Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thought about it a bit, and I think the aspect I dislike most about Derby is Mel Morris.

A bowling/cue ball of an owner who thinks he's bigger than the game or at least the League in which his side play. Quite clearly a horrible man with a sense of entitlement.

In short, zero redeeming features.

Fair few gobshites on their forum but it all stems from him tbh, a fish rots from the head down after all.

So which aspect of these charges should we have been found guilty of?

You dislike Mel? Seems to stem back to Mel pushing for a better TV deal, to benefit all clubs within the EFL. That a bad thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Charge 1 - Stadium
The independent panel reaches the conclusion of fair value. £81.1m falls inside their concluded fair value range of £74.4m to £89.5m. 

Charge 2 - Amortisation
Concluded that the policy wasn’t made clear in the accounts. Review of the policy actual revealed it is acceptable and meets the relevant accounting standards. 

The EFL don’t have a leg to stand on any appeal. Especially when you look at one of their key experts, Mr Messenger using stadiums such as Burton, Shrewsbury, Colchester, Chesterfield and Doncaster to draw accurate comparisons. He got mixed up between capacity, number of seats and square meters!

There were the four main issues highlighted in the decision from my perspective:

  1.   The EFL appointed 'Experts' who frankly were not up to their roles.  An 'academic' accountant and a partner in a four partner practice would not be my choice.
  2.   The EFL jumped to the main charge too early, which caused them difficulties.  They should have got an adjusted stadium valuation agreed by the EFL Board first as a first step.  
  3.   All of DCFC's and Morris' rants claims around bias and injustice were totally dismissed with minimal words. 
  4.   Derby will be back in front of the EFL Disciplinary Commission very shortly based on the current rules.  If the FFP losses exceed £12 million for 2019/20 the club is in default, if the combined losses for 2019/20 and 2020/21      exceed £5 million (unless a profit is made in 2021) they will be in breach for that year as well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Hxj said:

There were the four main issues highlighted in the decision from my perspective:

  1.   The EFL appointed 'Experts' who frankly were not up to their roles.  An 'academic' accountant and a partner in a four partner practice would not be my choice.
  2.   The EFL jumped to the main charge too early, which caused them difficulties.  They should have got an adjusted stadium valuation agreed by the EFL Board first as a first step.  
  3.   All of DCFC's and Morris' rants claims around bias and injustice were totally dismissed with minimal words. 
  4.   Derby will be back in front of the EFL Disciplinary Commission very shortly based on the current rules.  If the FFP losses exceed £12 million for 2019/20 the club is in default, if the combined losses for 2019/20 and 2020/21      exceed £5 million (unless a profit is made in 2021) they will be in breach for that year as well.

 

  1. The EFL can't appeal based on them not choosing good enough 'experts'.
  2. Again, the can't appeal based on that. As was proven, based on their 'expert', their stadium valuation of £50m was far too low.
  3. I was surprised the legal and bias claims were dismissed so easily. The fact we didn't even have to rely on them, with the facts doing the talking just shows how wrongful the charges were. I also expected comments on the lack of outside investment and player recruitment was significantly impacted as a result.
  4. Confirmed P&S profit/loss from what I can see are:
    • 2017 = -£13.407
    • 2018 = £7.207
    • 2019 = -£31.517
    • 2020 therefore must not exceed £14.69m. My revised estimates suggest we are about £5m over that. However, we would have sold at least one player by now if that was the case.
    • Seems clubs approved a new P&S rule last week. We're moving from a 3 year cycle to 4 years. Losses for 19/20 and 20/21 are averaged (presumably to minimise the coronavirus impact) and use with the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons. It means Our combined losses for 19/20 and 20/21 therefore must not exceed £29.38m. I'm not sure if this replaces the 2020 or 2021 P&S period.

Here's a summary table of the losses based on the Decision document:
image.png.316f1b5d5209e7bc431dd9ff210b71f5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:
  1. The EFL can't appeal based on them not choosing good enough 'experts'.
  2. Again, the can't appeal based on that. As was proven, based on their 'expert', their stadium valuation of £50m was far too low.
  3. I was surprised the legal and bias claims were dismissed so easily. The fact we didn't even have to rely on them, with the facts doing the talking just shows how wrongful the charges were. I also expected comments on the lack of outside investment and player recruitment was significantly impacted as a result.
  4. Confirmed P&S profit/loss from what I can see are:
    • 2017 = -£13.407
    • 2018 = £7.207
    • 2019 = -£31.517
    • 2020 therefore must not exceed £14.69m. My revised estimates suggest we are about £5m over that. However, we would have sold at least one player by now if that was the case.
    • Seems clubs approved a new P&S rule last week. We're moving from a 3 year cycle to 4 years. Losses for 19/20 and 20/21 are averaged (presumably to minimise the coronavirus impact) and use with the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons. It means Our combined losses for 19/20 and 20/21 therefore must not exceed £29.38m. I'm not sure if this replaces the 2020 or 2021 P&S period.

Here's a summary table of the losses based on the Decision document:
image.png.316f1b5d5209e7bc431dd9ff210b71f5.png

If you apply my earlier comment on appeals generally, I agree that the EFL have no hope of succeeding on appeal.

As to the revised methodology the revised wording, plus the actual measurement periods will be important.  l still expect the club to fail 2020/21 by a large margin based upon the information available.  The club is clearly burning huge amounts of cash, and whilst not a measure of profit it is a good indication that things are not healthy.

If such a revised system is in operation it will likely depress transfer values as clubs have to deal with a lack of income and that impact on losses for some time.  This could have a significant impact on the club as the residuals will drop as well, all of which will need to be reflected in the relevant accounts.  Other clubs, which use a straight line method, will be significantly less impacted by a drop in residuals.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

So which aspect of these charges should we have been found guilty of?

You dislike Mel? Seems to stem back to Mel pushing for a better TV deal, to benefit all clubs within the EFL. That a bad thing?

The stadium valuation is hard to credit once looking at all the others. Similarly, Ricoh Arena which has some similarity in profile to Pride Park, £60m- that's £60m inclusive of naming rights. Once that contract ended, it fell to £51m.

Leicester's stadium, East Midlands and similar capacity which is inclusive of naming rights falls below £50m. £45m perhaps, would have to double check. They have events there too, sure they've had concerts at Walkers Stadium eg.

Pride Park is worth all that despite no enhancement via naming rights.

Amortisation, seems odd. HOWEVER, if it is all accounted for then maybe. 

With respect to Mel Morris. He thinks the rules or spirit therein are not for him. Every trick in the book.

1) Amortisation- not clearly disclosed.

2) Stadium sale.

3) Rooney sponsor.

4) Keogh being sacked but Lawrence and Bennett staying. Hope Keogh wins his case!

5) Possible questions over the loan arrangements.

As for Stephen Pearce. Foxes and henhouses spring to mind.

To have an Executive from such a club on the board for betterment of all feels similar! By which I mean the EFL board.

Not so much him as his club that he represents. I'd feel less than happy were I Ashton having to deal with him, that's for sure.

FFP 4 years? Interesting. Suppose it emulates UEFA in a sense.

Seems like 2 years of normal then last and this season averaged into one. 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:
  1. The EFL can't appeal based on them not choosing good enough 'experts'.
  2. Again, the can't appeal based on that. As was proven, based on their 'expert', their stadium valuation of £50m was far too low.
  3. I was surprised the legal and bias claims were dismissed so easily. The fact we didn't even have to rely on them, with the facts doing the talking just shows how wrongful the charges were. I also expected comments on the lack of outside investment and player recruitment was significantly impacted as a result.
  4. Confirmed P&S profit/loss from what I can see are:
    • 2017 = -£13.407
    • 2018 = £7.207
    • 2019 = -£31.517
    • 2020 therefore must not exceed £14.69m. My revised estimates suggest we are about £5m over that. However, we would have sold at least one player by now if that was the case.
    • Seems clubs approved a new P&S rule last week. We're moving from a 3 year cycle to 4 years. Losses for 19/20 and 20/21 are averaged (presumably to minimise the coronavirus impact) and use with the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons. It means Our combined losses for 19/20 and 20/21 therefore must not exceed £29.38m. I'm not sure if this replaces the 2020 or 2021 P&S period.

Here's a summary table of the losses based on the Decision document:
image.png.316f1b5d5209e7bc431dd9ff210b71f5.png

Re the bold bit...does Morris ever adjust asset values down during a players time here, ie is there ever an amortisation line in the accounts?.  So for example you buy Tom Lawrence for £5m.  Is he still sat at £5m?  If so, would you need to sell him for £10m to make £5m “Transfer Profit”?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

On a side note, the legal and bias claims being dismissed so readily is good on two levels.

IIRC, they tended to be dismissed I think in the Sheffield Wednesday case too.

1) Means that the EFL are well within rights. 

2) Could it mean that a Derby legal claim against the EFL would be rather ill-advised? One of the sensible posters on Dcfcfans would appear to think so!

On point one, it's unclear if there is a statute of limitation that means it must fall within the 5 years ie T-2 to T+2 (assuming the stadium sale within 'T' which it was) or if there is none at all. If it's the latter that would be excellent.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Hxj said:

If you apply my earlier comment on appeals generally, I agree that the EFL have no hope of succeeding on appeal.

As to the revised methodology the revised wording, plus the actual measurement periods will be important.  l still expect the club to fail 2020/21 by a large margin based upon the information available.  The club is clearly burning huge amounts of cash, and whilst not a measure of profit it is a good indication that things are not healthy.

If such a revised system is in operation it will likely depress transfer values as clubs have to deal with a lack of income and that impact on losses for some time.  This could have a significant impact on the club as the residuals will drop as well, all of which will need to be reflected in the relevant accounts.  Other clubs, which use a straight line method, will be significantly less impacted by a drop in residuals.

 

Just noticed the 19/20 amortisation line... £25m up from £5m the year before. My newly revised 19/20 P&S estimate is about £35m! OUCH! 

I don't think we're burning through anywhere near as much cash now. More likely accounts catching up with reality.

 

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The stadium valuation is hard to credit once looking at all the others. Similarly, Ricoh Arena which has some similarity in profile to Pride Park, £60m- that's £60m inclusive of naming rights. Once that contract ended, it fell to £51m.

Leicester's stadium, East Midlands and similar capacity which is inclusive of naming rights falls below £50m. £45m perhaps, would have to double check. They have events there too, sure they've had concerts at Walkers Stadium eg.

Pride Park is worth all that despite no enhancement via naming rights.

The Disciplinary Commission disagree with you. For example, The EFL's 'expert' arrived at the £50m valuation by scaling up costs of stadiums for Morecombe, Chesterfield, Clochester, MK Dons, Doncaster, Shrewsbury, and Burton. He failed to note a variety of differences: built corners, possibility to expand, roof, quality of facilities. Somehow, the 'expert' concluded PPS was "bog-standard", and further devalued the stadium by using average attendance instead of capacity.

DRC is usually calculated by multiplying the cost per seat by capacity to attain a new build cost. This figure is then reduced by a depreciation factor to reach the DRC value with land value added on. The panel concluded that anything less than £3000 per seat would be considered basic. As PPS is certainly above basic, £3k is the very minimum that should be used. Guess what... that's the exact figure JLL used to reach the £81.1m value. If you disagree with PPS not being basic, then you need to visit more grounds.

The rebuild of your own stadium cost a reported £40-45m, with a capacity of 27,000 - equivalent to cost per seat of £1.67k. However, it was a replacement/refurbishment of the original stadium meaning it was the equivalent to £2.84k for a new stadium. Facilities of your stadium are inferior to ours, and you haven't filled in all corners. This supports the claim that £3k for ours is correct.

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Amortisation, seems odd. HOWEVER, if it is all accounted for then maybe. 

All accounted for, so nothing to get your knickers in a twist over.

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

With respect to Mel Morris. He thinks the rules or spirit therein are not for him. Every trick in the book.

1) Amortisation- not clearly disclosed. 

2) Stadium sale.

3) Rooney sponsor.

4) Keogh being sacked but Lawrence and Bennett staying. Hope Keogh wins his case!

5) Possible questions over the loan arrangements.

As for Stephen Pearce. Appointment of a fox to a henhouse board would be rather silly.

Executive from such a club on the board for betterment of all feels similar!

Not so much him as his club that he represents. I'd feel less than happy were I Ashton having to deal with him, that's for sure.

FFP 4 years? Interesting. Suppose it emulates UEFA in a sense.

Seems like 2 years of normal then last and this season averaged into one. 

  1. Oversight from the club not to clearly define it. It's all out in the open now, and there are clearly no issues with it.
  2. Rules say it was acceptable. We weren't alone in doing it.
  3. Are you saying recruiting a player of Rooney's calibre means we should increase our sponsorship income? Bizarre that you think increased exposure shouldn't mean more sponsorship. Comes across more like jealousy of not having the pull we do.
  4. Most likely a financial issue, but we don't know the full facts. At the at the end of the day, Lawrence and Bennett still have value and could/can still perform the job they're paid to do, whereas Keogh couldn't. With Keogh joining MK Dons I think that's the end of the matter. If the case was still ongoing, we'd still hold his registration and he wouldn't have a club.
  5. I can't believe you're trying to argue against a club pursuing loans to cover losses given the coronavirus circumstances.

Perhaps if Pearce was on the board much earlier the EFL would be in better shape now. He's clearly well respected by most clubs, hence why he's in the position he is. The fact he's clever enough to see where the rules allow a club to maximise it's potentially shouldn't be considered a bad trait. Other club's follow his lead - they copied our stadium sale, and it's only a matter of time before clubs copy our amortisation policy. There's little benefit in copying what everyone else does, as without parachute payments, it's unlikely you'll earn promotion. Every club should be continuously looking at ways of doing something better than they already are.

 

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re the bold bit...does Morris ever adjust asset values down during a players time here, ie is there ever an amortisation line in the accounts?.  So for example you buy Tom Lawrence for £5m.  Is he still sat at £5m?  If so, would you need to sell him for £10m to make £5m “Transfer Profit”?

Asset values are updated every 6 months. Some of the considerations are age, injury status, and favourability with the manager. I'd be surprised if there's is no amortisation for any player, but for younger players most likely it will be a very small amount. In the case of Lawrence, he still has 2 years left on his contract so still has a high book value of more than £4m (but less than what he's cost us so far). So to make the £5m profit a sale of £9m would be required.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On a side note, the legal and bias claims being dismissed so readily is good on two levels.

IIRC, they tended to be dismissed I think in the Sheffield Wednesday case too.

1) Means that the EFL are well within rights. 

2) Could it mean that a Derby legal claim against the EFL would be rather ill-advised? One of the sensible posters on Dcfcfans would appear to think so!

On point one, it's unclear if there is a statute of limitation that means it must fall within the 5 years ie T-2 to T+2 (assuming the stadium sale within 'T' which it was) or if there is none at all. If it's the latter that would be excellent.

I can't see us pursuing any legal case based on the claims already made. There may be a case of us pursuing damages due to missing out on investment, being put under a wrongful embargo, missing out on recruitment, and potentially reduced sponsorship. Given the club statement about all clubs being financially punished due to just a few clubs pushing for a penalty, I can't see us dragging things out further and causing more financial reductions to clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

The Disciplinary Commission disagree with you. For example, The EFL's 'expert' arrived at the £50m valuation by scaling up costs of stadiums for Morecombe, Chesterfield, Clochester, MK Dons, Doncaster, Shrewsbury, and Burton. He failed to note a variety of differences: built corners, possibility to expand, roof, quality of facilities. Somehow, the 'expert' concluded PPS was "bog-standard", and further devalued the stadium by using average attendance instead of capacity.

DRC is usually calculated by multiplying the cost per seat by capacity to attain a new build cost. This figure is then reduced by a depreciation factor to reach the DRC value with land value added on. The panel concluded that anything less than £3000 per seat would be considered basic. As PPS is certainly above basic, £3k is the very minimum that should be used. Guess what... that's the exact figure JLL used to reach the £81.1m value. If you disagree with PPS not being basic, then you need to visit more grounds.

The rebuild of your own stadium cost a reported £40-45m, with a capacity of 27,000 - equivalent to cost per seat of £1.67k. However, it was a replacement/refurbishment of the original stadium meaning it was the equivalent to £2.84k for a new stadium. Facilities of your stadium are inferior to ours, and you haven't filled in all corners. This supports the claim that £3k for ours is correct.

All accounted for, so nothing to get your knickers in a twist over.

  1. Oversight from the club not to clearly define it. It's all out in the open now, and there are clearly no issues with it.
  2. Rules say it was acceptable. We weren't alone in doing it.
  3. Are you saying recruiting a player of Rooney's calibre means we should increase our sponsorship income? Bizarre that you think increased exposure shouldn't mean more sponsorship. Comes across more like jealousy of not having the pull we do.
  4. Most likely a financial issue, but we don't know the full facts. At the at the end of the day, Lawrence and Bennett still have value and could/can still perform the job they're paid to do, whereas Keogh couldn't. With Keogh joining MK Dons I think that's the end of the matter. If the case was still ongoing, we'd still hold his registration and he wouldn't have a club.
  5. I can't believe you're trying to argue against a club pursuing loans to cover losses given the coronavirus circumstances.

Perhaps if Pearce was on the board much earlier the EFL would be in better shape now. He's clearly well respected by most clubs, hence why he's in the position he is. The fact he's clever enough to see where the rules allow a club to maximise it's potentially shouldn't be considered a bad trait. Other club's follow his lead - they copied our stadium sale, and it's only a matter of time before clubs copy our amortisation policy. There's little benefit in copying what everyone else does, as without parachute payments, it's unlikely you'll earn promotion. Every club should be continuously looking at ways of doing something better than they already are.

Finally read the report in full!

Pride Park, this was at the time it was built one of many similar grounds built between mid 1990s-early 2000s. The construction cost in 1997 was quite cheap and cheerful. Wiki says £28m.

£3k per seat x 33k? Depreciation by 1/3 wasn't it then land value added in. About £70m? Granted the range was £3-3,500 per seat. 

I'm no valuer but some of his examples were puzzling! Leicester's valuation feels a very good comparable, Coventry? Stoke's ground was built in 1997 and isn't a much lower capacity.

Under £50m, £51m (was £60m until naming rights went) and under £50m respectively. Land value may well be cheaper in these places of course.

'Facilities of AG inferior to Pride Park'?? Don't see it myself! That's a laugh and a half. The lack of corners surely is a factor though, as well as lower capacity.

On the flipside, land value in Bristol exceeds that of Derby. The roof is a hypothetical and still hasn't AFAIK moved forward so irrelevant.

The 2018/19 accounts and beyond will be the decisive factor, but under FRS 102 I am guessing it will be.

1) Oversight? Convenient! IF it was Chansiri and oversight, could well believe it given the mess he made if that!

2) Were the first, I believe. I've a strong view on the issue in general- UEFA rules explicitly exclude fixed asset disposals from FFP so that feels the best approach.

3) What came first? Again, convenient!

4) A grubby financial issue most certainly. How can registration be held if he's been sacked? I hope he plays on and  wins just to prove a point. 

5) You expressed your liking for the rules in point 2 and alluded to them in point 1.

Rules are rules and I'd have to reread the article but a rule is definitely out there somewhere about investment in more than one club. If clubs complain, are EFL not duty-bound to investigate?

Totally disagree. It's fair to say your club 'do things differently', of that there can be no doubt!

Not in the slightest, because he's on the board of an Executive which wishes to enforce certain regulations and at the same time on the board of a club who use every questionable method in the book to try and circumnavigate it! Sooner clubs can vote him out the better.

Don't disagree on Parachute Payments though. They need significant reform minimum.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I can't see us pursuing any legal case based on the claims already made. There may be a case of us pursuing damages due to missing out on investment, being put under a wrongful embargo, missing out on recruitment, and potentially reduced sponsorship. Given the club statement about all clubs being financially punished due to just a few clubs pushing for a penalty, I can't see us dragging things out further and causing more financial reductions to clubs.

Hmm, a fairly magnanimous spin. Let's see. 

I don't really see good grounds for legal action or recompense given that the right to bring the charges themselves was lawful.

I recall claims by Derby that it was all unlawful at the time of charge, the Commission seems to have firmly established this NOT to have been the case. 

The soft embargo is consistent with P&S regulations as a holding position where there is doubt or non-compliance with eg timely submission of Projected Accounts/FFP. Or doubt about whether compliance will be achieved, seems fair enough. 

Not the EFL's fault. They have to apply regulations fairly, fearlessly and without favour. Seems an irrelevant consideration to me, sponsorship likewise. 

Had the charges been thrown out in their entirety, then a case would certainly be stronger. Had they been thrown out as unlawful or malicious then absolutely.

Except they weren't- many of your defences eg Estoppel fell flat.

Would have to read the Club Statement but often Club Statements not unnaturally paint clubs in a favourable light. I'd be surprised if only a few clubs raised concerns. 

Also, the section on EFL Arbitration. 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

95.1 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement in writing between the League and the Clubs and between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Arbitration Act:

To take action, a notice of Arbitration would need to be served.

Disputes have to be settled via Arbitration as part of terms of membership, potentially.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Finally read the report in full!

Pride Park, this was at the time it was built one of many similar grounds built between mid 1990s-early 2000s. The construction cost in 1997 was quite cheap and cheerful. Wiki says £28m.

£3k per seat x 33k? Depreciation by 1/3 wasn't it then land value added in. About £70m? Granted the range was £3-3,500 per seat. 

I'm no valuer but some of his examples were puzzling! Leicester's valuation feels a very good comparable, Coventry? Stoke's ground was built in 1997 and isn't a much lower capacity.

Under £50m, £51m (was £60m until naming rights went) and under £50m respectively. Land value may well be cheaper in these places of course.

'Facilities of AG inferior to Pride Park'?? Don't see it myself! That's a laugh and a half. The lack of corners surely is a factor though, as well as lower capacity.

On the flipside, land value in Bristol exceeds that of Derby. The roof is a hypothetical and still hasn't AFAIK moved forward so irrelevant.

 

Simply put the expert appointed by the EFL to value the stadium wrote a poor expert report and was poorly prepared for the hearing.  That is the EFL's fault.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@AnotherDerbyFan do you amortisation of £25m in 18/19 or 19/20?  If 19/20...have you got access to accounts, or is this a calculation?

It's stated in the Decision document. £6.5 in 17/18, £4.6 in 18/19, £25.1 in 19/20. Page 30, Section 59

 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Finally read the report in full!

Pride Park, this was at the time it was built one of many similar grounds built between mid 1990s-early 2000s. The construction cost in 1997 was quite cheap and cheerful. Wiki says £28m.

Which doesn't take in to account work completed later on. £28m covers initial build, then filling in of the corners.

Quote

£3k per seat x 33k? Depreciation by 1/3 wasn't it then land value added in. About £70m? Granted the range was £3-3,500 per seat. 

On a DRC basis the final amout using those figures was £74.4m (missing £3m due to feeds and finance costs)
 

Quote

I'm no valuer but some of his examples were puzzling! Leicester's valuation feels a very good comparable, Coventry? Stoke's ground was built in 1997 and isn't a much lower capacity.

Under £50m, £51m (was £60m until naming rights went) and under £50m respectively. Land value may well be cheaper in these places of course.

'Facilities of AG inferior to Pride Park'?? Don't see it myself! That's a laugh and a half. The lack of corners surely is a factor though, as well as lower capacity.

On the flipside, land value in Bristol exceeds that of Derby. The roof is a hypothetical and still hasn't AFAIK moved forward so irrelevant.

I can only assume you don't visit away grounds. When was the last time you visited Derby? 'Similar' ground such as Stoke, Southampton, Middlesbrough and even Swansea are considerably below the standard of PPS, despite being built to a similar style and by the same people - mainly due to the improvements made in the last few years.

Considerations for stadium valuation are:

  • Corners
  • Structure - cantilevered roof (this is what I was referring to, not the propose roof upgrade), with unrestricted views
  • Facilities including hospitality, boxes, 'back of house' offices, club shop, restaurant, etc...
  • Potential to expand
  • Pitch composition and under-soil heating
  • Concourse heating
  • Superior seating (West Stand only)
  • LED advertising boards
  • Sound system
  • Enhanced floodlights
  • Media rooms and camera positions

Did you consider land area might differ? I could be mistaken but i'm fairly sure PPS is a larger land area than Ashton Gate

Quote

The 2018/19 accounts and beyond will be the decisive factor, but under FRS 102 I am guessing it will be.

1) Oversight? Convenient! IF it was Chansiri and oversight, could well believe it given the mess he made if that!

The detail didn't seem to be that much different than other clubs. It's an simple oversight to not describe it in full detail. It only took the EFL the best part of 5 years from when we implemented it (with permission) for it to be brought up. 3 years since the accounts were released.

Quote

2) Were the first, I believe. I've a strong view on the issue in general- UEFA rules explicitly exclude fixed asset disposals from FFP so that feels the best approach.

We aren't in a UEFA competition. Not sure why you keep bringing their rules up to imply we should be following them instead. You aren't advocating using their 30mEUR limits instead of our £39m. As things stand, the EFL rules allow it.

Quote

3) What came first? Again, convenient!

One came as a result of the other. A clause in the sponsorship contract which allowed us to negotiate a better deal if we sign a 'star' player.

Quote

4) A grubby financial issue most certainly. How can registration be held if he's been sacked? I hope he plays on and  wins just to prove a point. 

Keogh appealed the sacking. Until the case was closed the club must keep hold of his registration.

Quote

5) You expressed your liking for the rules in point 2 and alluded to them in point 1.

If an owner has cash flow problems he shouldn't be permitted to seek a loan. You're just asking for financial ruin in current circumstances.

Quote

Rules are rules and I'd have to reread the article but a rule is definitely out there somewhere about investment in more than one club. If clubs complain, are EFL not duty-bound to investigate?

Nothing about loaning to multiple clubs, hence nothing was made of the same company loaning to Southampton and Sunderland. The issue is down to having a significant share of multiple clubs, which only becomes a concern if Derby and Sunderland default on the loans.

Edited by AnotherDerbyFan
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Been to a few away grounds, I'll get onto the rest of your post later but it seems that the PL would like to block the loophole now- I think it would find favour because the PL clubs can't benefit on a UEFA level from it so it's pointless.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8667811/Premier-League-seek-BLOCK-clubs-selling-grounds-leasing-back.html

Blocking the profit aspect of the loophole for FFP as opposed to the loophole itself feels the best way to go here. Hope he's right! I wonder what would happen if it's written out going into 2020/21 but a club has already done it in 2018/19 say?

On a sidenote, Matt Hughes appears not to like Derby very much- lot of their fans think so anyway. Strong moral compass?

Listening to Talksport catchup, Simon Jordan and FFP. Jim White is a bit of a shill for Mel Morris isn't he.

Maybe there should be a rule that says ONLY what a third party will pay in terms of sale and leaseback- ie what a finance company, a bank- and what they would charge in rent. Truly arms length.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-wednesday-efl-profitability-sustainability-18830908

Here is a bit more detail on the planned changes.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta.  Here’s the link for anyone else.

Amortisation “stuff” from pg21.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/efl-documents/youth-alliance/200824---efl-v-derby-county--decision.pdf

@Mr Popodopolous it looks like the £25.1m amortisation in 19/20, is the end of the can being kicked down the road. 😂

As a process / practice, I think it’s more sensible, even if it was standardised as 10% for each year up to C-1 (C = Contract end)

So a 3 year deal with be: 10, 10, 80

A 4 year deal, 10, 10, 10, 70

etc.

Obviously club should state amortisation model in advance.

Edited by Davefevs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, reddoh said:

hope that was in ffp and not one up manship? 😀

Cash. Straight into the pocket of my Romanian (Transylvanian) friend. 
I can subvert the system as well as any dodgy football chairman!! 😉

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Paragraph 59 is interesting- already partially covered by Dave.

Quote

59) For completeness, we record that there was discussion about the Club’s approach to amortisation between the Club and the EFL in April and May 2019:

a) In April 2019, as part of the process of reviewing the Club’s 2019 P&S Submission, the EFL wrote to the Club with various queries. Question 17 was in the following terms: 30 ‘Can you please explain the variances in Player related amortisation charges from £6.5m in 2017/18 down to £4.6m in 2018/19 up to £25.1m in 2019/20? As part of this, please explain how the charge reduces from £3.3m in the 6 months to December 2018 down to £1.2m in the 6 months to June 2019?

The reason that Paragraph 59 a) is interesting to me is that how do you lose in excess of £30m with such a low amortisation charge!! 😱

Because elsewhere in the written reasons I'm sure it mentioned a massive loss for 2018/19 or forecast loss anyway- perhaps that loss came down a bit with playoff final and Lampard compensation.

Or is that the consolidated accounts losses, as that would make more sense.

Quote

67) At around the same time, in spring 2018, the Club provided financial information to the EFL in accordance with the P&S Rules (‘the Club’s P&S Information’) for the 36 month reporting period to 30 June 2018. The Club’s P&S Appendix 1 Form, provided as part of the Club’s P&S Information, recorded

a) A loss before tax for T-2 (year to 30 June 2016) of £14,725,00015 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£9,019,000)

b) A loss before tax for T-1 (year to 30 June 2017) of £7,873,00016 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£4,686,000)

c) A forecast loss before tax for T (year to 30 June 2018) of £27,445,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£23,970,000)

68) The Club’s actual/forecast aggregated loss before tax for T, T-1 and T-2 was thus £50,043,000 and its actual/forecast Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 was thus (-£37,675,000). That aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax was in excess of the LLT and very close to the ULT

Quote

69) On 12 April 2018 the EFL wrote to the Club raising various queries about the Club’s P&S Information. The Club responded on 25 April 2018, enclosing a revised P&S Appendix 1 Form That revised P&S Appendix 1 Form recorded 

a) A loss before tax for T-2 (year to 30 June 2016) of £14,725,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£15,271,000)17

b) A loss before tax for T-1 (year to 30 June 2017) of £7,873,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£4,686,000)

c) A forecast loss before tax for T (year to 30 June 2018) of £27,445,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£23,970,000)

The Club’s actual/forecast aggregated loss before tax for T, T-1 and T-2 was thus still £50,043,000, but its actual/forecast Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 had become (-£43,927,000). That aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax had thus become a figure in excess of the LLT and the ULT.

T-2 shows a change and the reason seems to be as follows- makes more sense.

Quote

Little Addition 17 The figure had been revised to remove an impermissible ‘add back’ that reflected a Transaction with a Related Party

That would be the loan cancellation?

Just a thought on Governance, but given the regulations allow for in-season breaches to be punished accordingly there and then- surely the March figures should be the ones for FFP purposes?

Fair Value on a profit or a DRC basis? The latter feels more apt to me!

I don't think the EFL should have budged on the £74.4m vs £81.1m that's for sure.

Now here comes the reason for my shock at the losses given the flex downwards in amortisation!

Quote

101) On 29 March 2019 – the date on which the Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Club and its parent for the year ended 30 June 2018 - the Club provided its 2019 P&S Submissions to the EFL. The P&S Appendix 1 form provided with the 2019 Submissions

a) Recorded a loss before tax for T-2 (year to 30 June 2017) of £20,575,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£13,407,000)

b) Recorded a loss before tax for T-1 (year to 30 June 2018) of £1,146,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of £7,207,000

c) Recorded a forecast loss before tax for T (year to 30 June 2019) of £38,727,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T of (-£31,517,000)

The Club’s actual/forecast aggregated loss before tax for T, T-1 and T-2 was thus £60,448,000 and its actual/forecast Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 was (-£37,717,000). That aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax was accordingly in excess of the LLT but below the ULT

Based on what I've read through the reasons, I as a neutral observer am perfectly comfortable with the view that the EFL were entitled to place soft embargoes on Derby for a variety of reasons.

Quote

 Acknowledging that, in light of the receipt by the Club of substantial compensation following the departure of its first team manager and staff to Chelsea, the Club’s 3 year aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax was ‘circa £37.1m’

I honestly thought Derby would've got more compensation than that for Lampard and co! Looks to have been about £600k or so!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I suppose I would ask the question.

Disposal- or even disposal and leaseback on the open market- would Pride Park yield £81.1m with a £1.1m annual rent- I very much doubt it! Likewise, in what world would Hillsborough fetch £60m and an unknown rent?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mr Popodopolous My rough calculation process...

Using 2018 P&S losses as a base point:
                  £7,207,000

Subtract the stadium profit, profit on players, managers and amortisation from 2018:
                  £7,207,000 - £39,940,387 - £3,719,424 - £1,850,000 + £6,540,038
            =  -£31,762,773

Add on the confirmed amortisation and stadium rent in 2019:
                -£31,762,773 - 4,600,000 - 1,139,726
            =  -£37,502,499

Add on estimated profit on players (The club received fees for Vydra, Weimann, Jerome):
                -£37,502,499 + £4,000,000
            =  -£33,502,499 

Minus a rough estimate on change to wages:
                -£33,502,499 + £6,000,000
            =  -£27,502,499 

£4m off the stated £31.5m in March 2019.

 

Lampard joined Chelsea in July, so I didn't think the compensation would fall under 18/19, but 19/20 instead. Rumours at the time were about £4m.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The profit is curious given the amortisation model chosen- wage bill down by £6m in 2018/19?

Your own accounts state in terms of post balance sheet events- talking about the profit on disposal here. Appears on both the Derby County and Sevco 5112 accounts.

Quote

27.    Post balance sheet events

In the period since the end of the financial year the Company has entered into agreements to dispose of first team players with a net book value of £12,819,777 for £11,704,300.

There's more about purchases in it too but not particularly interested in that. Post balance sheet I take to be between July 1st 2018 and the accounts being published- but in this instance, it could both Summer 2018 and winter 2019 windows?

Fee received-net book value is the usual formula but I guess this changes with residual value? 😕

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The profit is curious given the amortisation model chosen- wage bill down by £6m in 2018/19?

Changes between 17/18 and 18/19...

Wages removed: Russell (1/2 season), Palmer (1/2 loan), Vydra, Weimann, Shackell (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Blackman, Lowe (loan), Jerome (1/2 season), Martin (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Baird, Bent (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Pearce (1/2 season), Thorne (1/2 season), Butterfield (1/2 season loan), Ledley (1/2 season)
Wages added: Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Evans, Wilson, Mount, Tomori, Cole (1/2 season), King (1/2 season), Ambrose (1/2 season)

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Your own accounts state in terms of post balance sheet events- talking about the profit on disposal here. Appears on both the Derby County and Sevco 5112 accounts.

There's more about purchases in it too but not particularly interested in that. Post balance sheet I take to be between July 1st 2018 and the accounts being published- but in this instance, it could both Summer 2018 and winter 2019 windows?

Fee received-net book value is the usual formula but I guess this changes with residual value? 😕

I guess the profit on players is the difference between mine and the official figures. Strike my £4m profit of and we're bang on the money. According to transfermarkt, Vydra, Weimann and Jerome were signed for a combined £13.5m minus a bit of amortisation them it won't be far off £12.8m. Surprised we only sold them for £11.7m when Vydra was rumoured at about £11m, Weimann at £2m and Jerome £1-1.5m.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Changes between 17/18 and 18/19...

Wages removed: Russell (1/2 season), Palmer (1/2 loan), Vydra, Weimann, Shackell (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Blackman, Lowe (loan), Jerome (1/2 season), Martin (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Baird, Bent (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Pearce (1/2 season), Thorne (1/2 season), Butterfield (1/2 season loan), Ledley (1/2 season)
Wages added: Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Evans, Wilson, Mount, Tomori, Cole (1/2 season), King (1/2 season), Ambrose (1/2 season)

I guess the profit on players is the difference between mine and the official figures. Strike my £4m profit of and we're bang on the money. According to transfermarkt, Vydra, Weimann and Jerome were signed for a combined £13.5m minus a bit of amortisation them it won't be far off £12.8m. Surprised we only sold them for £11.7m when Vydra was rumoured at about £11m, Weimann at £2m and Jerome £1-1.5m.

Always thought Vydra alone though could be misremembering was about £12m! I'll go with what you say of course.

Ah you're talking about P&S losses of course? I was thinking in terms of accounting losses alone! That explains that then. Wage fall would make sense- I remember believing a year back that Vydra and Weimann being replaced by Marriott and Waghorn for example would work out cheaper on that score.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting line from elsewhere. Dom Howson transfer Q&A- this bit jumps out a bit. Could mean in terms of EFL involvement with Wigan of course but if not...could mean they have to run deals past the EFL to some extent! Rightly so too if that's what it means, given how Chansiri rolled the dice with Rhodes in 2017/18!

Quote

As I reported last week, a transfer fee has been agreed for Windass. However, the deal is complicated and not straight forward. Wednesday are not just dealing with Wigan. They are dealing with Wigan's administrators and the EFL as well so that has slowed everything down. But I know Wednesday remain cautiously optimistic they will get the transfer done and over the line.

On a general note, my reading of the regulations is that the EFL have the absolute right to look a bit closer at a club, any club if 3 year adjusted losses exceed £15m to the existing season provided there is no total profit in the prior 2 seasons of accounts The absolute right to get further involved if they are not convinced about a clubs intent and compliance. Clearly the big trigger for referral to an IDC is breaching the upper limits but there are multiple layers. It's unclear but if a club was under guidance and went ahead and disregarded in a stupid and flagrant way- even if under £39m- could they theoretically be referred to IDC?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

May as well take a look at some of the legal claims and rebuttals.

Derby as we know in mid January, put out quite the astonishing statement about the lawfulness and legality of the right to bring the charges- and of the charges themselves.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2020/01/club-statement-17th-january-2020

Quote

As a matter of law, the EFL is not entitled to bring either of the charges, having previously agreed to all of the arrangements surrounding the stadium sale and never having raised the issue of player amortisation before. The Club shall argue that the very bringing of the Charges itself is unlawful.

Not necessarily.

Quote

The EFL can choose to correct what they now see as an error in their decisions. However, it cannot punish the Club for its own errors. The Club shall therefore vigorously contest the charges and the EFL’s legal right to bring them. The Club and all staff will be making no further comment on these matters.

I wonder if there are grounds of appeal the EFL had not considered- or was the choice of valuer, and to an extent Accountancy expert, wholly what did for them?

Before I get onto substance, some of Mel Morris's early claims are laughable. Persecution complex slightly?

Quote

a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as

i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL

ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and

iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally’

'Enemy of the EFL state'? Joker! Clownish comment.

Quote

Regardless of how Mr Morris might perceive the way that he and the Club are viewed by the EFL, we reject any suggestion that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way tainted by animosity or dislike (and, for the avoidance of doubt, reject any suggestion that such animosity or dislike was established on the evidence before us), or that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way unreliable as a result.

Rightly so too!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

On a side note, I believe the EFL have made an error with their reform of FFP- clubs should not be allowed to wangle out- see Reading. Of course if clubs voted for it...

Why they appear to have lifted a soft embargo on Reading given their position...?

Talking of possible EFL errors, I wonder how things pan out if they approach this aspect differently:

Quote

c) Thirdly, the EFL gave the Club no opportunity to have the 6 January 2020 determinations by the Executive reviewed by a Disciplinary Commission pursuant to P&S Rule 6. Having made those determinations on 6 January 2020 the EFL did not communicate the fact of those determinations to the Club prior to charging the Club.

Might such a panel have come to a different decision with respect to the £81.1m thereby opening the door to punishment in these proceedings?

Though probably not! Still wonder if a different EFL approach might have seen things take a different path though.

Quote

d) Fourthly, both the EFL and the Club have consistently treated these proceedings as proceedings pursuant to section 8 of the EFL Regulations, not as ‘review proceedings’ under P&S Rule 6.2. By way of example i)On 30 January 2020 the Club served a ‘summary response’ pursuant to EFL Regulation 89.3. That summary response made it clear that the complaint was not admitted, thus triggering the referral to a Disciplinary Commission ‘for it conduct a full hearing in respect of the complaint’ in accordance with EFL Regulation 91.4 ii) The proceedings have been conducted in accordance with Appendix 2 to the EFL Regulations

Could the opportunity to review have seen a different trajectory?

Had the review determined Pride Park to be say £65m then they fail FFP to 2019 and the Executive's restatement stands. Possible EFL made an error?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Now for some legal defences. These are just key snippets, feel free to read at leisure etc. 

The first set-ie the defences for the First Charge!

  1. Procedural Defence 1: EFL had already determined Fair Market Value prior to January 2020
  2. Procedural Defence 2: the First Charge is ultra vires
  3. A further Procedural Defence relying on Ultra Vires: the 14 day period. Perhaps Part 2 of ultra vires.
  4. Procedural Defence 3: Contractual Estoppel 
  5. Procedural Defence 4: Estoppel by Convention
  6. Procedural Defence 5: Legitimate Expectation
  7. Procedural Defence 6: No Annual Accounts
  8. Procedural Defence 7: Abuse of Process
Quote

c) Dealing briefly in turn with each Representation relied on by the Club in its Response:

i) Representation 1 does not take the Club anywhere. That representation did nothing more than confirm the position under the P&S Rules, as interpreted by the EFL (i.e. that profits from the sale of a stadium at Fair Market Value could be included for the purposes of satisfying the P&S Rules)

ii) Representation 2 was not absolute in the terms suggested by the Club. The EFL at no time represented that, provided the Club provided an ‘independent valuation’ of the Stadium, it (the EFL) would accept for all time and for all purposes whatever figure was stated therein as being Fair Market Value

iii) Representation 3 was similarly not in the absolute terms alleged. The EFL never made a representation to the effect that the 2018 JLL valuation had been ‘accepted by the EFL as satisfactory’ for all purposes, or that ‘it’ (whatever ‘it’ might have been) was a Fair Market Value

iv) Representation 4 was indeed an assurance by Mr Karran that the EFL would permit the Club to contend subsequently that the Fair Market Value of Pride Park was £81.1m. It was not however any form of assurance that the EFL was accepting that the Fair Market Value of Pride Park was at least £74.4 for all purposes; as Mr Karran made clear, the EFL was using that figure at that time only for the purpose of ‘getting the Club through the process’ that was at that time going on

v) We reach the same conclusion in relation to Representation 5. Mr Karran’s email cannot sensibly be interpreted (and nor do we find it was interpreted by the Club) as an unequivocal promise or representation that the EFL accepted for all purposes and for all time that the Fair Market Value of Pride Park as at June 2018 was at least £74.4 68

vi) Representation 6 was not an unequivocal promise or representation that the Club ‘had complied with the P&S Rules for the 2017/18 Period …’ for all purposes, such that the EFL could not ‘go back on’ the same. As the Club well appreciated, consideration of P&S Submissions was (and would be) an ongoing process

Half dozen claims in defence, all rejected by the Tribunal!

This next one is a bit of a belter!

Quote

vii) Procedural Defence 6: No Annual Accounts

This Procedural Defence depends on a finding – necessary, the Club says, if the Second Charge is to succeed -

a) That because the financial statements filed by the Club do not (on the EFL’s case) comply with FRS 102 and so do not comply with ‘all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts pursuant to section 394 of the Companies Act 2006’, they are not ‘Annual Accounts’ for the purpose of the P&S Rules

b) The Club has accordingly not filed any Annual Accounts for the purposes of the P&S Rules for the years under scrutiny

🤣

Quote

160) The EFL’s description of that position is ‘arid and technical’ is in our view a correct one. It is also a position that has no merit. Even if we were to conclude that, because they failed to comply with FRS 102, the Club’s Annual Accounts did not comply with the relevant legal and regulatory requirements, that would not mean

a) That the Club had failed to submit Annual Accounts per se. It would simply mean that the Club had failed to submit compliant Annual Accounts

b) That the EFL was somehow prevented from considering the submitted documents for the purpose of

i)Assessing whether the ULT had been exceeded by the Club for the years under scrutiny or

ii) Considering whether Related Party Transactions recorded therein were or were not recorded at Fair Market Value

Basically, the club appear to have claimed that because the accounts may or may not have hit FRS 102 standards, the EFL cannot therefore charge them with breaching FFP or even assess the issue!

Quote

viii) Procedural Defence 7: Abuse of Process

161) At the heart of this defence is a belief on the part of the Club that the First Charge has been brought against it because the EFL

a) Has improperly succumbed to pressure from MFC (and other clubs), and

b) Has brought the Charge solely or principally to prevent MFC from pursuing the MFC proceedings against it

Quote

164) Having carefully considered the evidence – both the contemporaneous documentation and the oral evidence given by the EFL’s witnesses – we had no hesitation in rejecting the Club’s analysis/suggested interpretation of the evidence contained in its written Closing Submissions and concluding that the Club failed to make out this defence on the facts:

Quote

168) We therefore find that the Club did not establish that the bringing of the First Charge was an abuse of process.

ix) Conclusions on the Procedural Defences to the First Charge

169) We dismiss each of the Procedural Defences to the First Charge raised by the Club

8 Procedural defences, 8 rejections!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Second set of Procedural Defences- as in the Procedural Defences for Charge 2.

  1. Procedural Defence 1: there is no breach of any substantive P&S Rule even on the EFL’s case
  2. Procedural Defence 2: Ultra Vires for previous determination
  3. Procedural Defence 3: Inconsistency of the Charges
  4. Procedural Defence 4: Legitimate Expectation – previous determination
  5. Procedural Defence 5: Legitimate Expectation – Sanctioning Guidelines
  6. Procedural Defence 6: Abuse of Process

The defences- in a nutshell.

Quote

vii) Conclusions on the Procedural Defences to the Second Charge

230) We dismiss each of the Procedural Defences to the Second Charge raised by the Club.

So those rather drastic and bombastic claims by the club about unlawfulness, unable to even bring charges, unable to change mind etc etc- these were proven to be a load of rubbish! 

Across two charges, 14 Procedural Defences raised and 14 knocked away by the Commission!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

May as well turn things on their head a little. Plenty of talk about clubs suing the EFL but tbh this contains a bit of devil's advocate let's say.

Can organisations be defamed? I have read that the answer could be yes.

Could it plausibly be argued that some degree of defamation has occurred given that Derby- not privately but publicly in a statement to the world- declared that 'As a matter of law, the EFL is not entitled to bring these charges'.

Does that not de facto if not directly, accuse the EFL in acting in a manner outside of the law? Not something anyone surely would want their organisation to be accused of?

'The Club shall therefore vigorously contest these charges and the EFL's legal right to bring them'. 

Again, a public loud and manifestly false or maybe erroneous accusation that the EFL do not have the legal right to bring the charges for the case in question!

Plus, Mel Morris at the tribunal. Arguing that the EFL have it in for him personally. Maybe the right to do this openly is protected by the Hearing, legal privilege etc?

Accusing the organisation of fake charges at least in part due to a personal dislike of him or the club? That said legal privilege? 

Sure he named Nick Craig and Shaun Harvey, these two I'm particular.

I wonder if any of these therefore have scope to pursue legal action of their own- be it EFL or individuals- against Derby, or more accurately Mel Morris.

Like I say, stuff in Tribunal or similar surely protected by free speech, legal privilege?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

May as well turn things on their head a little. Plenty of talk about clubs suing the EFL but tbh this contains a bit of devil's advocate let's say.

Can organisations be defamed? I have read that the answer could be yes.

Could it plausibly be argued that some degree of defamation has occurred given that Derby- not privately but publicly in a statement to the world- declared that 'As a matter of law, the EFL is not entitled to bring these charges'.

Does that not de facto if not directly, accuse the EFL in acting in a manner outside of the law? Not something anyone surely would want their organisation to be accused of?

'The Club shall therefore vigorously contest these charges and the EFL's legal right to bring them'. 

Again, a public loud and manifestly false or maybe erroneous accusation that the EFL do not have the legal right to bring the charges for the case in question!

Plus, Mel Morris at the tribunal. Arguing that the EFL have it in for him personally. Maybe the right to do this openly is protected by the Hearing, legal privilege etc?

Accusing the organisation of fake charges at least in part due to a personal dislike of him or the club? That said legal privilege? 

Sure he named Nick Craig and Shaun Harvey, these two I'm particular.

I wonder if any of these therefore have scope to pursue legal action of their own- be it EFL or individuals- against Derby, or more accurately Mel Morris.

Like I say, stuff in Tribunal or similar surely protected by free speech, legal privilege?

At 5am whilst most of OTIB sleeps, @Mr Popodopolous is diligently researching FFP so the rest of us don’t have to. Thank you sir!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...