wellbeaten-the-owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Just now, Manwë said: They've already said they won't appeal, I believe. Don't believe they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Ram Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Not sure about that - their official statement just sez this "The EFL notes the decision of the Commission and will now consider the judgment in full before commenting further. Both parties have 14 days to appeal." Hopefully, they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalthamOwl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 33 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said: One of the scariest things ive read on here for a while. scariest/stupidest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTavowl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Typical! Isn't Mel Morris a figure within the EFL? Do as I say, not do as I do? jizzer"s Don't get me started on Rick Parry, it's blatantly obvious he puts on Freddie's claw whilst dealing with SWFC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Night-Owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) Weren't there two separate charges in their case? The stadium sale price one, it seemed they were likely to win because of not moving the dates of the sale or overpricing it. However, the other charge relating to the amortisation of intangible assets – the way they accounted for players – was actually found to be proven, only in respect of the club’s failure to properly disclose a change in policy in 2015. So, how have they got away with no punishment relating to the second charge despite it being proven? Although their case is different to ours, I would think there are grey areas we could question in our appeal. Such as the timing, different results and punishments. The moving of our possible points deduction from two seasons ago when we would have been safe to last season and the delay which resulted in a punishment effecting us two seasons after. Edited August 25, 2020 by The Night-Owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 minute ago, BigTavowl said: Typical! Isn't Mel Morris a figure within the EFL? Do as I say, not do as I do? jizzer"s Don't get me started on Rick Parry, it's blatantly obvious he puts on Freddie's claw whilst dealing with SWFC. No way have Derby been treated with favouritism here. This has been detrimental to their club and already cost them investment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 The biggest defence is emails from Shaun Harvey, which are going to be raised at the hearing . The CEO gave advice which was clearly inaccurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SallyCinnamon Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 No surprises. They did it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 minute ago, The Night-Owl said: Weren't there two separate charges in their case? The stadium sale one, it seemed they were likely to win because of not moving the dates of the sale or over pricing it. However, the other charge relating to the amortisation of intangible assets – the way they accounted for players – was actually found to be proven, only in respect of the club’s failure to properly disclose a change in policy in 2015. So, how have they got away with no punishment relating to the second charge despite it being proven? Although their case is different to ours, I would think there are grey areas we could question in our appeal. Such as the timing, different results and punishments. The moving of our possible points deduction from two seasons ago when we would have been safe to last season and the delay which resulted in a punishment effecting us two seasons after. 2nd charge only partially proven. Main case was their new policy was not appropriate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 13 minutes ago, Crewton Ram said: Ay up. Well, I can't quite believe it. I was convinced the EFL would nobble us, not least because I always thought our sale valuation was a bit toppy, but also because they're the kind of idiots who think that other people should be responsible for their oversights. However, it always sounded like the club had done things in good time and by the book (albeit the book seems a bit lax) and fortunately the IC has agreed. I'm sure however that the EFL will appeal, so it may not be over yet. What seems to be clear is that we've been under a 'soft' embargo, so our trading since January has been restricted (not that we were likely to spend big anyway - I think getting the cub more self-financing is a definite policy now). It may also be that Steve Gibson hasn't swallowed quite enough humble pie yet, we'll see. Whilst this now means we can at last sign players for a fee and for >£10K/wk wages, I don't expect any 'big' spending - at most, after Matt Clarke re-signs on loan today hopefully, we need at most a striker, a winger and possibly another CB, but I'd be surprised if any fees >£5M were paid. We have to get losses down if we're not to fall foul of FFP in a season or two's time and I don't think Morris will gamble again. I wish you well with your own appeal and for the coming season. Ta duck. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Can't do our appeal any harm. That said... Let's just get on with starting well, keeping it going and shoving as many f**ks up the EFLs jacksey as possible. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Night-Owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Just now, SallyCinnamon said: No surprises. They did it properly. Stadium sale yes they did properly and were given permission but there were two charges. The other relating to the accounting of players was proven, yet they still got away with no punishment. I'd like to know how they escaped the second charge without any punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Night-Owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: 2nd charge only partially proven. Main case was their new policy was not appropriate Thanks, that was what I was curious about, the first charge seemed straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalthamOwl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Asio otus said: The biggest defence is emails from Shaun Harvey, which are going to be raised at the hearing . The CEO gave advice which was clearly inaccurate. why didn’t they make a difference with our original case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc_Degryse Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Jesus Christ! As I've said elsewhere the trick for dealing with these FFP rules is not really toeing the line, it's more how creatively or audaciously you can circumvent them. Our only real failing then is that we've gone about this in a completely idiotic way. And who will suffer most from this? The fans. If we don't win this appeal, Chansiri should resign as chairman on the spot and look for a new owner asap. In any other walk of life or business heads would roll for a ******** up of this magnitude! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Ram Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 I read it that we were cleared of the 2nd charge (the accounting method did not breach accountancy standards) but the Commission said that the policy could have been flagged up more clearly in the notes to the Accounts. Mel Morris has no connection to the EFL - if anything, he's been a constant critic of the way they negotiated the TV deals - Stephen Pearce, the CEO, is a member of the EFL Board, but would have to sit out any discussion of DCFC. If the majority of the EFL owners don't like that, it's their fault because they voted for him. There's an awful lot of tosh been floating around the internet and in the Daily Mail, and allot of lemons being sucked today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, The Night-Owl said: Thanks, that was what I was curious about, the first charge seemed straightforward. Basically commission said that EFL were wrong and absolutely nothing wrong with Derby policy, just that technically they should of disclosed the change in the year it was done. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 minute ago, WalthamOwl said: why didn’t they make a difference with our original case? I dont know i was not on the panel It was brought up not seen as important. Lets see what another panel think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Crewton Ram said: I read it that we were cleared of the 2nd charge (the accounting method did not breach accountancy standards) but the Commission said that the policy could have been flagged up more clearly in the notes to the Accounts. Mel Morris has no connection to the EFL - if anything, he's been a constant critic of the way they negotiated the TV deals - Stephen Pearce, the CEO, is a member of the EFL Board, but would have to sit out any discussion of DCFC. If the majority of the EFL owners don't like that, it's their fault because they voted for him. There's an awful lot of tosh been floating around the internet and in the Daily Mail, and allot of lemons being sucked today. Looking forward to when you announce your legal action against the EFL and sue them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Marc_Degryse said: Jesus Christ! As I've said elsewhere the trick for dealing with these FFP rules is not really toeing the line, it's more how creatively or audaciously you can circumvent them. Our only real failing then is that we've gone about this in a completely idiotic way. And who will suffer most from this? The fans. If we don't win this appeal, Chansiri should resign as chairman on the spot and look for a new owner asap. In any other walk of life or business heads would roll for a ******** up of this magnitude! That sounds pretty straightforward, DC to sack himself !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now