Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby Deserve Relegation; Are the Football League going to bungle this one too?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 07/06/2021 at 00:07, Redstart said:

I can't understand why Wycombe and their Lawyers aren't all over the EFL about this. A few points deduction for Derby sees them retain Championship football. On that basis they surely have the right to harass the EFL for a prompt decision. 

⬇️⬇️⬇️

On 07/06/2021 at 02:05, Hxj said:

I think that there are a few clarifications needed.

Firstly as regards other clubs and lawyers you won't see any court action.  Part of signing up to the EFL is that you agree to exclusively use Arbitration with no recourse to the courts.

Secondly it is not the EFL which punishes clubs, but the Independent Disciplinary Commission.  That has to meet, listen to the evidence and then agree on a punishment.  That punishment is the subject to appeal by either party. 

Thirdly the added complication in Derby's case is that two charges of breaches of the FFP rules were found proven, one (misleading) by default as Derby admitted it and the second (incorrect amortisation) by the League Appeal Panel.  But they were not charged with a breach of the loss limits as a result, as simply put the EFL didn't know. If Derby are now in a breach of the loss limits then they might needed to be charged again, and then the process starts again.

I doubt that there will be a final resolution until much later in the year.

The EFL certainly could have handled matters better and more effectively, but they did actually pin two proven charges on Derby against fierce resistance.

I'm not sure the delay is going to save Derby for anything more than one season.  It would appear that they are still under a transfer embargo, possibly a hard one by now.  That with a potential significant points deduction in the upcoming season is going to make their life very difficult. 

In spite of all that very useful info H the query by Redstart above still leaves the feeling that a team appears impotent and in a stranglehold due to ridiculous regulation; those regulations might be OK if the governing bodies were fit for purpose. Through silence from Wycombe, it appears they have been advised still not worth the fight. At least not now. In my opinion, that is just plain wrong not least because they may not come back up for some years.

As for Derby getting their just desserts down the track?.. that's all well and good for everybody else but it does nothing for the welfare of Wycombe.

I sincerely hope we see an immediate return for Wycombe and a single finger salute directed to Derby as they go in the opposite direction.

On 07/06/2021 at 11:49, Mr Popodopolous said:

@havanatopia

Catching up with the thread properly now. What's this about Morris and Parry in London? Intriguing development.

🤐

Edited by havanatopia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

I sincerely hope we see an immediate return for Wycombe and a single finger salute directed to Derby as they go in the opposite direction.

I have nothing to add to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hxj said:

Just to fill in the gaps.

In the Derby case both parties have the right to appeal any decision of the IDC to the LAP.  The LAP decision is final in all respects.

The problems with the LAP determining the sanction in respect of the 'amortisation' decision are three fold:

  1. Firstly the LAP had no power to impose a penalty in respect of the 'misleading' decision as the actual decision was not before it.  Derby admitted this and the IDC confirmed that decision and it was not under appeal.  So you could have two different panels imposing different penalties in different ways.
  2. A sanction decision by the LAP cannot be appealed.
  3. The 'elephant in the room' being that if the decision of LAP means that Derby fail FFP loss rules then that is the real offence.  In that case that sanction, being a potentially very significant points deduction will become the real sanction and the other two charges will become aggravating factors in arriving at that sanction.

1 &2 are really sensible reasons from a natural justice perspective and third simply reflects the reality of the position.

All in all painful - but they will get there.

This reads like the script from Line of Duty, over and out AC12.

Lets back to comparing notes about wine

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, where's the joy said:

This reads like the script from Line of Duty, over and out AC12.

Lets back to comparing notes about wine

There’s only one thing that “Ted” Popodopolous is interested in, and that’s finding bent football clubs!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:

Your points are debatable @AnotherDerbyFan

Before I start, I would state a position which is that contrary to what quite a few on your forum seem to think I'm not explicitly anti Derby- I have slated quite a few clubs for possible FFP related issues. That said I can't abide Mel Morris for obvious reasons- but anyway- I would also add though that a new owner shouldn't wipe the slate clean if any punishment occurs. by which I mean remove verbatim any punishment. Mitigate perhaps.

@Hxj has covered the bulk but a couple of things. Is it truly and utterly verifiable that Straight Line would see you compliant at all times? Reports suggested that you were trying to delay the process- nothing to hide, nothing to fear as they say- well it might be applicable here. How do you for sure that a restatement on the EFL's terms would not see any breaches over the last 6 seasons?

I've previously said we would have failed the 3 years to 2017 under the straight line method. The numbers do seem to indicate we would be between £1.6m and £3.6m within the limits for the following seasons though.

On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think that is a debatable assertion. I also saw a suggestion that any punishment under the new method for past Accounts if it changed from compliant to breach would be immoral- but would it be explicitly forbidden, that is a better question. I'm not altogether sure if I care about the morality aspect here if I'm honest.

Further, I have seen it stated a number of times- not least on your forum that because no advantage was gained that no punishment would be merited. That is a nice try, but no dice. Sheffield Wednesday arguably gained no advantage yet look at the Panel etc. A better example is Birmingham because they absolutely gained no advantage up the top end certainly and in their case the below formed part of their 2019 defence:

The difference is Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday both failed P&S, whereas all evidence points to Derby not. By overspending, BCFC and SWFC gained an unfair advantage. By staying within the limits, DCFC didn't.

On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:

Let's go back a bit. In Birmingham's case after years of turmoil followed by austerity they went a bit mad under Zola for half a season ie a January window and Redknapp in Summer 2018.

Two windows, in an overall period that covered 18 months from December 2016 to end of June 2018- restraint was shown in January 2018 or maybe the EFL had a word who knows. This formed part of their argument...no advantage gained so why punish?

Did not cut any ice. Was a nice try but Paragraphs 25-28 make it abundantly clear why it is flawed. A Summer 2018 Soft Embargo, which became a strict Embargo and a deduction of 9 points, an EFL Business Plan during which they had to ask EFL in terms of renewing existing and some young players even- think they had trouble renewing Captain Morrison eg and I remember references to young players and contractual issues. Indeed even follow up charges with respect to the 2018/19 season- indeed the EFL even appealed the Not Guilty- and rightly so. Because it gained them the right to impose an Absolute Obligation on a Club with respect to the numbers as opposed to Best Endeavors.

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

Yeah.... they failed P&S.

On 29/05/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:

I would also add, that just because the Club or indeed any Club says something- and even to an extent this applies to the EFL- doesn't make it entirely so. Both will look to paint their picture in a favourable light- thought Derby's statement was absolutely evidence of this, and so to a lesser extent was that of the EFL. On that note, what or who was the original source of the claim that no Points could be docked for this offence, only a fine- if it was from the Club I question the veracity- or indeed Club friendly journalists. Is there anything in writing from a truly independent and relevant source that states it can only be a fine at most?

Nothing official, but it's also hinted at in the charge. To paraphrase:
Charge 1 - related to a true value of the stadium would result in being over the limit and failing P&S
Charge 2 - the amortisation policy isn't compliant with FRS102

Pull up the official document(s) and take note of the actual wording. Rather than just being "non-compliant" it would have mentioned failing P&S if it was the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Nothing official, but it's also hinted at in the charge. To paraphrase:
Charge 1 - related to a true value of the stadium would result in being over the limit and failing P&S
Charge 2 - the amortisation policy isn't compliant with FRS102

Pull up the official document(s) and take note of the actual wording. Rather than just being "non-compliant" it would have mentioned failing P&S if it was the case.

Whilst all that is noted and understood you also need to take into account that was not until a week or so before the Independent Disciplinary Committee hearing that Derby County finally made the EFL aware of the actual amortisation method used. 

Taking that as a fact (it is mentioned in the IDC decision) then the absence of a P&S failure in exceeding the loss limits is not at all surprising.  They simply didn't know. 

Looking at it another way, it is for the EFL to prove their case.  If they cannot cover the basics on that any charge would have to fail. 

Better to wait and see what the actual outcome is.

As I have asked before.  If Derby have not breached the P&S loss limits why don't they simply come out and say so?

It would have been quite easy to add a sentence of meaning to the otherwise absurd press release that did come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I've previously said we would have failed the 3 years to 2017 under the straight line method. The numbers do seem to indicate we would be between £1.6m and £3.6m within the limits for the following seasons though.

The difference is Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday both failed P&S, whereas all evidence points to Derby not. By overspending, BCFC and SWFC gained an unfair advantage. By staying within the limits, DCFC didn't.

Yeah.... they failed P&S.

Nothing official, but it's also hinted at in the charge. To paraphrase:
Charge 1 - related to a true value of the stadium would result in being over the limit and failing P&S
Charge 2 - the amortisation policy isn't compliant with FRS102

Pull up the official document(s) and take note of the actual wording. Rather than just being "non-compliant" it would have mentioned failing P&S if it was the case.

If reworked numbers under the new method show a fail to 2017...that'll be interesting. Happy to go back again and try and work the figures, from the figures that you yourself provided combined with the figures in the Written Reasons- think it hinged on the difference between Ince profit under straight line with contract Renewal and the Derby way as to pass or fail, as that might swing upwards too if figures restated. Still if nothing to hide, then you're only dragging it out for yourselves with respect to an Embargo and limitations- the Club should get/have got those numbers submitted straight line at speed and prospects might improve.

I think it's a grey area- there are your figures but also the mooted £30m swing in Amortisation which has been quoted in a few places, what accounts for the difference I'm unsure- possibly taking the total additions and dividing it by average contract length in the case of Kieran Maguire? Your calculations clearly go into depth and drill down.

Yeah, the charge might hint at it but I remember reading it in posts from as far back as last Autumn on social media and the like. Almost as if there had been some official claim/forecast but perhaps not.

Sort of cutting across both of the last points here, but by its very definition, non compliance with FRS 102 could be construed as a breach of P&S. Feels like a technical breach, and maybe more.

Snippet from people who I believe will know, the summary states:

Quote

On 7 May 2021, the League Arbitration Panel (Charles Hollander QC, Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson and David Phillips QC) overturned the decision of the Disciplinary Commission as regards the second element of the charge, finding that the “cost model” employed by Derby did not permit amortisation to take into account possible resale values of players and Derby’s policy was accordingly contrary to FRS 102 for that further reason. The LAP dismissed the EFL’s appeal as regards the other two elements of the charge.

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/efl-v-derby-county/

Like I say if a restated set of Accounts and reassessment show you just within limits to 2018, why the delay. The delay only drags from an Embargo POV- the EFL need minimal criteria for Embargoes or use of Regulation 16.20. It seems to be a bit of a holding pattern when in doubt anyway, the Soft Embargo.

In short, the Soft Embargo is a useful tool because it prevents Clubs from splashing out if say prior Accounts show just within, but Accounts submitted for season just gone- see submissions not long after Reporting Period for Birmingham and others- say there is a gap between the two, a Club might look to buy players for fees, for good money if theoretically free to do so before Accounts show them in breach or at least needing special measures ie a Birmingham type Business Plan.

Soft Embargo, in conjunction with EFL Regulation 16.20 is an excellent tool to prevent this. It's not always used well however- see Summer 2019, and Reading. They were released from it due to a late transaction and then signed Joao and Puscas!? Unsure their losses and underlying losses looking both past, present and at the future were of a level to merit it! The FFI and future monitoring aspect of it failed there.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a general note, to @AnAstonVillafan

What I would say is that, the EFL at that time are somewhat to blame for the current controversies. IMO they should not have given relatively cushy terms to clubs either in or heading for breach, if agreed the terms should have been more stringent not just with the existing season but with the Future Financial Information in mind- they are entitled to do this through Projections for T+1 and T+2. If done correctly, this system could work like clockwork.

It is either that the EFL agreed but with too lenient terms or the clubs welched on or partially welched on any agreements that they may have had.

I've an open mind but we can't rule out the last bit IMO.

Looking at what the EFL are entitled to do though, as set against reading the Written Reasons, I cannot help but think that they were content to scramble over the line into passes or probable passes for either the season just gone or the season upcoming and disregarding or not taking sufficient account of the T+1 and T+2 side of the equation.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On a general note, to @AnAstonVillafan

What I would say is that, the EFL at that time are somewhat to blame for the current controversies. IMO they should not have given relatively cushy terms to clubs either in or heading for breach, if agreed the terms should have been more stringent not just with the existing season but with the Future Financial Information in mind- they are entitled to do this through Projections for T+1 and T+2. If done correctly, this system could work like clockwork.

It is either that the EFL agreed but with too lenient terms or the clubs welched on or partially welched on any agreements that they may have had.

I've an open mind but we can't rule out the last bit IMO.

Looking at what the EFL are entitled to do though, as set against reading the Written Reasons, I cannot help but think that they were content to scramble over the line into passes or probable passes for either the season just gone or the season upcoming and disregarding or not taking sufficient account of the T+1 and T+2 side of the equation.

I'm sure Derby will get whats coming to them. The club is in a downward spiral anyhow with one owner who does not want to be there and no one coming to the rescue.  The EFL will get them sooner or later, if they are proven to be guilty.

And yes The EFL are mostly to blame. The regs have loopholes and they seem slow to react. I believe currently they are more geared towards saving clubs rather than compliance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I've previously said we would have failed the 3 years to 2017 under the straight line method. The numbers do seem to indicate we would be between £1.6m and £3.6m within the limits for the following seasons though.

The difference is Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday both failed P&S, whereas all evidence points to Derby not. By overspending, BCFC and SWFC gained an unfair advantage. By staying within the limits, DCFC didn't.

Yeah.... they failed P&S.

Nothing official, but it's also hinted at in the charge. To paraphrase:
Charge 1 - related to a true value of the stadium would result in being over the limit and failing P&S
Charge 2 - the amortisation policy isn't compliant with FRS102

Pull up the official document(s) and take note of the actual wording. Rather than just being "non-compliant" it would have mentioned failing P&S if it was the case.

Ok, so sorting the wheat from the chaff. Are you basically saying the Derby County are innocent or not? Are you saying that the club should not face any sanction of any kind?

When I look at sorting the wheat from the chaff i.e. stripping away all the flannel then the club should face sanctions at least similar to Sheffield Wednesday and Birmingham City. 

My guess is though that due to the amount of smoke and mirrors deployed during this horrible mucky affair that the club will escape sanctions. Then it will be another nail in the coffin of the integrity (if any still exists) of the EFL and football in general. No deterrent means that murky Mel and people / clubs like him will continue to at best bend the rules and at worst show contempt and blatant disregard for the rules.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I'm sure Derby will get whats coming to them. The club is in a downward spiral anyhow with one owner who does not want to be there and no one coming to the rescue.  The EFL will get them sooner or later, if they are proven to be guilty.

And yes The EFL are mostly to blame. The regs have loopholes and they seem slow to react. I believe currently they are more geared towards saving clubs rather than compliance.

I think your last sentence hits the mark. In fact Shaun Harvey pretty much said so iirc. I suspect he at best turned a blind eye and at worst encouraged clubs to find a way around the rules, hence the fashion for "selling" stadiums.

It's going to be hard for the EFL to recover the position, assuming they have the will to do so in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I'm sure Derby will get whats coming to them. The club is in a downward spiral anyhow with one owner who does not want to be there and no one coming to the rescue.  The EFL will get them sooner or later, if they are proven to be guilty.

And yes The EFL are mostly to blame. The regs have loopholes and they seem slow to react. I believe currently they are more geared towards saving clubs rather than compliance.

I certainly hope so about Derby. They seem to have winged it for too long.

I mean, it's an interesting one. The loopholes aren't exactly plentiful but there are some and they are quite useful loopholes- the Fixed Asset one a prime example. However the EFL have a right under use of Future Financial Info etc to set more stringent conditions if said loopholes used IMO. It is worth noting that Derby and especially Sheffield Wednesday didn't unilaterally sell ground first then tell EFL, they certainly both approached the EFL first. Of course, UEFA exclude Profit on Disposal of Stadiums and possibly Training Grounds too.

Future Financial Information if applied correctly means that the EFL can project not only the recent past, the present but into the future within the P&S period. I'll take Aston Villa as an example.

By common consensus, the P&S losses in 2016/17 and 2017/18 were £3m and £21m respectively. Therefore there would be a cap of £15m for 2018/19 in order to remain compliant and this was technically adhered to after Loophole 1 and the good fortune of the HS2 compensation. That is T-2 (2016/17) and T-1 (2017/18), the existing season would be T.

However the use of the Future Financial Information in respect of monitoring and compliance, and you can say it for a lot of Clubs tbh, but for this specific example would mean the EFL taking the Projected Loss for 2018/19 and 2017/18 and saying "This will be £x- therefore with £21m in 2017/18 and £x in 2018/19, it needs to be £y in 2019/20". By my calcs, had promotion been missed there would have been- just to stand still- a P&S hole to fill of something between £60-75m upcoming in 2019/20. These regulations enable the EFL to look a year, let alone 2 years ahead and say "how do you propose to remain compliant not only this season but the next year, or even 2- how do you keep that cycle compliant". They singularly failed to do this in Summer 2018, with one exception- which is Birmingham City!

What should be happening is that the EFL should be limiting to some extent, expenditure in the present in order to make sure that the hole a year, perhaps 2 years down the line isn't at ridiculous levels. That's an important aspect of ongoing monitoring!

Slow to react? Not in Birmingham's case, Accounts ran until June 30th, charge came through 2nd or 3rd August! Sheffield Wednesday however, there was a great faffing about due to- well God knows why, but once the Stadium had verifiably not been sold by the end of July 2018, it should have proceeded within a few weeks onto charges there and then. With accompanying restrictions and the like.

Certainly might have been the case in Summer 2018, especially with your situation- have to wonder if that was a factor in respect of giving new owners some grace as a result. Shaun Harvey was very proud of his record of no clubs going into administration during his time at the EFL, before things came crashing down in his final season! Allowing Messrs Dale and Anderson to take over, and possibly turning a bit of a blind eye to wage issues at Macclesfield possibly helped to produce this artificial result, just 3 examples!

However it's hard to say where things are at now...there are a compliant majority of clubs and there will expect appropriate actions to be taken against those who are not.

Reading for a start look highly likely to be over, Stoke maybe or failing that, suitable for soft sanctions, Blackburn maybe suitable for soft sanctions.

Oh yeah. EFL should have shut that loophole 2 years ago. Better still had it not been opened up in the first place!

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

22 hours ago, Hxj said:

Whilst all that is noted and understood you also need to take into account that was not until a week or so before the Independent Disciplinary Committee hearing that Derby County finally made the EFL aware of the actual amortisation method used. 

Taking that as a fact (it is mentioned in the IDC decision) then the absence of a P&S failure in exceeding the loss limits is not at all surprising.  They simply didn't know. 

Looking at it another way, it is for the EFL to prove their case.  If they cannot cover the basics on that any charge would have to fail. 

Better to wait and see what the actual outcome is.

As I have asked before.  If Derby have not breached the P&S loss limits why don't they simply come out and say so?

It would have been quite easy to add a sentence of meaning to the otherwise absurd press release that did come out.

You mean like this club statement?

"even if the EFL succeeded, would have only lef to the Club re-submitting its P&S calculations".

Except, you've already stated you don't trust a word the club say...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If reworked numbers under the new method show a fail to 2017...that'll be interesting. Happy to go back again and try and work the figures, from the figures that you yourself provided combined with the figures in the Written Reasons- think it hinged on the difference between Ince profit under straight line with contract Renewal and the Derby way as to pass or fail, as that might swing upwards too if figures restated. Still if nothing to hide, then you're only dragging it out for yourselves with respect to an Embargo and limitations- the Club should get/have got those numbers submitted straight line at speed and prospects might improve.

I recall a £16m profit on the sales of Hendrick, Hughes and Ince - so we're looking at about £3m profit under the 'Derby Method', whereas it would have been more like £5m under the standard method.

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think it's a grey area- there are your figures but also the mooted £30m swing in Amortisation which has been quoted in a few places, what accounts for the difference I'm unsure- possibly taking the total additions and dividing it by average contract length in the case of Kieran Maguire? Your calculations clearly go into depth and drill down.

KM's figures seemingly included all potential add-ons - promotion bonuses, appearance bonuses, etc... A massive chunk of that would have been promotion bonuses, but some appearances based. it's no secret we stopped playing Thorne and Anya becuase of those high appearance based add-ons (£25k per game for Thorne)

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah, the charge might hint at it but I remember reading it in posts from as far back as last Autumn on social media and the like. Almost as if there had been some official claim/forecast but perhaps not.

Sort of cutting across both of the last points here, but by its very definition, non compliance with FRS 102 could be construed as a breach of P&S. Feels like a technical breach, and maybe more.

Snippet from people who I believe will know, the summary states:

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/efl-v-derby-county/

Very true, and I cannot deny breaching P&S regulations, but the punishment has to fit the crime. I'm just struggling to see how a points deduction can be justified if the recalculated figures show we're withing P&S limits. A fine seems the most logical punishment. i'm sure if someone delved into the records for accounting malpractice in football you'd only see punishments of fines and/or bans from football related activities.

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Like I say if a restated set of Accounts and reassessment show you just within limits to 2018, why the delay. The delay only drags from an Embargo POV- the EFL need minimal criteria for Embargoes or use of Regulation 16.20. It seems to be a bit of a holding pattern when in doubt anyway, the Soft Embargo.

In short, the Soft Embargo is a useful tool because it prevents Clubs from splashing out if say prior Accounts show just within, but Accounts submitted for season just gone- see submissions not long after Reporting Period for Birmingham and others- say there is a gap between the two, a Club might look to buy players for fees, for good money if theoretically free to do so before Accounts show them in breach or at least needing special measures ie a Birmingham type Business Plan.

Soft Embargo, in conjunction with EFL Regulation 16.20 is an excellent tool to prevent this. It's not always used well however- see Summer 2019, and Reading. They were released from it due to a late transaction and then signed Joao and Puscas!? Unsure their losses and underlying losses looking both past, present and at the future were of a level to merit it! The FFI and future monitoring aspect of it failed there.

 

21 hours ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I'm sure Derby will get whats coming to them. The club is in a downward spiral anyhow with one owner who does not want to be there and no one coming to the rescue.  The EFL will get them sooner or later, if they are proven to be guilty.

And yes The EFL are mostly to blame. The regs have loopholes and they seem slow to react. I believe currently they are more geared towards saving clubs rather than compliance.

So very little will be coming to us then. Thanks for that.

 

20 hours ago, supercidered said:

Ok, so sorting the wheat from the chaff. Are you basically saying the Derby County are innocent or not? Are you saying that the club should not face any sanction of any kind?

The DC and LAP both concluded we were guilty to differing degrees - I'm not arguing we're innocent.

20 hours ago, supercidered said:

When I look at sorting the wheat from the chaff i.e. stripping away all the flannel then the club should face sanctions at least similar to Sheffield Wednesday and Birmingham City. 

But those two clubs were found guilty of exceeding allowable spend limits whereas we weren't. Different cases required different punishments

20 hours ago, supercidered said:

My guess is though that due to the amount of smoke and mirrors deployed during this horrible mucky affair that the club will escape sanctions. Then it will be another nail in the coffin of the integrity (if any still exists) of the EFL and football in general. No deterrent means that murky Mel and people / clubs like him will continue to at best bend the rules and at worst show contempt and blatant disregard for the rules.

Okay... 

 

19 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh yeah. EFL should have shut that loophole 2 years ago. Better still had it not been opened up in the first place!

I'm very surprised that haven't yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

You mean like this club statement?

"even if the EFL succeeded, would have only lef to the Club re-submitting its P&S calculations".

Except, you've already stated you don't trust a word the club say...

I am happy to put on record that I believe every word of what the club are saying in their press releases in respect of the disciplinary action.  I just think that they are misleading, open to interpretation and very, very well crafted.

I completely agree with the club that in the strictest and narrowest possible sense (and ignoring any penalty for non-compliance) the only possible outcome of the EFL winning the appeal is that Derby will have to resubmit the relevant P&S computations.  That is obvious.

What is completely missing is the next step.  What happens when those P&S computations are resubmitted?

I have always fully accepted that you might be right, but if I was a Derby Fan I would be concerned that the club have not stated that they meet the P&S loss rules for all years.  It's a simple sentence to add to the press releases, and quick to craft.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/06/2021 at 11:30, supercidered said:

Ok, so sorting the wheat from the chaff. Are you basically saying the Derby County are innocent or not? Are you saying that the club should not face any sanction of any kind?

When I look at sorting the wheat from the chaff i.e. stripping away all the flannel then the club should face sanctions at least similar to Sheffield Wednesday and Birmingham City. 

My guess is though that due to the amount of smoke and mirrors deployed during this horrible mucky affair that the club will escape sanctions. Then it will be another nail in the coffin of the integrity (if any still exists) of the EFL and football in general. No deterrent means that murky Mel and people / clubs like him will continue to at best bend the rules and at worst show contempt and blatant disregard for the rules.

 

 

I am trying to remember the last club to get away scott free? I am certain every single compliant club will want sanction and rightly so and they will get it. Because if they don't the FL have effectively delivered themselves a P45. The vast majority of clubs will vote to abolish, ignore, call it what you want, the entire Football League governing body and start a new one. And when they do that they should of course revert to its right and proper name THE Football League; none of this self belittling EFL bullshit.

FIFA members failed to walk away and start afresh but I think 72 English clubs will act differently and decisively. Derby will be invited to join but they will need to take their medicine. If they don't they don't join.. no need for an appeal system you just withdraw their membership invitation.

This nuclear option should be proffered to the current 'governing' body charlies ; it should wake them up. if not, ta ta.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL- or should that be Football League- Disciplinary Commission can move relatively quickly at times then.

Of course one and maybe both sides might end up appealing but this can be expedited too I believe. I applaud it cautiously.

If only this relatively sped up pace was the norm, better yet with respect to the Projected Results for Year 3 in March. Takes a fortnight maybe to assess the P&S position, maybe 3 weeks.

One way to speed up the process might be referral in mid March if in excess of limits straight to a Sanctioning Hearing? Then appeal can be heard, 2 months?

No Stadium or Training Ground loophole but ducks in a row by March 1st 2021. Non submission in or close to the deadline should incur an automatic deduction, 6 pts perhaps? That would be automatic like administration.

Transfers in the Summer might be viable, but only if already lined up, maybe a paper trail.

Those are just some ideas for reform, for how to streamline the process moving forward.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, havanatopia said:

I think threads like this help. Well, you never know do you.

You never know! In a similar vein, I have to wonder if my FFP thread which I started I'm 2019 attracted both strong views by fans on here and seemingly fans of rival clubs defending their position got noticed.

 

1 hour ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

With the fixtures out a week Thursday it pretty much has to be next week.

The EFL AGM is in the near future, wonder if the reports of punishment and this might be linked.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hxj said:

And the other interesting piece is the lack of a retained list from Derby

Imagine all those players Mel said would never reach a value of zero and therefore his accounting policies were fine?  Quack, quack oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

With the fixtures out a week Thursday it pretty much has to be next week.

Or maybe it's just in one announcement, something like this; "And in Derby's first fixture we see them travel to Whaddon Road for a mouth watering tie with newly promoted Cheltenham Town"

Oh sweet water. I can taste it.

Wooney flapping his arms as he tries in vein to recover a 2 goal deficit with 2 to play. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Or maybe it's just in one announcement, something like this; "And in Derby's first fixture we see them travel to Whaddon Road for a mouth watering tie with newly promoted Cheltenham Town"

Oh sweet water. I can taste it.

Wooney flapping his arms as he tries in vein to recover a 2 goal deficit with 2 to play. 

Things you love to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...