Embargos, HMRC Payment defaults, non payment of wages, the usual under Dai Wrongge

[From Despair To Where?]

I'd take anything Darragh McAnthony says with a pinch of salt, the bloke's full of shit.

[royal67]

I'd take anything Darragh McAnthony says with a inch of salt, the bloke's full of shit.

^^ This...... ^^ I would imagine that if he had foot to stand on legally he would have called us out during that interview.

[Hendo]

I'd take anything Darragh McAnthony says with a inch of salt, the bloke's full of shit.

^^ This...... ^^ I would imagine that if he had foot to stand on legally he would have called us out during that interview.

Exactly my thoughts as well. Wouldn't want any new owners willing to file a defamation law suit...

[tmesis]

I'd take anything Darragh McAnthony says with a inch of salt, the bloke's full of shit.

^^ This...... ^^ I would imagine that if he had foot to stand on legally he would have called us out during that interview.

He seems to think he had a legal case because the suspended part of the 12 point penalty got applied later, even though it didn't get applied until March of the following season, because we hadn't breached our business plan until then.

[Snowflake Royal]

I'd take anything Darragh McAnthony says with a inch of salt, the bloke's full of shit.

^^ This...... ^^ I would imagine that if he had foot to stand on legally he would have called us out during that interview.

He seems to think he had a legal case because the suspended part of the 12 point penalty got applied later, even though it didn't get applied until March of the following season, because we hadn't breached our business plan until then.

Arguably we'd chosen to breach it before we signed it and certainly by the end of the summer transfer window.

[Crusader Royal]

^^ This...... ^^ I would imagine that if he had foot to stand on legally he would have called us out during that interview.

He seems to think he had a legal case because the suspended part of the 12 point penalty got applied later, even though it didn't get applied until March of the following season, because we hadn't breached our business plan until then.

Arguably we'd chosen to breach it before we signed it and certainly by the end of the summer transfer window.

But surely until it was actually breached there wasn’t an issue ?
I know there are some offences in which you can be accused of planning to do something or conspiracy but I don’t think this would be the case here. It would be like arresting someone driving at 30mph on the basis that they had already decided to drive at 80 a few miles down the road.

[Clyde1998]

He seems to think he had a legal case because the suspended part of the 12 point penalty got applied later, even though it didn't get applied until March of the following season, because we hadn't breached our business plan until then.

Arguably we'd chosen to breach it before we signed it and certainly by the end of the summer transfer window.

But surely until it was actually breached there wasn’t an issue ?
I know there are some offences in which you can be accused of planning to do something or conspiracy but I don’t think this would be the case here. It would be like arresting someone driving at 30mph on the basis that they had already decided to drive at 80 a few miles down the road.

With something like contracts, which will be where most of the club's expenses will come from, the club would know how much money they've committed to spending prior to actually spending it. Say we've signed someone of £1k p/w for four years, we can assume we're paying that player £1k p/w until his contract expires - even if there's a possibility that player will be sold within that time.

The difference would be that we're legally committing ourselves to travelling at 80mph, as opposed to thinking and deciding on a whim about travelling at 80mph (ie. there would be nothing to prevent you from changing your mind until you're actually doing 80mph).

The club would know in advance what most of their costs will be throughout a season due to contracts.

[From Despair To Where?]

He seems to think he had a legal case because the suspended part of the 12 point penalty got applied later, even though it didn't get applied until March of the following season, because we hadn't breached our business plan until then.

Arguably we'd chosen to breach it before we signed it and certainly by the end of the summer transfer window.

But surely until it was actually breached there wasn’t an issue ?
I know there are some offences in which you can be accused of planning to do something or conspiracy but I don’t think this would be the case here. It would be like arresting someone driving at 30mph on the basis that they had already decided to drive at 80 a few miles down the road.

Then arguably he should be suing the EFL for imposing a suspended sentence if it was considered likely that we wouldn't comply but they can only apply a deduction based on the evidence available at the time. The season officially ends at the end of June so anything that happens after that isn't in the same season even if the new one hasn't started. Any new signings made in the summer are irrelevant to the season before.

[Snowflake Royal]

He seems to think he had a legal case because the suspended part of the 12 point penalty got applied later, even though it didn't get applied until March of the following season, because we hadn't breached our business plan until then.

Arguably we'd chosen to breach it before we signed it and certainly by the end of the summer transfer window.

But surely until it was actually breached there wasn’t an issue ?
I know there are some offences in which you can be accused of planning to do something or conspiracy but I don’t think this would be the case here. It would be like arresting someone driving at 30mph on the basis that they had already decided to drive at 80 a few miles down the road.

Given the business plan required millions in player sales, and players can only be sold in two windows, by making no effort to hawk anyone out except a failed attempt with Puscas is deciding not to comply with the business plan, and not complying with it long before the final date.

Don't know whether the FL work to standard practice where intent is important, in criminal terms Actus Reus and Mens Rhea, or if they operate on a strict liability basis with only the act important, not intent.

But if they do include intent, which would be reasonable, we clearly had the intent from the get go.

[Crusader Royal]

Arguably we'd chosen to breach it before we signed it and certainly by the end of the summer transfer window.

But surely until it was actually breached there wasn’t an issue ?
I know there are some offences in which you can be accused of planning to do something or conspiracy but I don’t think this would be the case here. It would be like arresting someone driving at 30mph on the basis that they had already decided to drive at 80 a few miles down the road.

Given the business plan required millions in player sales, and players can only be sold in two windows, by making no effort to hawk anyone out except a failed attempt with Puscas is deciding not to comply with the business plan, and not complying with it long before the final date.

Don't know whether the FL work to standard practice where intent is important, in criminal terms Actus Reus and Mens Rhea, or if they operate on a strict liability basis with only the act important, not intent.

But if they do include intent, which would be reasonable, we clearly had the intent from the get go.

I think there are some rather large assumptions there…..and not entirely sure of all of the logic.
Without being part of the RFC management team you are speculating at best.

[tmesis]

Arguably we'd chosen to breach it before we signed it and certainly by the end of the summer transfer window.

But surely until it was actually breached there wasn’t an issue ?
I know there are some offences in which you can be accused of planning to do something or conspiracy but I don’t think this would be the case here. It would be like arresting someone driving at 30mph on the basis that they had already decided to drive at 80 a few miles down the road.

Given the business plan required millions in player sales, and players can only be sold in two windows, by making no effort to hawk anyone out except a failed attempt with Puscas is deciding not to comply with the business plan, and not complying with it long before the final date.

Don't know whether the FL work to standard practice where intent is important, in criminal terms Actus Reus and Mens Rhea, or if they operate on a strict liability basis with only the act important, not intent.

But if they do include intent, which would be reasonable, we clearly had the intent from the get go.

The EFL agreed our spending, as they had to clear any signings we made.

They'd have had to agree to our planned income too, even if it did include player sales. Quite how you can prove we deliberately didn't sell players would be very hard to do. Puscas was obviously a gamble on Pisa going up, that failed, but unless we were turning down bids for players, the fact that we didn't sell anyone isn't proof we wouldn't have done so if we'd got a decent bid.

The fact remains though that you can't backdate a points deduction, and Peterborough were not unfairly relegated.

[Sutekh]

But surely until it was actually breached there wasn’t an issue ?
I know there are some offences in which you can be accused of planning to do something or conspiracy but I don’t think this would be the case here. It would be like arresting someone driving at 30mph on the basis that they had already decided to drive at 80 a few miles down the road.

Given the business plan required millions in player sales, and players can only be sold in two windows, by making no effort to hawk anyone out except a failed attempt with Puscas is deciding not to comply with the business plan, and not complying with it long before the final date.

Don't know whether the FL work to standard practice where intent is important, in criminal terms Actus Reus and Mens Rhea, or if they operate on a strict liability basis with only the act important, not intent.

But if they do include intent, which would be reasonable, we clearly had the intent from the get go.

The EFL agreed our spending, as they had to clear any signings we made.

They'd have had to agree to our planned income too, even if it did include player sales. Quite how you can prove we deliberately didn't sell players would be very hard to do. Puscas was obviously a gamble on Pisa going up, that failed, but unless we were turning down bids for players, the fact that we didn't sell anyone isn't proof we wouldn't have done so if we'd got a decent bid.

The fact remains though that you can't backdate a points deduction, and Peterborough were not unfairly relegated.

Just wish the FL acted sooner on the raving lunatic owner, they started to with that soft embargo but then went missing when the idiot went out and sanctioned a £12m spend as soon as they lifted it. Even leaving the embargo in place for the entirety of the window might have stopped that particular idiocy and therefore slowed the attempted suicide down.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

7:25
https://youtu.be/7KOknHOA9VE?si=CFd9RAyxXx451wI1

What an absolute bozo that man is

[sputnik]

bit harsh on winnie

[SouthDownsRoyal]

bit harsh on winnie