Jump to content

Thanks to Mel. We are in this mess.


DerbyAleMan

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

The reason Mel didn't apply we would of had to of had the accounts filed our 'up-to-date' accounts at companies house as a condition. 

The EFL were only going to loan clubs the money if they were seen to be on a sound enough financial footing to repay the loan, clearly we wouldn't have been, due to reckless spending.  Mel knew there was no chance of the loan....

One of the conditions of the loan scheme was that clubs must not be in breach, or suspected of being in breach, of any EFL regulations. Isn’t that the reason we were not able to apply? If we were under investigation at that time, which I believe we were, then it wouldn’t matter what Mel thought or knew. We simply didn’t meet the criteria or couldn’t prove we met the criteria (I guess that means by having the investigation/case against us disproved and therefore dropped) before the extended deadline. 

Edited by Tamworthram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

One of the conditions of the loan scheme was that clubs must not be in breach, or suspected of being in breach, of any EFL regulations. Isn’t that the reason we were not able to apply? If we were under investigation at that time, which I believe we were, then it wouldn’t matter what Mel thought or knew. We simply didn’t meet the criteria or couldn’t prove we met the criteria (I guess that means by having the investigation/case against us disproved and therefore dropped) before the extended deadline. 

But Covid didn’t distinguish between Clubs  right.  
It should have been a grant not a  loan for all Clubs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Curtains said:

But Covid didn’t distinguish between Clubs  right.  
It should have been a grant not a  loan for all Clubs 

It doesn’t matter whether Covid distinguished between clubs. The EFL did. Whether that was fair or not is a whole new debate.

Equally, whether it “should” have been a grant rather than a loan is an interesting debate but irrelevant. They WERE loans with repayment by June 2024 I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

It doesn’t matter whether Covid distinguished between clubs. The EFL did. Whether that was fair or not is a whole new debate.

Equally, whether it “should” have been a grant rather than a loan is an interesting debate but irrelevant. They WERE loans with repayment by June 2024 I think.

Yes you are right but they were wrong IMO to stipulate it had to be paid back .

Arsholes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

The reason Mel didn't apply we would of had to of had the accounts filed our 'up-to-date' accounts at companies house as a condition. 

The EFL were only going to loan clubs the money if they were seen to be on a sound enough financial footing to repay the loan, clearly we wouldn't have been, due to reckless spending.  Mel knew there was no chance of the loan....

We were under an investigation for ffp breaches for our amortisation policy, had we filed more accounts using the same method we would have been under further investigation, more charges brought against us, more sanctions and more points deductions sought after. If we had changed our policy the EFL would have been saying that we are admitting our guilt and used it in their attack on the club, and pushed for more sanctions. I really don't see which way the club could have gone with this. For me without hindsight, it was impossible to make the right call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...