Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

You beat me to it @Hxj

Rejected in January I read. That could be linked to the Future Financial Information aspect of P&S. This bit doesn't get much coverage.

It is when if a club posts aggregate losses of more than £15m but less than £39m, then they have to submit by 31st March, their Projected/Anticipated P&S losses for the following year or 2.

I can't recall if the Aggregate losses contain the two prior years actual and current year Projection or merely the prior year actual and the current year Projection.

Maybe an element of discretion and flexibility depending on the track record etc of the club. Plain to see that the Football League didn't pay much attention to it under Shaun Harvey in Summer 2018 except in Birmingham's case!

I digress, feeding into this is Regulation 16.20, which can give the Football League budgetary powers. Potentially, renewal of Marriott on existing terms might have fallen foul of this.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will add a bit to the Marriott stuff tomorrow, bit more explanation of the Regulations and how they might apply etc- think the Football League were within their rights, probably.

Saw an interesting Tweet Monday- may well come to nothing so I'm not getting excited but who knows...

Just remember, although the EFL Statement and Announcement of the Guilty Verdict arose on Tuesday 11th May 2021- just after the final Game of the Regular Season basically, the Verdict itself actually was reached on Friday 7th May 2021- the final day before the final game of the Regular Season. How then should it be rolled forward into 2021/22?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit on the Marriott thing- interesting post and not having a go, using it to highlight but have to wonder about the 2nd line.

image.png.0a2728ae074283a1b3234bfa488c34bd.png

Pretty sure they can, in a round about sort of way. IF renewal on existing terms can see either an individual wage or a Club exceeding their allowances, yes they can depending on the conditions the Club are working under. This may vary from Club to Club as no two cases are identical, but I believe that the right does exist. For example if a Club are under Embargo type conditions and as @Davefevs has mentioned elsewhere the £600k per year or thereabouts bit, and say Marriott is on £20k per week then yeah- they likely can! See Morrison at Birmingham and even a youth player in 2018/19, see Reading unable to offer Richards what they thought was his dues and even see potentially Stoke having problems renewing Powell- who to the surprise of many has his contract expiring in 2022 rather than 2021, but in mid April O'Neill came out and declared that renewing Powell was a problem- presumably on existing terms. I suspect several clubs are under Plans albeit with differing limits depending on the size of the problem, cooperation etc and obviously, the EFL will keep this silent and Clubs, they will be only too happy to do likewise!

The Amortisation bit does feel a red herring however, I do agree.

The relevant Regulations I was set to post about earlier.

image.png.282e38d03a75acb2df92369e90eeb0d5.png

Believe that 2.8 through to 2.8.3 are likely quite relevant here but it's unclear- but would make sense- if it included Regulations that were up to the Lower Loss Threshold as well as the bit that exceeds the Lower but falls below the Upper in conjunction with each other. In theory, Marriott renewal on existing terms could have an adverse effect on T+1 and maybe even T+2.

What is Regulation 16.20 however? I've mentioned it before but...⬇️

image.png.aefd8ae671aef844948ca00082151776.png

Seems to be at least plausible to me that renewal of Marriott on existing terms could have posed an issue- it matters not if he s an existing player! In particular, 16.20.3! That said, it seems to be more about solvency than FFP. Quite broad.

Oh and non-cooperation- see the dragging feet over Accounts, submission of info late, submission only in August 2020 of the Gellaw Newco 203 Draft Accounts can also quite rightly come back to bite a Club- this Regulation is excellent!

image.png.86639c9fccfc5eb1ab0261c0d8aaaf6d.png

I'd suggest that Derby's compliance with the Disclosure Requirements is suspect. As a consequence, 4.3 is quite broad...that means that e.g. Refusal to Register an existing Player is something that can be triggered irrespective of a referral to a Disciplinary Commission basically! Would significantly reduce the chance of Clubs having the ability to prevaricate, stall and as a result to gain an unfair advantage in short.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2021 at 12:23, Hxj said:

Derby retained list now out - on www.dcfc.co.uk - 14 senior players retained and 5 in discussion.

The interesting one is Jack Marriott whose contract extension was triggered by Derby in December but rejected by the EFL.

On 14/06/2021 at 12:52, Mr Popodopolous said:

You beat me to it @Hxj

Rejected in January I read.

He signed the extension in October when he went out on loan. Approval was withdrawn by the EFL in December.
Discussions between club, agents and EFL since January.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/06/2021 at 02:05, Mr Popodopolous said:

Bit on the Marriott thing- interesting post and not having a go, using it to highlight but have to wonder about the 2nd line.

image.png.0a2728ae074283a1b3234bfa488c34bd.png

Pretty sure they can, in a round about sort of way. IF renewal on existing terms can see either an individual wage or a Club exceeding their allowances, yes they can depending on the conditions the Club are working under. This may vary from Club to Club as no two cases are identical, but I believe that the right does exist. For example if a Club are under Embargo type conditions and as @Davefevs has mentioned elsewhere the £600k per year or thereabouts bit, and say Marriott is on £20k per week then yeah- they likely can! See Morrison at Birmingham and even a youth player in 2018/19, see Reading unable to offer Richards what they thought was his dues and even see potentially Stoke having problems renewing Powell- who to the surprise of many has his contract expiring in 2022 rather than 2021, but in mid April O'Neill came out and declared that renewing Powell was a problem- presumably on existing terms. I suspect several clubs are under Plans albeit with differing limits depending on the size of the problem, cooperation etc and obviously, the EFL will keep this silent and Clubs, they will be only too happy to do likewise!

The Amortisation bit does feel a red herring however, I do agree.

The relevant Regulations I was set to post about earlier.

image.png.282e38d03a75acb2df92369e90eeb0d5.png

Believe that 2.8 through to 2.8.3 are likely quite relevant here but it's unclear- but would make sense- if it included Regulations that were up to the Lower Loss Threshold as well as the bit that exceeds the Lower but falls below the Upper in conjunction with each other. In theory, Marriott renewal on existing terms could have an adverse effect on T+1 and maybe even T+2.

What is Regulation 16.20 however? I've mentioned it before but...⬇️

image.png.aefd8ae671aef844948ca00082151776.png

Seems to be at least plausible to me that renewal of Marriott on existing terms could have posed an issue- it matters not if he s an existing player! In particular, 16.20.3! That said, it seems to be more about solvency than FFP. Quite broad.

Oh and non-cooperation- see the dragging feet over Accounts, submission of info late, submission only in August 2020 of the Gellaw Newco 203 Draft Accounts can also quite rightly come back to bite a Club- this Regulation is excellent!

image.png.86639c9fccfc5eb1ab0261c0d8aaaf6d.png

I'd suggest that Derby's compliance with the Disclosure Requirements is suspect. As a consequence, 4.3 is quite broad...that means that e.g. Refusal to Register an existing Player is something that can be triggered irrespective of a referral to a Disciplinary Commission basically! Would significantly reduce the chance of Clubs having the ability to prevaricate, stall and as a result to gain an unfair advantage in short.

I think you've misread that post. Looks to me like the comment suggests the renewal means staying within allowable limits, but the EFL would reject the extension to ensure the club fall foul.
If under an embargo, I could understand it being rejected for being above the allowable wage threshold. However, the contract extension was signed in OCTOBER when we weren't in one. Reading between the lines, it looks like approval was withdrawn 2 months later following the non-payment of wages.

You repeatedly mention the non-submission of accounts, despite it being widely reported that this is due to the ongoing case. I'm sure the EFL are well aware of that, and wouldn't be surprised if they were given 'draft' calculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

He signed the extension in October when he went out on loan. Approval was withdrawn by the EFL in December.
Discussions between club, agents and EFL since January.

 

Saw a suggestion online today that it was blocked as EFL Appeal ongoing but that seems unlikely.

 

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I think you've misread that post. Looks to me like the comment suggests the renewal means staying within allowable limits, but the EFL would reject the extension to ensure the club fall foul.
If under an embargo, I could understand it being rejected for being above the allowable wage threshold. However, the contract extension was signed in OCTOBER when we weren't in one. Reading between the lines, it looks like approval was withdrawn 2 months later following the non-payment of wages.

You repeatedly mention the non-submission of accounts, despite it being widely reported that this is due to the ongoing case. I'm sure the EFL are well aware of that, and wouldn't be surprised if they were given 'draft' calculations.

Possibly I have. Worded badly by me too, if renewal on existing terms meant that it would take a Club over limits either for individual wages or for Hard limits, the EFL might have grounds. I've read £18k per week

It could be related to December and January, but then again the Wage issue was seemingly sorted and loanees arrived so I can only assume that the EFL weren't happy with the wage level.

Maybe there was some imposed or agreed plan. Once wages confirmed as paid, approval can just be granted easily surely if that's alright it is.

Possibly cross purposes again. By non-submission I mean internally to the EFL. I get the impression that the Club aren't always prompt let's say.

Non cooperation as Regulation 4.3 of the P&S Regs as part of the Disclosure Requirements can provide the EFL with notable powers. Regulation 16.20 can too but that's more about solvency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby fans seem quite bullish reading their forum, I must say. Variety of interesting posts and takes about this issue. The EFL one I mean, not so much the Marriott one.

Seems to be thinking that punishment will be fairly minor, some thinking that past embargoes etc should be taken into account for the final punishment, one refers to a counter claim.

What that 2nd one doesn't factor in is that they are separate issues- Embargoes, especially Soft ones can constitute Holding Patterns or to prevent lack of financial information being exploited. There is no record of Embargoes being taken into account with respect to past punishments- and nor should they be.

If they dislike a punishment, they can of course Appeal- as can the EFL- but who hears the Appeal? League Arbitration Panel surely, based on all the prior cases?

The interesting bit there of course is that the League Arbitration Panel found them guilty in the first place- they found them guilty of the bit about Amortisation, after the Independent Disciplinary Commission cleared them.

The Sanctioning Hearing was heard by the Independent Disciplinary Commission- if they are handed a decent penalty, why would- assuming that the League Arbitration Panel hear the Appeal, the one who found them guilty in the first place, substantially reduce a punishment?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Derby fans seem quite bullish reading their forum

I think it would help some of the delusions if they actually read the cases!

 

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

but who hears the Appeal?

Yep to the LAP.

 

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

the League Arbitration Panel found them guilty in the first place

Well a LAP did find then guilty, but another LAP will hear any appeal, even if it consists of the same members technically they are different panels.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bit that I don't understand, is why if they're uber confident they pass FFP no matter what-Derby I mean- didn't they just resubmit in the EFL's preferred format nice and early to draw a line under it.

The fine and Reprimand is one thing, the Resubmission of Accounts in the EFL's preferred format is something else entirely.

Based on the EFL's Points Tariff, an overspend of any amount is worth a 3 point deduction, any amount that is between £1-1,999,999.

Of course, talking about the bigger picture, Derby will need to resubmit all Accounts from 2015/16 to I dunno, present to the EFL- even if only internally- using the preferred/prescribed format, this will impact upon FFP/P&S one way or another over many years. Some years will improve, some will get worse.

The ruling also perhaps means that nobody else can use this method for submitting Accounts.

Given the EFL's newfound determination to pursue cases against errant clubs, it's a great shame Aston Villa went up when they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TomF said:

Total bodge IMO - the EFL know that it'll take many a month if not year to settle this with potential appeals etc.   Derby will continue in the Championship happy knowing that if they get a 3 point deduction it'll probably be in about 2024. Around the same time Morris has sold the ground to himself for the 4th time (this time for 180m) and the 18th potential takeover has collapsed. 

While Mel Morris is there, the EFL will pursue as tough a line as possible IMO. Things seem to have broken down significantly.

It's theoretically possible that a Restatement could see Derby fail multiple periods, by varying amounts. Even a 2 point deduction applied to the season just gone, would see them down still with multiple periods to reassess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TomF said:

But will they have enough time to do it.. and how is this fair on Wycombe who don't know what players to realistically sign..

The reassessment of several periods would be over time, the pressing bit here is the 3 years in q. Could require fresh charges I'm which case I don't see how, especially with Derby obviously not being quick let's say.

Definitely unfair on Wycombe, the innocent victims in all this.

From what I've read, EFL Disciplinary Processes can be expedited where there is a pressing need- feels that this is a perfect example of where it could be required.

Nothing from the EFL AGM yet which is strange, could there be some kind of vote to ratify divisional status for each? Likely a bit of a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Definitely unfair on Wycombe, the innocent victims in all this.

Their players could be looking at leaving the club due to being in League 1 plus players their are looking to sign may not sign in league.

It also effects budget they would have to spend! 

With them having to redo accounts for previous seasons it may effect the budget they have to spend this season!

The EFL should grow some ball and put Derby down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TomF said:

But will they have enough time to do it.. and how is this fair on Wycombe who don't know what players to realistically sign..

It shouldn’t be a difficult thing to do, even if done manually into a standalone spreadsheet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the EFL are simply trying to look like they are taking this seriously and absolutely nothing will happen.

Derby will consider it 100k well spent as the TV revenue more than covers it, the league will make some noise about them having robust processes in place, and this time next season, there will be a similar story involving another club who aren't in too dissimilar a position.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

While Mel Morris is there, the EFL will pursue as tough a line as possible IMO. Things seem to have broken down significantly.

It's theoretically possible that a Restatement could see Derby fail multiple periods, by varying amounts. Even a 2 point deduction applied to the season just gone, would see them down still with multiple periods to reassess.

They haven’t managed that for the last 3 years, so I am sceptical that they will do so now or in the future.

It seems that everything being done is the metaphorical “kicking it into the long grass” . While , I’m sure the EFL will point to Derby being punished, we all know that a financial fine is designed to show the club being penalised while ensuring it falls short of a points deduction that would relegate them, as the EFL knows full well the absolute 5h1t storm that would create!

This has become less about Derby breaking the rules and more about the EFL’s impotence when it comes to policing, enforcing and administering appropriate punishment with and to clubs that break it’s own financial rules. 

I stand to be corrected and absolutely amazed if the EFL do now pull their fingers out and make a points deduction !!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Northski said:

Could Wycombe sue Derby?

Doubt it.

Would guess that as Derby haven't 'wronged' Wycombe directly and they are just a byproduct of this carry-on, their best chance of success would be to go after the EFL, where loss of gate receipts, television money, 3rd round FA Cup cash and all that other stuff would form a calculation for compo.

Only a guess, mind. I don't know anything.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby have released a Statement.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/06/derby-county-club-statement-24th-june-2021

Not read it except elsewhere.

However, a key bit in there is that according to them, they have until 18th August to resubmit Accounts. In practical terms, it makes it highly likely that they will begin at this level IMO.

I would have thought though that the Embargo and EFL restrictions can remain in play, such strict ones that their Approval to renew Marriott was withdrawn.

They also give the usual spiel about unlawful to dock points in season just gone etc.

There is a nuclear option that maybe open to the EFL I guess. Suspend the fixtures of Derby and Wycombe while this is ongoing so that if resolved sometime in say September, both would definitively start on zero points for whatever League.

Would be grossly unfair though...to Wycombe. Would also cause fixture backlog and disruption across not one but two divisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/37680-efl-verdict/page/14/?tab=comments#comment-2143888

Interesting post as well, though I don't think I can find a statement by Wycombe.

Another avenue mentioned there could be to push for a penalty under utmost good faith, a penalty applicable to Season just gone.

The Regulation in q I referred to above.

About theoretically suspending fixtures while Proceedings in play.

Link to comment
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...