Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

Donald Rumsfeld died this week and is famous for this quote:

“........as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know"

Seems to summarise the EFL/Derby situation in  nutshell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember those quotes. Rumsfeld will not be missed.

As for the Football League. I think this decision effectively kills any respect anyone still had for the governing body and effectively brings the game into disrepute; by its governing body. That has to be a first.

For the FL to come out and say 'insufficient evidence for appeal' is a total lie . It has always been a whitewash exercise from the beginning.

Whatever punishment is dished out will be puny compared to relegating the terminal liars. 

Like I said before 71 members should resign from the governing body, making it immediately defunct, and set up a new one. Derby can go swivel in the sun. 

Parry was supposed to be the tough breath of fresh air. He's just a limp ***** like the rest of them. That meal with Morris in west London was the ultimate stitch up.

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

3 hours ago, hertsexile said:

Let's face the legal process has made a complete mockery of the Derby case legal loopholes have once again allowed a team to get away with bending the rules. The sooner we get a fair and just playing field regarding financial matters in the football the better it has been shown that FFP rules do not work !

Parachute payments need to be scrapped as we are rewarding failure use the money wasted on this to increase winning pots for successful teams that win promotion from the lower leagues

 

Agree with pretty much all of this. However the bit in bold - this definitely gives relegated teams a massive and unfiar advantage, but the flip side is if you don't have this then promoted teams have no chance of competing in the premier league - they will not be able to employ players on a high enough salary as they will have to effectively work with a championship budget incase they are relegated. Something needs to change, but i'm not sure how you work around that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, havanatopia said:

Parry was supposed to be the tough breath of fresh air. He's just a limp ***** like the rest of them. That meal with Morris in west London was the ultimate stitch up.

I have little doubt that Parry and Morris agreed a plea bargain so to speak.

1. Have a little charade pretending the EFL is being tough that results in a puny fine.

2. Claim EFL lawyers have said there are no grounds for appeal and pretend to be disappointed 

3. Advise Derby how to best finesse their revised accounts.

4. Agree a 6 point penalty say but tell them to appeal in the knowledge it will be cut by half.

5. Issue a statement claiming the EFL has upheld the integrity of the game.

6. Morris picks up the bill for the next slap up meal with Parry.

7. On to next nice little earner.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies, but I simply don't agree with the criticism of the EFL on this. 

The issue always was about FFP and the charges brought in respect of the amortisation were always secondary on the path of did they breach FFP?

If DCFC have not breached FFP then there is no further offence, if they have the charges will run again.

In the meantime, DCFC have an owner who wants to get rid, and no one who wants to buy, plus they are either on a soft embargo (buy players at a wage of less than £600,000 a year), or a hard one (buy no one).  To date no one has come in and a significant part of their squad has left. Currently looking very much like a favourite for relegation.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, downendcity said:

Donald Rumsfeld died this week and is famous for this quote:

“........as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know"

Seems to summarise the EFL/Derby situation in  nutshell.

 

I don't know about that truth be known.

Edited by BigTone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hxj said:

Apologies, but I simply don't agree with the criticism of the EFL on this. 

The issue always was about FFP and the charges brought in respect of the amortisation were always secondary on the path of did they breach FFP?

If DCFC have not breached FFP then there is no further offence, if they have the charges will run again.

In the meantime, DCFC have an owner who wants to get rid, and no one who wants to buy, plus they are either on a soft embargo (buy players at a wage of less than £600,000 a year), or a hard one (buy no one).  To date no one has come in and a significant part of their squad has left. Currently looking very much like a favourite for relegation.

 

 

The criticism of the FL is on many subjects and on many levels. In the event you are carte blanche dismissing them all then you will find very few agreeing with you.

On public relations and swiftness of action alone they have been utterly useless. That is enough. 

As a direct result as I said before they bring the rules of the game into disrepute. They are a busted flush and need replacing.

You really don't need to go into the minutae; if you act like there is plenty of time, as they clearly have, you will eventually run out of it and then scratch your heads and blame somebody else which is exactly what they have done. 

Edited by havanatopia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few assorted thoughts on the last few days...

That statement by Pearce- and he's left the EFL Board, which is a good thing indeed! So too has Howe of Reading, due to his term limit being up- I always assumed it was 3 and not 4 years but anyway.

Unsure he's the main villain of the piece in the Derby case- that would be the Owner IMO. Buck stops at the top, ie the very top.

Odd how this statement by Pearce on behalf of the Club...well it's interesting for a few reasons.

  1. Still during the Disciplinary Process- remember Restatement of Accounts is due, and this will have knock on effects to other periods being Rolling.
  2. Is an Embargo of some kind still in play? I mean Embargoes alone are not enough in cases such as this, but they're a good starting point. Interesting that a day after a Nixon story about an EFL clampdown on Clubs in terms of Embargoes, with Derby high up that list, he or more likely Mel wants to build bridges??
  3. Takeover? Bridge building...to me bridge building is a positive, but not one that should affect in any respect the Disciplinary Process.
  4. Claim of extra Profit on Pride Park? Odd timing given this came out in the Written Reasons released on Friday...EFL would be a disgrace if they just rolled over and accepted. It's certainly questionable as to whether it should be included based on Accounting Policies, whether it's in accordance with EFL Regs, Reserves that kinda thing.

Build bridges by all means, but no quarter should be given or allowed on the wider matter in hand- FFP and full enforcement of these Regs, regardless of Ownership of the Club- as in if still ongoing, new owners should inherit the process and the fallout.

Or, if Pride Park returns to Club Ownership at less, perhaps significantly so than £81.1m as part of the Group, the EFL need to raise this one again, albeit from different angles- or just slap on Regulation 16.20, whatever is simpler.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/07/2021 at 01:17, Hxj said:

Apologies, but I simply don't agree with the criticism of the EFL on this. 

The issue always was about FFP and the charges brought in respect of the amortisation were always secondary on the path of did they breach FFP?

If DCFC have not breached FFP then there is no further offence, if they have the charges will run again.

In the meantime, DCFC have an owner who wants to get rid, and no one who wants to buy, plus they are either on a soft embargo (buy players at a wage of less than £600,000 a year), or a hard one (buy no one).  To date no one has come in and a significant part of their squad has left. Currently looking very much like a favourite for relegation.

 

 

Agreed, although it's worth noting of course that the 3 years to 2018 have a knockon effect to those that come after- better and worse but a knock on and arguably before if we're talking the 3 years to 2017.

What's your thinking on Pearce's claim that Pride Park sale has an additional Profit, perhaps a significant one?

I do believe that the EFL wanted Derby down in this case though- and justifiably so.

18 hours ago, havanatopia said:

The criticism of the FL is on many subjects and on many levels. In the event you are carte blanche dismissing them all then you will find very few agreeing with you.

On public relations and swiftness of action alone they have been utterly useless. That is enough. 

As a direct result as I said before they bring the rules of the game into disrepute. They are a busted flush and need replacing.

You really don't need to go into the minutae; if you act like there is plenty of time, as they clearly have, you will eventually run out of it and then scratch your heads and blame somebody else which is exactly what they have done. 

Agree, by no means beyond criticism. My significant criticism is two fold- 1) The fact they did not do work of a sufficient standard and quality in 2018 to prevent some of this nonsense and b) The sheer timescale it takes. That said, these are old cases they are attempting to unpick, it's difficult! Some unbelievable aspects from the 1st Hearing in 2020...

Valuation flexing

image.png.94dcde1be921e5983e9f6e3cd8d70848.png

In short, there were two valuations- one with DRC, and one with the Profit methods and the EFL permitted both for FFP/P&S purposes. ie the 3 years to 2017/18 with the Lower one, but allowed the Club to leave open the option to uplift to Profit Method in 2018/19.

Profit method feels less common in football and less reliable as Profits fluctuate- DRC is more steady.

image.png.8500ed931383fbfc06c5bdd436232ab4.png

Would argue for these purposes and possibly from a stability POV that DRC is more applicable but no...well yes and then no.

At least the Rent is clear-cut surely- the Independent Valuers- not the EFL and Derby but the Independent Valuers themselves, ie JLL, allocated the Rent as £4.16m per year for both methods I assume but anyway- good starting point! £4.16m is around 5-6%, maybe slightly higher as a % than some of the others but broadly in line.

Well, no!

image.png.c39f75f5fd84df5c9b850bd20da4c86a.png

£3.06m per Annum knocked off the rent due to the 100 days claim...

More flexing...

image.png.ca4e9214f20fd3750498bcd4162aa553.png

The 100 days usage? "No restriction on the number of days for which the Club would have access to Pride Park for football purposes". The EFL should have acted very differently as soon as that bit came to light.

Despite...

image.png.49d04c6e23fc7959474a18578b0d5d6a.png

Independent Valuers here, though I question the valuation the rent seems fine- in black and white, market rent=£4.16m per year on the basis of a sale and leaseback agreement. Maybe it would be lopped down a bit if it was the DRC basis. £3.81m if extrapolated- but also means a lower Profit on Disposal for FFP.

image.png.c5015f313ac904493910b41df8e6a0dc.png

image.png.c8b938b01917924c987b2d1f2eb85cf1.png

Cake and eat it springs to mind?? On a few levels! WTF were the EFL thinking- and then there's the whole allowing Sheffield Wednesday to sell Hillsborough as and when they pleased and seemingly lifting aspects of that Soft Embargo in August 2018. They should've been charged in August 2018 once it became obvious that the Stadium was not sold in time, then the EFL should have imposed some kind of Business Plan for 2018/19 and perhaps beyond, while pushing for the full whack of 12 pts for breach and 3 for progressively bigger overspending. While Derby and Aston Villa...well the EFL under their Regulations didn't technically have to allow them to spend as they did in 2018/19 even with the loopholes, Soft Sanctions short of a deduction can be imposed to restrict and set right, depending on the size of the prior loss- Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday definitely would have qualified. Maybe Future Financial Info can help with this too.

12 hours ago, Loco Rojo said:

What this says to me is clubs can now knowingly break the rules for £100k but they don't need too worry about points deduction or relegation. Precedence has been set now. 

Nope, that is only one aspect of the Process- they remain under some kind of Embargo and have a deadline of 18th August 2021 to Restate Accounts to the EFL. If it shows a breach, any breach then fresh Charges should follow- and this in turn has a knock on in 3 years to 2019, and arguably working back to 2017?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to add, one reason for this delayed process and two valuations is that Derby seemingly wanted a quick conclusion before the Summer Window opened or at least not long into it, in order to 'net off' the process. Is that understandable? Absolutely, from the perspective of a Club. What is less excusable and understandable is why the EFL (dog) was allowing itself to be wagged by the tail (Derby). Tail wagging the dog- if it takes time, it takes time- if Derby want to justify the higher valuation then they have to do so at the time, if it eats into the Window it's not really a concern for the EFL- far better to get the process correct, not that I'm convinced that they did, at the time than it still to be rolling on some time later due to a rushed or botched job.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also must add, that if this is broadly accurate it's not quite a Soft Embargo...

I assumed it was just no Transfer Fees, no Wages above £x.

@Hxj you might have an idea, is this more of a P&S related Embargo ie maybe to June 2021 or is it more related to other matters- or perhaps the Disciplinary Process itself.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Hxj you might have an idea, is this more of a P&S related Embargo ie maybe to June 2021 or is it more related to other matters- or perhaps the Disciplinary Process itself.

Sounds like a hard embargo to me, could be just as promised by the EFL for all clubs where the 2020 accounts and disclosure not agreed by the end of June.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

13 'senior' players, but 17 who were regulars in the matchday squad towards the end of last season - 2 of those were in at least 50% of the squads throughout the season. 18 when Davies signs a new deal. It's not too concerning at this point, with a month before the season starts.

 

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I also must add, that if this is broadly accurate it's not quite a Soft Embargo...

I assumed it was just no Transfer Fees, no Wages above £x.

@Hxj you might have an idea, is this more of a P&S related Embargo ie maybe to June 2021 or is it more related to other matters- or perhaps the Disciplinary Process itself.

This too sounds odd. First time anyone has suggested a soft embargo means you can't extend contracts. My guess would be him looking at the Marriott situation and concluded 2+2=5

No transfer/loan/agents fees were well known restrictions, so too was the wage cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way that was written only partially gives the story.

What that piece didn't mention- but many who read this thread often will of course know- is that the Restatement of the Accounts is due by August 18th. These will also have a knock on effect to 2019 and beyond- some improvements, some declines but they will have a knock on- perhaps even working back to 2017 though nobody has referenced it at all outside of thread speculation on here and the Derby forum but if you did work back, I suspect Derby with a reworked ie Straight Line method might fail as it predated the Stadium Sale- ie 3 years from 2014/15 to 2016/17 but reworked Accounts would certainly impact upon this period.

Kieran Maguire also unless again it's merely taking a bit of a snippet of headline grabbing info, that the EFL likely wouldn't accept a further proposed method that is neither Derby's or Straight Line, could see that ending in dispute...

...Same goes for suggestions that up to £30m could be added to the Pride Park sale- not a chance the EFL roll over and accept IMO. They have come this far, they are likely under some pressure from Clubs- indeed we know Clubs are or have been becoming more hawkish in the approach to Financial 'Crimes' how can they just step back and ease it down?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The way that was written only partially gives the story.

What that piece didn't mention- but many who read this thread often will of course know- is that the Restatement of the Accounts is due by August 18th. These will also have a knock on effect to 2019 and beyond- some improvements, some declines but they will have a knock on- perhaps even working back to 2017 though nobody has referenced it at all outside of thread speculation on here and the Derby forum but if you did work back, I suspect Derby with a reworked ie Straight Line method might fail as it predated the Stadium Sale- ie 3 years from 2014/15 to 2016/17 but reworked Accounts would certainly impact upon this period.

Kieran Maguire also unless again it's merely taking a bit of a snippet of headline grabbing info, that the EFL likely wouldn't accept a further proposed method that is neither Derby's or Straight Line, could see that ending in dispute...

...Same goes for suggestions that up to £30m could be added to the Pride Park sale- not a chance the EFL roll over and accept IMO. They have come this far, they are likely under some pressure from Clubs- indeed we know Clubs are or have been becoming more hawkish in the approach to Financial 'Crimes' how can they just step back and ease it down?

Have they put up a kitchen extension, loft conversion, built a car port and landscaped the garden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Have they put up a kitchen extension, loft conversion, built a car port and landscaped the garden?

Surely put up something alright...

Might not be the case that they are claiming an extra whack, more that the Book Value was lower- ie Sale Proceeds-Historicish Book Value=Profit or Loss on Disposal.

I just wonder how it translates in reality though, given that:

  1. It was included on the Balance Sheet by the time of the 'Sale' and Leaseback.
  2. When Transferred- we're going on Kieran Maguire's post last week- it went from Revaluation Reserve to Profit and Loss Reserves/Retained Earnings. However surely you cannot just cherry pick one aspect of that Retained Earnings/cumulative P&L- because even after and including that Reserves Transfer, it was around £44m in the Red- if they wish to suggest that they carry that whole one to Profit and Loss, be my guest. :) This was in 2017/18, and will have only deteriorated since then all things being equal...
  3. Accounting Policy at time of Sale was Sale Price-Carrying Value=Profit or Loss on Disposal- see Point One, the cumulative rise in that valuation post 2007 included it, hence the rise to £55m in those 2007/08 Accounts.
  4. Even if accepted for Accounting, would the EFL accept for FFP given that a) This appears to be something new introduced/being proposed long after those Audited Accounts were made up to and signed off. b) There is no Provision in the FFP Regs for such a Transaction to bolster the figures in this way. c) There is no Provision in the FFP Regs for Reserves Transfers.
  5. Nothing in Sevco 5112 Limited Accounts- the consolidated ones used for FFP in 2016/17 and 2017/18- about Revaluation Reserve, Club only- EFL would surely raise that issue.

There are definitely holes to pick in their proposal if it's as Kieran Maguire implies, therefore I'm quite hopeful that the EFL would be all over it well and truly.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPS, a few might be interested in this post.

I am sure it won't happen but Derby you might recall fielded a Youth Team or not far off at Chorley in the FA Cup in January due to Covid...

...Technically, one game could mean Professional Standing- a lot of those in that game have not played for Derby before or after! Wonder if the EFL could impose this restriction while the issues remain live.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already covered in a bit of depth on the FFP thread.

That last line is misleading anyway, it wasn't that the EFL chose not to dock Derby points for the prior season, it's that the Independent Panel didn't think it appropriate in this case.

The EFL chose not to appeal as their lawyers apparently told them they had little chance of success with that bit of the charge.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
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...