Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Hxj said:

They can't.  They would have to decide on the validity, which could depend upon the EFL DC.

The point I think is more in the PR and the time delay and hassle it could cause, clearly a football creditor of £6 million has a significant impact on the propsals and amounts needed to buy the club. 

I wonder if there is a scenario whereby the EFL have to pay Wycombe £6m and then the EFL pursue Derby to make good that same amount.

Yet another EFL Tribunal eh? Said it before but their fans on the usual platforms aren't worried, are dismissive etc.

Football Creditor seems an interesting strategy certainly.

[Hxj]

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Football Creditor seems an interesting strategy certainly.

It's a delay play only. 

64 days and counting down to the start of the January Transfer, 95 days to the end. Currently to be able to sign players in that window DCFC will need to clear all five of the Embargo actions and agree a business plan with the EFL, any single point which drags on will reduce the time for transfers and therefore the value of the club and teh chances of a successful takeover.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Reading the Derby forum, a few observations.

1) Some of them think I hate them. Untrue, I just have a strong sense of ethics. Therefore that they get dealt with in the correct manner is quite important.

2) Taunting from the away end is part and parcel :laugh:. There is plenty of material as it stands.

3) If the stadium goes back to club ownership significantly under £81m, the EFL can indirectly take strong action. I suggest part/Section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test, a stringent EFL Business Plan feels legitimate. Separation of stadium company and club as part of it, why not.

4) What sort of business plan would you as fans find acceptable.

If your forum had much of a clue about free speech these points would be debated more broadly. Or you would allow those on who would put such a view.

You cannot just bypass the EFL, they can make things very difficult for a new owner if they feel certain loopholes have been sought. If I had a say I'd be imposing the most stringent requirements possible for a time.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Happy to respond to a constructive post by a poster on there. I can't join btw, not allowed. Possibly not a surprise given some of my past rants...emotive or similar but also biting back as I do bite back when I get unwarranted flak as most people would.

Quote

Well one thing we now know pop is reading our posts, not an issue I have read theirs. 

Suppose for both parties the worse thing about being quoted or not spoken about might be not being quoted or spoken about.

Quote

so pop, agree with you if PP is sold back at a discount, as Anne Widicombe would say it has something of the night about it. Still unsure  If the EFL have any power. Anyway this sis all conjecture at the moment.

It would be an interesting test case IMO. Not sure the EFL would appreciate it to say the least and a new owner getting off to a bad start with the EFL couldn't be positive- although I wonder if they could separate out the two bits as part of the business plan.

Quote

yes we do want a sustainable business plan where we keep within FFfP limits 

Yep, spend up to remaining headroom once all outstanding issues sorted- talking about Jan, seems fair to me. There's a lot to sort though and I'm not even talking about the ground here.

Quote

Pop all we want is to be treated like others FFP ( we only had one high spending year) the rest we financed by sales. How can people talk about Reading getting a smaller  Deduction than us when they overspent by tens of millions, we didn’t 

You'll find no arguments from me on Reading- I was criticising Reading a year and a half ago! Plus Stoke I have to question how the hell they justify that £30m Impairment, hopefully the EFL are scrutinising each and every penny of that. Reading, the thing there is that as with all clubs the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 results are added and halved. On the 3 years to 2019/20 in isolation, absolutely but we don't know how the 2020/21 might look but I thought they should be nailed for a 9 pts, although some reports said 6 and a further 3 suspended- reports suggested that Reading owning up and cooperating has helped.

A difference between Derby and Reading is that the Derby 9 with 3 more suspended is deemed to be a final settlement or proposed as such- whereas the Reading one could just be a first instalment, I saw that as well as a deduction, renewal of players on existing terms could prove difficult and they could face a further deduction in the next year or 2. If they get a deduction and sell Swift in Jan say, they could slide into real issues on the pitch? Saw a stat other day, he has chipped in with goals or assists about 2/3 of the clubs League goals or 60%, something..out of contract in the summer! Think Blackburn and renewal might pose an issue with quite a few key assets although selling Armstrong has surely helped them to ease things.

A troubling thing about Reading too? Rahman and Drinkwater loans, covered minimum 90% by Chelsea! Ridiculous! Their individual wage cap=£8.5k per week x 6 players, those 2 combined wages £170k so...no loan fees payable. Also suggest that for that wage level, Dann and Halilovic look suspiciously good players albeit signed on frees.

Quote

we are trying to bypass anything but I  would not blame a new owner for trying to get a points  Deduction 

Do you mean removed or reduced? Suppose a new owner might try but given that the burden of failure with these issues lies with the club and not the owner, there is an an attempt at bypassing arguably- not now so much but the delays of accounts to the EFL, the alleged procedural defences in May 2021, to sell as a Championship club was possible.

Quote

why don’t you come on this site and debate it

Would if I could!

Edited October 28, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Nuno Gomes]

46 minutes ago, Lucan said:

I find the size of this thread concerning.  Can someone summarise where we are so worked up over Derby County?

 

Lets just focus on our own team

Well done. I thought I might be the only one think 40+ pages OTT. I don’t deny Derby’s failings but maybe we should spend more of our time on BCFC?

[Mr Popodopolous]

I see the points being raised but in defence of the issues and indeed the thread- although the thread has really grown!

Precedents

IF Derby get off lightly, despite a myriad of failings and misconduct type accusations/charges, it penalises clubs such as ours.

The Big Club rule

The EFL failed with Aston Villa in 2018, yes they were saved as a club solvency wise but I think they needed to do more on the FFP and financial monitoring side post takeover- they did not. Is it because Aston Villa are a big club? Derby are also a fairly big club although not of the level of Aston Villa- it is incumbent upon the integrity of the game that the EFL treat them in a fair manner- there are actually Derby threads on many fans forums given their travails/actions.

Holding the feet to the fire

Don't suppose posts on forums actually do anything, but our club are strongly in favour of FFP and regulation- Steve Lansdown himself even Tweeted in 2019 after a win at Derby 'That felt good'- some believe that this was an indirect reference to FFP. Again what influence if any fans forums can have is debatable, but it can be a barometer- and I think a fair barometer of views is that Derby have cheated the regulations, attempted to cheat, delay, stall and this thread is reflective of the views. If the EFL continue to treat Derby in a firm but fair manner, then this should set a positive precedent.

Clubs don't exist in a vacuum

This overlaps with prior points, but no club exists in a vacuum- indeed the EFL is the clubs in a sense. The actions or treatment of one club can have a significant impact upon how things play out for others. In short, equality of treatment of all at this level is quite important.

Just on a side note, the spending is one thing, the attempts to cover up or make the numbers fit the £39m loss limit another still but quite another is the reaction of a lot of their fans. Read Twitter etc if you don't believe me. More than being irked, I just don't understand how they can consider themselves to be victims of the EFL, rival clubs or whoever. What did they suppose might happen if they used loopholes and pushed loopholes for many years- viewed Mel Morris as some kind of accounting mastermind- and crucially did not get up- they knew full well what was going on within reason, see the "EFL on strings" and so on. Now they are getting some proper regulation- and this is good because if the EFL regulate Derby heavily, they have to regulate everyone heavily.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Lucan said:

I find the size of this thread concerning.  Can someone summarise where we are so worked up over Derby County?

We are not are you?

1 hour ago, Nuno Gomes said:

we should spend more of our time on BCFC?

Why? FFP is something which impacts on every club.

Oh and no one is suggesting that you read any of it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On the lighter side, dunno if anyone has posted it already but Derby's prospective new owner everyone!

He appears to have deleted quite a lot of Tweets from his past as well, at least according to what I saw on other forums.

[chinapig]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On the lighter side, dunno if anyone has posted it already but Derby's prospective new owner everyone!

He appears to have deleted quite a lot of Tweets from his past as well, at least according to what I saw on other forums.

Looks like providing proof of funds might be an issue then. I don't expect him to do that on Twitter of course but if I was a Derby fan I wouldn't get too excited yet.

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Looks like providing proof of funds might be an issue then. I don't expect him to do that on Twitter of course but if I was a Derby fan I wouldn't get too excited yet.

How many times do we hear “so and so” is interested, or heading up a consortium and it goes nowhere?  Far too often.  Sometimes I’m sure it’s just to get a peak at the books.

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

How many times do we hear “so and so” is interested, or heading up a consortium and it goes nowhere?  Far too often.  Sometimes I’m sure it’s just to get a peak at the books.

Exactly. Going public with your alleged interest may also lead to many fans jumping on the bandwagon without checking whether you have the money you claim to have.

There was a fanbase of a certain club who thought their owner's wealth made them the 6th richest club in the country for instance.

[Lanterne Rouge]

11 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Exactly. Going public with your alleged interest may also lead to many fans jumping on the bandwagon without checking whether you have the money you claim to have.

There was a fanbase of a certain club who thought their owner's wealth made them the 6th richest club in the country for instance.

They are though, they`ve just chosen to spend it wisely and not waste it. Just wait till Wally decides to really go for it - we`ll be eating their dust.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting start to his potential tenure certainly, the Tweet.

That said, he claims that he has shown £100m in liquidity or somesuch. Rooney meanwhile is already talking of strengthening in January and extending player contracts??

Surely that largely won't be feasible until all issues with the EFL resolved. Would professional standing rules still be in play while issues unresolved?

If so, then by my calculations Derby will have depending on fitness 24 or 25 by January, Jagielka and Baldock expire in January.

You're allowed 23 of professional standing while issues persist, so bye bye to at least one of them maybe. One in, one out thereafter within wage and contractual restraints.

*Professional Standing=1 match or sub appearance at the relevant levels, but not JPT. Full explanations on Embargo Reporting Service.

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting start to his potential tenure certainly, the Tweet.

That said, he claims that he has shown £100m in liquidity or somesuch. Rooney meanwhile is already talking of strengthening in January and extending player contracts??

Surely that largely won't be feasible until all issues with the EFL resolved. Would professional standing rules still be in play while issues unresolved?

If so, then by my calculations Derby will have depending on fitness 24 or 25 by January, Jagielka and Baldock expire in January.

You're allowed 23 of professional standing while issues persist, so bye bye to at least one of them maybe. One in, one out thereafter within wage and contractual restraints.

*Professional Standing=1 match or sub appearance at the relevant levels, but not JPT. Full explanations on Embargo Reporting Service.

I suspect Wayne doesn’t really understand it all.  Running before he can walk I’d suggest.

[Mr Popodopolous]

46 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I suspect Wayne doesn’t really understand it all.  Running before he can walk I’d suggest.

Perhaps he's been given assurances, but then there is nothing to stop them moving to the softer embargo once:

1) All accounts submitted to EFL.

2) Outstanding accounts submitted to CH.

3) Profit and Sustainability submissions properly and fully with the EFL.

4) HMRC issue/payment schedule finalised.

Plus keeping up with transfer instalments as they fall due etc, but even the softer embargo/business plan should be tied to outstanding FFP/P&S headroom.

Think Arsenal kindly deferred a payment for Bielik and a big payment for Jozwiak to a Polish club is due in 2022.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Perhaps he's been given assurances, but then there is nothing to stop them moving to the softer embargo once:

1) All accounts submitted to EFL.

2) Outstanding accounts submitted to CH.

3) Profit and Sustainability submissions properly and fully with the EFL.

4) HMRC issue/payment schedule finalised.

Plus keeping up with transfer instalments as they fall due etc, but even the softer embargo/business plan should be tied to outstanding FFP/P&S headroom.

Think Arsenal kindly deferred a payment for Bielik and a big payment for Jozwiak to a Polish club is due in 2022.

I doubt he can really be given any assurances at this point….but if it makes him feel better thinking it’ll be ok, then let him carry on.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Read that the hearing is 2nd week of November.

Given a) The seven day deadline attached to the appeal from date of notice and b) The 3-4 weeks from date of notice of Points deduction, it's a deadline that is set in stone..

Are we therefore sure that Derby met the seven day deadline? Seems open to question IMO.

If Derby did not meet all requirements within seven days then I don't see why it isn't timebarred. Wigan's appeal an rejected appeal fit the time frame perfectly.

Procedural irregularities or failings at least? The written reasons should reveal all but if there is one much as a single relevant document that was put in on Day 8, it should fail on those grounds alone.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit. Wrong kinda law probably.

https://www.ukpandi.com/news-and-resources/articles/2017/england-and-wales---time-bars/

Well the EFL need not play by Queensbury rules that's for sure.

Win at all costs seems eminently fair given Derby's prolonged conduct.

In fact, I rather think that some of the new EFL regs were created at least in part with Derby in mind.

1) Beefed up owners and directors Test. Derby were linked with BZI last year. It arose in mid Oct 2020 this amendment.

2) Unable to bank profits on disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets for FFP. Derby may well have gone for this again under new owners.

3) The publicising of the Embargo Reporting Service. Derby have 5 charges on there, wonder how they voted?? Plus how they voted on Point 2.

4) The Professional Standing Regulation and the other Embargo related one that Reading fall under. Did this arise prior to Summer 2021? Wonder how Derby votes.

Anyway they reap what they sow, their actions have been responded to in a highly effective manner potentially enabled by Club votes.

Clearly they do and will apply to all clubs but I wonder if sorting Derby out was a factor in some of these.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a little further think having read some posts on the Derby forum and revised my position slightly.

Can the EFL interfere directly in a returning of the stadium to club ownership? Not as such IMO, in short no.

Other Complications

Potentially MSD and HMRC but that's not a concern of the EFL is it.

However I stand by a view that it can become rather difficult for the club and new ownership moving forward if done without the EFL's knowledge, consent or say so- if they try and bypass the EFL in this regard, then though they can't decide upon the valuation, there are quite a few sticking points that can arise.

Valuation

Probably the least of them in some ways, but £81m to a substantially reduced amount even with Covid will not go unchecked at all by the EFL. Mel defended the valuation, not only in general but in the Hearing, went onto Talksport to discuss the issues about an undervalue transaction and it states in the accounts of Gellaw Newco 202 that it is fair value or a form of fair value.

The question about new Investigations or Hearings

I would suggest that this isn't so unlikely as Derby fans state, because of a mixture of the EFL regulations and the conditions under which the original transaction was approved- or some of them at least. Certainly there is nothing to prevent them from launching a new inquiry that I can see within their regulations- regulations that all clubs including Derby sign up to.

The relevant conditions when it came to the 2018 approval

Paragraphs 73-75 of the original Hearing that was published in August 2020

Note Paragraph 75 in particular- "Company outside of the Football Group" and "purchasing Company is deemed to be a separate operation to the Club Group".

The EFL will be expecting either in cash or at least in paper terms, a Fair Market Value rent to be paid on Pride Park as a result of this- you cannot reverse one without the other in FFP terms after a few short years. Cake and eat it...? Nah!

I would be insistent as the EFL for a new owner that the conditions in Paragraph 75 remain upheld- I don't see how you can simply reverse this after 3-4 years without the whole transaction and approval coming back into question. The EFL need to take a zero tolerance approach on this tbh.

In fact though less blatant, the bit in Paragraph 74 seems quite important too- 'ultimate approach' determined by the precise nature of any transaction that the Club undertook'. Plus if reconsolidated, suddenly P&S Rule 1.1.9 comes back into play.

Also see questions over the rent- are they yet fully resolved? Worth revisiting if not...

See 100 days for football activities=£1m per year.

Plus see the £4.16m per year market rent- seems a reasonable yield, around 5%.

Quote

"without there being any restriction on the number of days for which the Club would have access to Pride Park for football purposes".

A total different deal to what the EFL signed off on, in that respect.

Independent Valuers themselved still stood by their Fair Market Rent.

Club put their case on the rent...

...Unsure how one can say it's been totally resolved. 

 

"The result is based on the new stadium not operating a material part of the group's operations and therefore not being consolidated into the P&S results".

To return it to club ownership 3-4 years on would do just that!! I think he might mean 'new stadium company' though. Certainly to be compliant with P&S the stadium must be separate to the football group and the EFL cannot let that bit go.

EFL also need still on the rent bit, to go for the sensitivity of the rent bit. Para 106 b)

Burden of compliance and punishment

As with all clubs and FFP, it remains with the CLUB not the Owner and rightly so- therefore new Owner or not, it's another problem to be resolved. I suggest the EFL stand firm on a) The non consolidation issue and b) The rent sensitivity and push hard on each. Or impose significant restrictions as part of the new owner's business plan or propose a settlement agreement ie a meaningful punishment in lieu of waiving it.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/202021/general-news-images/efl-v-derby-county--decision.pdf

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Can the EFL reopen matters for the purposes of their own rules? Potentially yes, potentially no- doesn't strike me that there is anything within the relevant sections of their regulations that would explicitly bar them from doing so.

Take your pick!! Wide range isn't it? Maybe they allege misconduct, hell even suspicion or a complaint about alleged financial or other irregularity can lead to an investigation.

The misconduct route could be a new one to explore perhaps.

Plus, 84.2...carte blanche to some extent.

As the League deem appropriate in short.

Disciplinary Commission can also impose- well a great many types of decision/sanction it appears!

You could definitely fit the above scenarios to these rules and powers tbh. You order Derby to refrain from including the ground in their consolidated results to uphold the FFP agreement, and you perhaps also order that even if a paper transaction only, the rent is upheld for FFP purposes. You really push for something tough...

They could also maybe theoretically order the payment of compensation to Wycombe by Derby or by the EFL- or maybe by the EFL then Derby recompense the EFL if it gets that far.

The stadium a) Being reconsolidated and b) Going back at a much lower rate could also constitute new evidence as the scenario and facts would have materially changed. Fortunately the regulations allow for this too!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

Ticks many boxes! It was not available in 2020 because Gellaw Newco 202 still owned the stadium, it is credible because it is a fact, it is relevant because it is an arms length transaction- like the idea of 94.7.3 if appropriate.

Fortunately the League Arbitration Panel also possess the chance to make their mark.

100.1.8 and 100.1.6 although could 100.1.7 contradict things a bit?

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

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-2---membership/

You refuse to accept easily the reconsolidation for FFP purposes. Material part of Group operations etc.

Fair Market Value...£81m and a massively reduced rate cannot both be right- esp as the far lower one would be an arms length transaction. EFL could investigate it for being below Fair Market Value perhaps and charge with misconduct if so?

Oh dear! Falls foul of the material aspect bit of the FFP approval in 2018!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-5-financial-fair-play-regulations/

Make no mistake, there would be a lot of scope for the EFL here if the possible scenario played out in this way. Gut feeling is that even if no charges, they could impose severe restrictions on the new owners- new owners must submit to the bits of the Owners and Directors Test that arose in mid October 2020 as well as the rest but for these purposes...

3.1.1 b) onwards through to the end of that section.

3.3.2 and 3.3.3 feeding into 3.2-3.2.2 give regulators some great powers if required.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-3-owners-and-directors-test/

Derby fans should read these and ponder- my take is that the EFL should not accept it without a very heavy price and use every lever at their disposal.

Or back on rational ground, a deal whereby the ground transfers at a price acceptable to both parties but remains deconsolidated from the club and there is a Fair Market Rent added even if only a paper transaction for FFP purposes. If Derby try to get round it though, the EFL need to go for them big time.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well I decided to take a break from Derby for a day or two but will respond to Woodley Ram's Friday post now- but one bit of news, I am glad to see the EFL continuing to tighten their Governance- Nixon.

Discouraging frivolous appeals has to be a good thing, as does introducing another element of moral hazard. Unsure who highlighted the bits in red- wasn't me! Administrators get paid come what may though, don't they? I'd love it if Nick De Marco is out of pocket somehow or a creditor of Derby- don't like him at all, smug character that he is. Bad for football that one.

Woodley Ram, not the 15 point bit. Perhaps another day but the last post before that...

Quote

yes we do want a sustainable business plan where we keep within FFfP limits (WR)

Seems fair.

Quote

we don't want boom and bust its not good for the old ticker.  We had one stupid year where we signed players for large sums and large wages and didn't get  return on them.  The others years we have more or less traded on a net basis.  We have for the last two years operated on a small operating budget. Wages are probably circa £15m. The damage had already been done. 

Seems fair but remember ongoing costs of amortisation depending on how it falls and which model used albeit a non cash expense, and then costs other than merely wages- when you say wages are you talking basic wages, or entire Group wages, inclusive of all costs of employment such as PAYE, NI etc? The way I look at DCFC's FFP position is to take the consolidated results then knock £7-8m off it- in 2015/16 it seemed to be the club then thereafter Sevco 5112 Limited. Source being the accounts to 2018 and then the EFL Hearing in 2020 which also included some figures for the 2018/19 season.

This next paragraph/segment is long so shall respond in 2 parts.

Quote

We (Mel) only submitted our accounts for a negative FFP after the immortalisation issue and did it on time. we had submitted them before but rightly was asked to submit them again showing a straight line methodology. (Note here. All player valuations ended in zero and didn't have a residual amount. The issue was that the amortisation was done more on a bell curve with higher amounts up front rather than on a straight line). We have since been in discussion (like Reading) with the EFL. The only issue we had was the appeal and Mel not being quiet. You shouldn't be penalised for that.  I think Reading should get more they are so far over is ridicules

Yes, it was how it was amortised over the contract- straight line or otherwise. Derby fan who posts on here made a great graph/chart with 3 different methods of amortisation over I think a 10 year period or something- not looked for a while. In respect of Reading, I've never looked to excuse their activities, I started on the questioning before it became more widespread, back in April 2020 when their 2018/19 accounts were released- make sure that you are looking at the right bits. I wonder if you might be looking at the club accounts in isolation- my interpretation of Reading's position is that it goes club accounts in 2017/18 and consolidated- Renhe Sports Management Limited- thereafter. Not so much the vocal bit as much as resisting, not submitting to CH that kinda thing- EFL alleged that Derby were late with their accounts to the EFL themselves in 2019/20 or in 2020- that's what the new evidence hearing was regarding when the EFL wanted new evidence to be taken into consideration for an appeal. I digress, I believe that for Reading it goes- Club-then consolidated as for Derby it went from 2015/16 to whenever, Club-then consolidated.

Quote

I agree the Covid impairment and how losses affect FFP (P&S) is a worry. The EFL need to come out with a rational of how they are dealing with it. (Advertising income, gate receipts, loss of entertainment other commercial activity) this should be hard as you should be able to see the loss from auditing previous years income. Also re Covid, the only way they can deduct amounts from FFP consideration is if Covid was a/is a Force Majeure. Otherwise teams should have planned for it and have taken steps to ensure that they remain within FFP (you can see where I am going here re admin appeal). BCFC must have lost £millions over the last couple of years so if you cannot deduct say the loss of £15-20m,ish from your FFP calculation then you will also be hit with an FFP points deduction?

The basis of one is now on the EFL site. There is also a definition- directly attributable to the Covid 19 to cover 2019/20 and 2020/21 only although my wording is a loose summary. Further, they have merged 2019/20 and 2020/21 into one period and then the idea behind that is they add the two together and halve it. Ticket Revenue, Season Ticket Revenue, refunds of the two, Commercial Income, events- all a) Comparable and b) Verifiable, TV revenue rebates this all seems fine for all clubs IMO. Stoke's Player Impairment attributable to Covid- around £30m- OTOH...looks at this stage to be a unique accounting treatment, although Everton in the PL may have claimed something similar. Player Impairment is normal but usually counts against FFP unless truly exceptional circs- Stoke Impaired £43m in total but about £12-13m of this goes through the accounts in the usual manner, that extra £30m though...

Quote

I agree, add Fulham not paying for Harry Wilson for 2 years and others will also be pushing the boundaries with FFP and the ethics of it.

That Fulham deal is unusual and needs further investigation although I have to wonder if that is merely a cash flow rather than an amortisation issue. If it's loan to buy, the latter coming in January then yes it could reduce amortisation for the present season. Can't think of any others that stand right out atm...if they don't go up this season however, it is possible that they face an FFP crunch in 2022/23.

Quote

Sorry spell check on my ipad. we are not trying to bypass anything. If we are able to use the rules to get a reduction of points then that's ok. After all isn't that what other clubs have done Birmingham, Sheffield Wednesday and it seems Reading?

Birmingham accepted their -9 and was broke down as such- 7 for the overspend, 3 for escalating losses and one back for cooperation. The reasoning behind halving Sheffield Wednesday's deduction felt spurious, to me anyway- why selling the ground in the wrong accounting period is a mitigating factor to the extent of halving a deduction is odd. However justice was done in that they went down and the -6 proved decisive but all the same seems unusual that it was halved. Even if you halve the -12, why no extra 3 for the escalating overspend- also see Birmingham for that very scenario.

Reading is altogether different to these two- no problem at all with negotiating/accepting an agreed decision as I haven't with Derby at this stage, although I have a problem with the withholding of accounts that seems to have occurred, not just from CH but the EFL too perhaps. I would suggest that a final settlement of -9 and 3 more suspended, and the usual business plan is preferable to at least two separate Independent Disciplinary Commissions- I don't expect the EFL to budge on the FFP issue. The administration appeal? Well that remains to be seen. How long would a new Independent Panel for the 3 years to 2018 and then a separate set of charges for the 3 years to 2019 take to conclude? Judging by history a long time! Remember Embargo conditions remain in play too while unresolved...how would that be for a new owner?

One more small bit- not aimed at you but a general observation to correct a few posters there. It isn't just stadium profits that are excluded, it is Tangible Fixed Asset profits verbatim- Blackburn and their training ground, seems to have been completed a week before the new rule took hold, an article suggested June 24th 2021 although the precise nature of the Regs it'd be interesting to see when it was deemed effective from.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

If the EFL wants to discourage frivolous appeals it could follow the example of courts and tribunals and require clubs to apply for leave to appeal, setting out their grounds.

This would filter out spurious appeals and those the commission decides have no prospect of success. It would also build up a body of case law.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

If the EFL wants to discourage frivolous appeals it could follow the example of courts and tribunals and require clubs to apply for leave to appeal, setting out their grounds.

This would filter out spurious appeals and those the commission decides have no prospect of success. It would also build up a body of case law.

You're probably overqualified for their legal department tbh!

Why not email them the suggestion- enquiries@efl.com!

There is though a limit- seven days- for the force majeure one. As in seven days to get everything in from the date that the EFL apply the notice. I hope that has been adhered to otherwise the EFL need to add that to the defence/grounds for challenge.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

The FA do frivolous appeals for red cards, lengthening the ban where so.

[chinapig]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You're probably overqualified for their legal department tbh!

Why not email them the suggestion- enquiries@efl.com!

There is though a limit- seven days- for the force majeure one. As in seven days to get everything in from the date that the EFL apply the notice. I hope that has been adhered to otherwise the EFL need to add that to the defence/grounds for challenge.

I'm no lawyer but I have in my time provided analytical services to some senior judges.

Obviously you have to allow a reasonable time for a club to draft it's application for leave but the process is still quicker.

In the case of tribunals for instance the majority of applications are refused as there are no grounds. You have to show that the original decision was wrong in law. It's not enough to just disagree with it.

A similar process could be applied to EFL decisions, though we are talking regulations and rules rather than law of course so it would be lighter touch.

I'll await Tracey Crouch's report before I give the EFL the benefit of my advice.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thanks @chinapig that's interesting stuff certainly.

Talking of the law, saw an interesting post on Derby forum about 5 mins ago...is there a great difference in the club having to cover the legal costs and the administrators having to cover it when it comes to an appeal? The club itself has to cover them come what may.

Quote

The Administrators are appealing the PD for the benefit of the creditors - if it gets removed or reduced, the price will be higher and more cash will go to creditors.

How on earth can Administrators be expected to rationally and fairly weigh up the relative merit of lodging an appeal if the threat of losing £300k is hanging over them? 

What an absolutely ludicrous proposal. Let's see them get that passed without a legal challenge. 

The cost falls on a club regardless when it comes to the EFL Force Majeure appeal stipulations- can a club in administration afford to lose that cash if the appeal yields no notable benefit? As I said before, I've no issues with mechanisms to discourage frivolous appeals. I welcome them tbh.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some Derby fans truly do not get it. Can't print screen, won't copy and paste,will just stick the URLs up. Suffice to say though, the embargo and intense monitoring will not be lifted until such time as all conditions satisfied.

I don't suppose I should be surprised by now but I am.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/?do=findComment&comment=2225245

There is no upper time limit on the EFL in this process and no accounts filed=no embargo lifted.

To 2018 and the 4 points is just one part of the equation ha. Until resolved in full it remains-irrespective of Mel, administration team or new owners!!

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/?do=findComment&comment=2225260

Again, no FFP assessment or settlement means no resolution means no cleanish slate for a new owner.

No accounts to CH combined with no settlement means no removal of embargo.

No accounts to the EFL possibly likewise.

The self righteous victimhood from some is hard to fathom. As for RamsTrust it's ignorance, arrogance or I don't know what- most of their questions are easily findable online.

The club, fans whoever. Arrogance in abundance.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I also don't understand why the EFL will have to lift their accounts requirements.

A few Derby fans have suggested it but can anyone explain it? Strikes me as the tail wagging the dog somewhat.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I also don't understand why the EFL will have to lift their accounts requirements.

A few Derby fans have suggested it but can anyone explain it? Strikes me as the tail wagging the dog somewhat.

On 26/10/2021 at 19:59, Hxj said:

On 26/10/2021 at 18:03, Davefevs said:

Guessing that the new owner would have to submit accounts to Companies House?  Can’t leave a year unfiled can you?  Or do Administrators have to do it?

There is a gap between the rules for companies in Administration and the EFL Regulations.  Where a company enters Administration there is no obligation to submit outstanding accounts, but a statement of the financial position at the date of Administration has to be submitted to Companies House.  However the FFP rules require submission of audited accounts otherwise the club will remain in Embargo.  That is one of the many circles that will need to be squared.

Once the company comes out of Administration accounts for subsequent periods will need to be submitted.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, Hxj said:

 

Thanks @Hxj

Guess that if they ie Derby decide they don't need to, the restrictions should stay in play. Or if their new owner decides otherwise etc...

Section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test gives the EFL extensive powers of course.