Another 6 point, points deduction incoming

[tidus_mi2]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

[PATRIQT]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

Hopefully we have a very good lawyer fighting our corner. I doubt it though.

[morganb]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

Hopefully we have a very good lawyer fighting our corner. I doubt it though.

How are lawyer's fees covered in the business plan? Can we afford to pay the fees of a good lawyer or could it push us over the plan limit? Would we therefore need to seek free legal advice?

[Dirk Gently]

Would we therefore need to seek free legal advice?

There's plenty of that on this thread...

[3points]

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

Hopefully we have a very good lawyer fighting our corner. I doubt it though.

How are lawyer's fees covered in the business plan? Can we afford to pay the fees of a good lawyer or could it push us over the plan limit? Would we therefore need to seek free legal advice?

If it is personal advice being sought by Mr Dai then he can pay for it himself, outside of the club's finances

[Snowflake Royal]

Hopefully we have a very good lawyer fighting our corner. I doubt it though.

How are lawyer's fees covered in the business plan? Can we afford to pay the fees of a good lawyer or could it push us over the plan limit? Would we therefore need to seek free legal advice?

If it is personal advice being sought by Mr Dai then he can pay for it himself, outside of the club's finances

He'd probably hire the shit guy from the Simpsons

[Snowflake Royal]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

You can get increased match bans for frivolous appeals of red cards I think, so there's precedent, but I'd say it's unlikely.

[tidus_mi2]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

You can get increased match bans for frivolous appeals of red cards I think, so there's precedent, but I'd say it's unlikely.

I know they used to do that but I haven't seen it recently, did they just stop doing that?

[Dirk Gently]

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

You can get increased match bans for frivolous appeals of red cards I think, so there's precedent, but I'd say it's unlikely.

I know they used to do that but I haven't seen it recently, did they just stop doing that?

Is it like parking fines? Agree and quietly accept the penalty in the first 28 days or it goes up after that point...

[Elm Park Kid]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

It's not 'spite'. The EFL gave us a milder punishment in the first place because we cooperate with the process from the start. If we were to stop cooperating then it's likely that any future offensive would receive the maximum punishment.

Before anyone says it - the transfer embargo/restrictions were not a punishment. They were a method for forcing us to comply with P&S.

[tidus_mi2]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

It's not 'spite'. The EFL gave us a milder punishment in the first place because we cooperate with the process from the start. If we were to stop cooperating then it's likely that any future offensive would receive the maximum punishment.

Before anyone says it - the transfer embargo/restrictions were not a punishment. They were a method for forcing us to comply with P&S.

Thanks for quoting me, I was referring to 3points' hypothetical situation number 2 where we take legal action and the EFL punish us harder because they're pissed off, that's the spite I was referring to.

Cheers buddy.

[Delboy]

If it’s definitively coming why the delay

[Franchise FC]

Still think it will be a difference of opinion on an accounting treatment. Club says something is OK and therefore we're compliant with the business plan (and P&S) but EFL disagrees with the club's interpretation. Club has two options then

1. Accept EFL's position and take the 6 points
2. Club (Mr Dai) argues the toss, takes legal and other professional opinions, and drags out the process (probably resulting in pissing off the EFL and risking a greater deduction)

If the EFL are giving clubs greater punishments out of spite then they aren't a professional organisation and aren't fit for purpose.

It's not 'spite'. The EFL gave us a milder punishment in the first place because we cooperate with the process from the start. If we were to stop cooperating then it's likely that any future offensive would receive the maximum punishment.

Before anyone says it - the transfer embargo/restrictions were not a punishment. They were a method for forcing us to comply with P&S.

Am I the only one that thinks that 12 points punishment is completely out of line with the 9 points that Derby received (the other 12 for administration were simply a fixed penalty), particularly since Derby tried to fraud their way out of it.

Or have we tried the Derby method all along

[Elm Park Kid]

Just come through - 6 points deduction.

[Dirk Gently]

https://twitter.com/ReadingFC/status/16 ... 5_hag&s=08

[Snowflake Royal]

If it’s definitively coming why the delay

I think it's just because FL want to annoy you.

[Elm Park Kid]

We also have to stick to another budget plan for next season.

[tidus_mi2]

Good that we're out of embargo but obviously terrible that we've got the 6pts taken off. We still have it within us to stay up but oxf*rd me does it need to start with a good result on Friday.

[Hound]

Well confirmed but still not clear exactly what we did wrong. Proper fcuking annoying weve had so many restrictions and still managed to break the plan.

Club statement kind of suggests they think they’ve done everything reasonable to stick by the plan

At least it is the end of it this summer. What a painful few years

[Hound]

We also have to stick to another budget plan for next season.

Only sounds as restrictive as standard ffp. Well to clubs other than Stoke and anyone who gets promoted (175m loss by the 3 clubs who went up last year combined)