame falls.

Perhaps this is a symptom of there being multiple parties and all the information is not out there - especially this factor of the Boro/Wycombe claims being the road block. RC says it isn't the case, the admins say it is, the EFL seems to have intimated that it is. That point needs to be made clear, ASAP. I don't care by who.

What is out there, is the timeline, and the findings of the disciplinary events - and if I'm not mistaken, seems to clash with what RC has the biggest issues with?

[Animal is a Ram]

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

<snip>

So, if I'm understanding his garbled rantings, his argument seems to be that as soon as the LAP decision came down in July 2021, and before the DC2 sanction hearing, we should have immediately submitted the outstanding 2018/19 and 19/20 accounts with the EFL's preferred model.  Even though we had no legal compulsion to submit them (beyond the usual requirement to submit accounts), and were still in dispute with the EFL over the exact form of them.  Even if you argue we should have submitted them promptly (which I don't disagree with, really), the obvious point is either alongside the 2015-18 accounts, or immediately following their acceptance. Not months before when we're still (perfectly legally) arguing our position.

<snip>

This seems to be the crux of it for me too. Which, seems doubly poor when this information, unlike a lot of what he moans on about, is not only not subject to NDAs/confidentiality/etc., but is freely available.

How could we possibly submit accounts any earlier, when there was still an argument as to the form they should take?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

1 minute ago, Animal is a Ram said:

This seems to be the crux of it for me too. Which, seems doubly poor when this information, unlike a lot of what he moans on about, is not only not subject to NDAs/confidentiality/etc., but is freely available.

How could we possibly submit accounts any earlier, when there was still an argument as to the form they should take?

He 100% hasn't got a valid claim. This is pure opportunism.

[i-Ram]

I didnt hear the interview, but I am beginning to get the impression that Ed Dawes really should be spinning discs between the hours of 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. on North Norfolk Digital. 

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, Animal is a Ram said:

This seems to be the crux of it for me too. Which, seems doubly poor when this information, unlike a lot of what he moans on about, is not only not subject to NDAs/confidentiality/etc., but is freely available.

How could we possibly submit accounts any earlier, when there was still an argument as to the form they should take?

I was in the middle of replying, but there's a much simpler argument here...

The 2018/19 accounts are inherently tied in with 2016/17 and 2017/18 because of the rolling 3 year FFP window.  Even if we submit the 2018/19 accounts on time, or immediately following the LAP decision, we still can't determine where they fall in FFP terms without waiting for the 3 restated sets of accounts.  So there's no way we can be deducted points for them in time to affect that season.

And I suspect it's quite possible (without checking), that if we used the original versions of those accounts as we filed at the time, alongside the straight-lie 2018/19 set, we're probably fine too.  The stadium sale was in the previous year, so we have a bit of leeway.

 

[Animal is a Ram]

24 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

He 100% hasn't got a valid claim. This is pure opportunism.

While heart says agree - head is just trying to understand the reasons and not just dismissing it off hand, as that is dangerous and arrogant.