Jump to content

Derby’s case dismissed!


Recommended Posts

Just now, Ever the pessimist said:


There were rumours of him looking into selling the ground for many months before he did it.

Yes, but looking into as an option is not the same as wanting to do so.

I could sell my house and move into a smaller one to pay off the mortgage, but I don't really want to and would only do so if I had no other choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL is racist.

 

They weren’t very nice to Mr C said one report.

 

Accused him of acting up pretending not to speak English very well when questioned.

 

Had it in for us for a while it seems to me. Look at the Forestieri ban for an alleged offence cleared in a court of law.

 

Wednesday haters.

Edited by theowlsman
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL’s bias against us will be their undoing.

 

Inconsistency is not a great trait when it comes to disciplinary matters.

 

They chose Wednesday as a scapegoat to put others off selling their grounds in a similar way.

 

They selected the wrong scapegoat. Thought we were a soft touch. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, theowlsman said:

The EFL’s bias against us will be their undoing.

 

Inconsistency is not a great trait when it comes to disciplinary matters.

 

They chose Wednesday as a scapegoat to put others off selling their grounds in a similar way.

 

They selected the wrong scapegoat. Thought we were a soft touch. 

Different charges to Derby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sets a good precedent in terms of our ground sale and reinforces the panel’s previous decision that we did nothing wrong in terms of that transaction in itself which means we can bung in the money into more recent accounts.

 

Our appeal will be based on the technicalities of the punishment and when it was imposed based on breaching FFP.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, OwlBiSeeinThi said:

That's not what we got punished for. We breached P&S end of.

Our stadium sale has nothing to do with our punishment.

On the other hand if the stadium sale stands in the year we suggested we wouldn't have breached P and S.

 

While you are technically correct it is disingenuous because one thing is dependent on the other.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

Shows what a reactionary bunch we have here at SWFC where a decision made re Derby well outside our remit offers an opportunity for Chansiri bashing. You don't like Chansiri then just Ferk Orf ! Simple really.

 

You didn't like Mandaric - did you ‘Ferk Orf’ back then?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

It sets a good precedent in terms of our ground sale and reinforces the panel’s previous decision that we did nothing wrong in terms of that transaction in itself which means we can bung in the money into more recent accounts.

 

Our appeal will be based on the technicalities of the punishment and when it was imposed based on breaching FFP.

Always expected Derby to win:

1) EFL agreed their valuation

2) amortisation policy they use is also used by major clubs such as Barcelona so nothing underhand there.

 

 

Ours different: in

 

Ground sale ok, but in wrong year because EFL incorrectly led us to believe an agreement could be signed in August 2018 and apply to July 2018, and that they would accept this.

 

Our best chance is fact punishment / charges should have been in following year and as EFL had all facts they were at fault for delay

 

 

Edited by wellbeaten-the-owl
  • Like 2
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...