Jump to content

Derby’s case dismissed!


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Sheff74 said:

The Heads of Terms document was not completed and signed within the required period. So the sale could not included.

But the EFL said it was ok, besides that there was no known punishment for breaching.

Was it 9pts, or a £4m fine, or was it 12pts...or maybe thrown out of the league, as some said.

Nothing was clear.

 

The whole efl case was based around DC trying to pull a fast one, it got thrown out.

In a "real court" a judge would have foooked the efl off.

 

Or why did the efl charge derby..in your eyes they did nothing wrong and we did...so then if as clear as you say, the efl are not fit for purpose,  in which case we have a strong appeal case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, room0035 said:

Indeed but they didn't get relegated when the decision was needed it was made, I don't have the same trust in DC. 

 

But clearly what's another £5-10m waste on Monk, his coaching staff and his new signing when you have already wasted close to £150m to be worse than when you bought the club.

It's his money to waste 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the comment "the fact that Professor Pope's background is firmly in academia compared to the one of Mr Delve as a practising chartered accountant".

 

Guess who they trusted more.

 

The relevance is that Pope was the EFL expert on our case as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sherlyegg said:

But the EFL said it was ok, besides that there was no known punishment for breaching.

Was it 9pts, or a £4m fine, or was it 12pts...or maybe thrown out of the league, as some said.

Nothing was clear.

 

The whole efl case was based around DC trying to pull a fast one, it got thrown out.

In a "real court" a judge would have foooked the efl off.

 

Or why did the efl charge derby..in your eyes they did nothing wrong and we did...so then if as clear as you say, the efl are not fit for purpose,  in which case we have a strong appeal case.

 

Jesus, this is hard work sometimes..... so let me try again..

 

 

2 charges were made.

 

Charge 1 asserting that the club should not have included the stadium sale in the 17/18 accounts, hence  breaching FFP - proven because as I said numerous times, we never got the paperwork (Heads of Terms) finalised in the correct time frame.  It's literally black & white, did we get the paperwork finished on time or not? No, so guilty as charged. No ifs, no buts. 

 

Charge 2 asserting that the club tried to deliberately conceal the fact that we had tried to backdate the same paperwork - unproven and dropped.

 

The only thing we might be able to appeal is the level of points deduction for charge 1. We can't argue that it should have been applied in 18/19 because we didn't submit our accounts for the previous season, until after that season had finished.  We should count ourselves lucky that it wasn't applied last season as the EFL actually wanted. We have been given a lifeline, believe it or not. Of course you won't because the EFL have it in for us, and probably think that our incompetent owner has been victimised.

 

Oh and as for Derby, their charge was completely different, relating to the valuation of their ground. Not related in the slightest.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference with Derby - they actually got the legal transfer completed before the year end. No whataboutery with heads of terms etc 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mkowl said:

The difference with Derby - they actually got the legal transfer completed before the year end. No whataboutery with heads of terms etc 

 

 

They did it in double quick time as well valuation only agreed a couple y days before year end.

 

Derby case was a joke and only brought charges to satisfy Gibson

 

Like has been said they got two independent valuations done, one agreed with sale value and was by an experienced company yet brought charges based on valuation done by firm with zero experience valuing football stadia.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mcguigan
15 hours ago, sherlyegg said:

But the EFL said it was ok, besides that there was no known punishment for breaching.

Was it 9pts, or a £4m fine, or was it 12pts...or maybe thrown out of the league, as some said.

Nothing was clear.

 

The whole efl case was based around DC trying to pull a fast one, it got thrown out.

In a "real court" a judge would have foooked the efl off.

 

Or why did the efl charge derby..in your eyes they did nothing wrong and we did...so then if as clear as you say, the efl are not fit for purpose,  in which case we have a strong appeal case.

I keep reading this " there was no know punishment for breaching" or "was it a fine or points deduction"  like it's some sort of excuse for our own incompetence.

 

I'll repeat was what was posted earlier. In the same accounting period Birmingham City were deducted 9 points for combined losses of £48m. Without the stadium sale, we would have posted combined losses of £66m.

 

Now, even if there were "no know punishment for breaching" (despite BCFC being docked 9pts), did we really think that adding another £36m of losses to our already posted £29m of losses (which led to us failing tests 1&2 and an embargo by the way), would result in just a fine or maybe a small points deduction?

 

Anyone with half a brain must have known that busting P&S by over £25m was going to result in a heavy points deduction. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/08/2020 at 22:27, Sheff74 said:

 

Whether we got permission or not, the simple fact is that we then didn't get the necessary paperwork completed on time. It's was a transactional failure on our part and therefore quite straight forward in why we breached P&S.

 

 

not so, (to the best of my knowledge) dc was led to believe that all was ok to proceed with as a person in authority at the efl had given them (written in text) authorisation to do so, hence the threat to take the matter to law in relation to financial compensation which could run into numerous tens of millions, or more should we be relegated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dorian gray said:

not so, (to the best of my knowledge) dc was led to believe that all was ok to proceed with as a person in authority at the efl had given them (written in text) authorisation to do so, hence the threat to take the matter to law in relation to financial compensation which could run into numerous tens of millions, or more should we be relegated.

DC was advised by Shaun Harvey by the EFL to undertake the above.So the CEO at the time gave the wrong advice, big EFL error.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dorian gray said:

not so, (to the best of my knowledge) dc was led to believe that all was ok to proceed with as a person in authority at the efl had given them (written in text) authorisation to do so, hence the threat to take the matter to law in relation to financial compensation which could run into numerous tens of millions, or more should we be relegated.

 

The panel looked at the comms between Chansiri and Harvey and concluded that there was consent and support given, but the paperwork wasn't completed in time at our end, even though some documents were backdated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sheff74 said:

 

The panel looked at the comms between Chansiri and Harvey and concluded that there was consent and support given, but the paperwork wasn't completed in time at our end, even though some documents were backdated.

Yea except Harvey advised the club it was ok to back date, this will be raised again at the appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Asio otus said:

Yea except Harvey advised the club it was ok to back date, this will be raised again at the appeal.

 

But the doc in question wasn't backdated to an early enough date, so couldn't be counted within the relevant period.

 

Once again, all looked at and explained by the panel in their report.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/08/2020 at 22:27, Sheff74 said:

 

Whether we got permission or not, the simple fact is that we then didn't get the necessary paperwork completed on time. It's was a transactional failure on our part and therefore quite straight forward in why we breached P&S.

 

 

not so, anything 'quite straight forward' doesn't take a month to deliberate over.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dorian gray said:

so will we not appeal?

 

We don't know what the appeal is for specifically.

 

All I am saying is that I find it hard to see how the ruling on charge 1 can be overturned. The number of points or the timing of the deduction might be what is on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/08/2020 at 16:00, Sheff74 said:

 

But the doc in question wasn't backdated to an early enough date, so couldn't be counted within the relevant period.

 

Once again, all looked at and explained by the panel in their report.

Not completely , they state just because it is not mentioned does not mean it was not considered. The emails from Shaun Harvey were not given in any detail and as I said previously  it is my belief this will be raised again at the appeal by our lawyer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/08/2020 at 15:36, Sheff74 said:

 

We don't know what the appeal is for specifically.

 

All I am saying is that I find it hard to see how the ruling on charge 1 can be overturned. The number of points or the timing of the deduction might be what is on the table.

tbh i've took my eye off the ball recently, so i don't know IF we're appealing, or what we're appealing IF we are?

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 in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...