Jump to content

AnotherDerbyFan

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Something song the lines of the date of the hearing was set before lockdown. This meant it would have originally been after the 19/20 season ended. The intention was always for the (potential) penalty to be applied in the 20/21 season, and it would be unfair for it to be brought forward because of a delay to the season out of everyone’s control.
  2. Yes, the 3 years to 2018. Normally, a club should be punished the season following that 3 year period, with the business plan part of that. If found guilty, that should have been in the 18/19 season. The earliest our potential penalty can be imposed is almost certainly the 20/21 season. It just so happens that our actual business plan has tied in nicely with what the EFL's business plan probably would have been anyway - the higher wage earners have left, and we've promoted youth. With a couple more expected to leave, we're currently looking at going into next season with only 15 over 20's in t
  3. Derby would have been looking at a sub £10m overspend for the period ending June 2018 (without the stadium sale). This could have been covered by player sales, such as selling Vydra earlier in the summer window. This would have likely meant a very touch and go 2019 period, but we wouldn't have signed the players we did if it looked like we'd fail. We also wouldn't have gone out to spend as much as we did on Bielik this season, probably wouldn't have signed Rooney, and could have sold more of our youth players.
  4. You only have to look at Derby and Wednesday. The EFL gave us the thumbs up for our P&S accounts for the period ending in 2018. Then in the winter just gone, charged us for breaching spending limits. Is it not the period ending in 2019 that the EFL would possibly look at? It’s within the timescale set previously, so certainly not beyond possibility if/when you come down.
  5. I believe it was somewhat related to a cash flow issue, with a large chunk of Mel's 'worth' being tied up in assets. It could also explain the late payment of wages at the end of December. I don't think Ryan's story is quite correct either... https://twitter.com/GabayHenry/status/1281607594776432640?s=20
  6. The charge itself doesn’t concern me, although that may be down to not fully understanding the purpose of it. I’m sure some more details will eventually come out. It’s certainly not a last throw of the dice and a gamble on promotion. I’d say the last real gamble was the Rowett season. We failed, and the message since then has very clearly been to slash the wage bill and give the kids a shot. It’s part of the reason why Rowett jumped ship when he did. Mel’s stated aim is for the starting lineup to be 50% academy on a consistent basis. You can’t have that aim and also have an immediate
  7. Genuine question.. what does a ‘charge’ on the stadium actually mean?
  8. The stadium was sold so appears on the P/L. However, the money doesn't have to change hands straight away.
  9. How am I rallying with Villa? I only pointed out that UEFA rules have no relevance to Championship clubs, with the exception of fluking at cup win. I don't believe I've commented on whether Villa should or shouldn't be investigated. However, I'l give you my view now. The EFL had the opportunity to investigate and punish Villa before they officially became a Premier League Club. Now they're in the Premier League, it's down to them to investigate and punish if necessary. If Villa go down this season, then the EFL can investigate them again for the relevant 3-year rolling period (18/19, 19/20 and
  10. @Mr Popodopolous Why do you keep mentioning UEFA rules when they only apply to teams participating in UEFA competitions? Villa don't play in a UEFA competition so they don't need to concern themselves with their rules.
  11. It appears to be someone at the DM misreporting the truth. Our CEO (former CFO), who is on the EFL Board, was chairing discussions about P&S last week. One of the talking points was the £20m cap. Rather than leading the push, we participated in the talks no more than your own representative on the EFL Board (Mark Ashton). It may seem hypocritical of us to be pushing for tighter control of wages given we've been charged with breaching P&S, however, since 17/18 we've actively been working on reducing wages and other costs. So much so, that we've named 11 academy graduates in our mat
  12. Academy spend and infrastructure improvements are not included towards P&S. Disposal of those improvements is included. Our academy spend exceeded £6m a couple of years ago and may be approaching £7m now (£4.5m+ on youth development, plus extra on staff and facilities). By the time you've taken the exclusions out of the consolidated accounts, you're left with something very close to what the headline figure is in the club accounts.
  13. We sold Hendrick to Burnley in August 2016. Hence why the £10m profit appears in the Sevco accounts (period ending 31 August 2016), and not in the club accounts (period ending 30 June 2016). Use the club accounts for P&S purposes. The P/L figures in those accounts are less than £1m out over a 3 year period, yet vary much more in the Sevco accounts.
  14. We sold Ince on the 4th July 2017, and Hughes on the 24th. The sale of one was included in the 16/17 accounts, the other wasn’t. There are suspicions Weimann’s transfer on the 3rd July 2018 will fall under the account period ending 17/18?
  15. £35m per year in the Prem. €30m (£25m) per accounting period (3 years) in UEFA competitions. I believe Man City’s issue is the source of their income. It seems their owners ‘influenced’ associated companies to sponsor them, boosting revenue, and meeting the limit. The PL isn’t a UEFA competition so UEFA rules have nothing to do with the PL
×
×
  • Create New...