Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

Said it before, but one way I see it FWIW.

Derby can end the uncertainty by formally going on the record with a Statement to the effect of their Accounts being compliant to 2018 no matter what and proving it by cooperating swiftly with the Restated figures. If it doesn't exceed £39m, that is one issue solved.

A lack of swift cooperation and Statement regarding cast iron compliance makes me wonder what the case is there. They can drag it out if they want, but the Embargo and restrictions should certainly stay in place while this issue is ongoing.

Failing that, actually starting to think that the EFL should perhaps look at invoking that Regulation 28.2, to give them a bit of a hurry up- no Accounts, no fixtures while the issue drags- although that is unfeasible in real terms, given that Wycombe and fixture congestion are the other part of the equation.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby have come out swinging, by the looks- John Percy.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8Otm-flUI7MJ:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/06/24/derby-vs-efl-bitter-feud-escalates-county-insist-cannot-relegated/&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0

EFL may well appeal- and rightly so.

Interesting post from the Derby forum- wonder how much they know about their Auditors. ?

image.thumb.png.cae02f82ecf3772458a42462baf01def.png

Bit of a rookie error for experienced Auditors- may or may not comply with the letter although clearly not if the EFL Verdict is a guide, but I do believe the Written Reasons suggested that there were no notes from meetings about Accounting Policy change, calculations- then again I do also consider the incompetence theory as one of the sources they were using was Transfermarkt?

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

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on past precedent (SWFC), any potential points deduction would have to be reduced due to the time between when the penalty should have been applied (18/19) and the season it would eventually be applied (21/22).

SWFC had their 12 point penalty reduced by 6 for this reason, and we're now going to be 1 season further away...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Based on past precedent (SWFC), any potential points deduction would have to be reduced due to the time between when the penalty should have been applied (18/19) and the season it would eventually be applied (21/22).

SWFC had their 12 point penalty reduced by 6 for this reason, and we're now going to be 1 season further away...

Don't know if that was the technical reasoning behind that case, but happy to re-read the Written Reasons- thought it was more like the EFL had partially approved matters or hadn't forbidden it.

This article appears to be free which could help, well it helped to remind me anyway. One interpretation in the article was that the Stadium Sale was a mitigating factor, which is nuts. Also mentioned excessively severe- yet a 2-3 points deduction applicable to 2020/21 wouldn't be in terms of number...3/2=1.5...rounded up=2.

https://theathletic.com/news/sheffield-wednesday-point-deduction-why/RQQWPE5H9k6N

What do you make the 3 year loss to 2018 anyway? Using a mix of your calcs both on the Amortisation and improvement in the Ince Profit, and the EFL Written Reasons I made it around £2.4m- granted it was a rushed calculation.

£2.4m from memory=4 pts, halve like SWFC=2 pts. Applicable to 2020/21.

One thing that might be getting overlooked by everyone as well, is that the Panel came to their decision on Friday 7th May 2021- was released on Tuesday 11th May 2021, but the decision was actually reached on 7th May- the day before the Regular Playing Season ended. IMO that could constitute grounds to stick a deduction in 2020/21, as it was just in time.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL need to impose punishment now on Derby not hang around again it’s taken a few years of appeal after appeal there obviously is a case to answer. 
If a point deduction is imposed it needs to be for last season punishment to fit the irregularities as happened within Sheffield Wednesday! You cannot have one rule for one and different rule for another fair is fair 

Edited by hertsexile
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Bit of a rookie error for experienced Auditors

No it's not.

Simply put DCFC misled the auditors.  Para 25 of the LAP decision says:

" ... because the explanations in the accounts did not reflect the treatment which the Club
contended, and the DC accepted, was in fact adopted, the DC found the charge proved
as to the fifth particular. Indeed, the erroneous explanation of the treatment in the accounts
mirrored that in the Draft Audit Findings Report of the auditor
s for each of the relevant
years, which were also incorrect and misleading."

and Para 86 goes on to say:

" ... the Club had misstated in each of the Accounts the treatment which had been adopted by the Club
in relation to amortisation. That seemed to us to raise questions as to how far the Club’s
auditors had fully understood the accounting treatment they were adopting and its basis."

 

 

Edited by Hxj
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No it's not.

Simply put DCFC misled the auditors.  Para 25 of the LAP decision says:

" ... because the explanations in the accounts did not reflect the treatment which the Club
contended, and the DC accepted, was in fact adopted, the DC found the charge proved
as to the fifth particular. Indeed, the erroneous explanation of the treatment in the accounts
mirrored that in the Draft Audit Findings Report of the auditor
s for each of the relevant
years, which were also incorrect and misleading."

and Para 86 goes on to say:

" ... the Club had misstated in each of the Accounts the treatment which had been adopted by the Club
in relation to amortisation. That seemed to us to raise questions as to how far the Club’s
auditors had fully understood the accounting treatment they were adopting and its basis."

 

 

Thanks- maybe I imagined it then, regarding Derby and the Auditors being in agreement about the policy.

Okay I perhaps owe a bit of an apology to the Auditors then! Maybe they were mislead? :dunno:

What's your thinking on the unlawful argument? Derby have claimed that a deduction in 2020/21 would be just that. It's an argument I'm unsure on.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some may recall the malfeasance, or so it was labelled and prosecuted as, about 25-30 years ago; Arthur Andersen, and others, submitted accounts, possibly for Polly Peck. In front of the judge they pleaded ignorance to false accounting because, they said, we can only go on the document from the client. The Judge 'laughed' them out court saying they were, at best, complicit, and at worst directly involved in cooking books. After all, he said, how could you sign off a set of accounts that bore no resemblance to any that had been in the previous 5 tax years in which you represented the client; did you not once stop to ask them what is this?

Polly Peck no longer exists of course and AA closed its doors in the UK as Accountants, soon thereafter.

Unfortunately the Football League is like a timid cat compared to the roaring lion of the FInancial Conduct Authority.

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

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

No it's not.

Simply put DCFC misled the auditors.  Para 25 of the LAP decision says:

" ... because the explanations in the accounts did not reflect the treatment which the Club
contended, and the DC accepted, was in fact adopted, the DC found the charge proved
as to the fifth particular. Indeed, the erroneous explanation of the treatment in the accounts
mirrored that in the Draft Audit Findings Report of the auditor
s for each of the relevant
years, which were also incorrect and misleading."

and Para 86 goes on to say:

" ... the Club had misstated in each of the Accounts the treatment which had been adopted by the Club
in relation to amortisation. That seemed to us to raise questions as to how far the Club’s
auditors had fully understood the accounting treatment they were adopting and its basis."

 

 

Wasn’t the auditor a life-long Derby fan (no issue with that per se) but with links to Morris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Wasn’t the auditor a life-long Derby fan (no issue with that per se) but with links to Morris?

More than likely on both counts - small firm - small town - big client - probably had his 'gut feeling' turned a little low - still reckon he was had.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Some may recall the malfeasance, or so it was labelled and prosecuted as, about 25-30 years ago; Arthur Andersen, and others, submitted accounts, possibly for Polly Peck. In front of the judge they pleaded ignorance to false accounting because, they said, we can only go on the document from the client. The Judge 'laughed' them out court saying they were, at best, complicit, and at worst directly involved in cooking books. After all, he said, how could you sign off a set of accounts that bore no resemblance to any that had been in the previous 5 tax years in which you represented the client; did you not once stop to ask them what is this?

Polly Peck no longer exists of course and AA closed its doors in the UK as Accountants, soon thereafter.

Unfortunately the Football League is like a timid cat compared to the roaring lion of the FInancial Conduct Authority.

Just to clarify the record - Andersen where found guilty of criminal offences in 2001 following Enron later the convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court.  Neither business now exists.

Polly Peck went bust in 1988 and their accountants were admonished by the regulator.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw an interesting Thread.

Wycombe have spoken!

Seems they're offering their assistance to EFL in their case, expect EFL to lodge appeal within a couple of days and are exploring a claim for compensation.

Go on Wycombe. Middlesbrough weren't allowed to intervene but given Stevenage got the right with Macclesfield, given Barnsley got the right to put their case with Wigan, maybe the fact it is a club affected by it and it's a live issue, as these 3 cases are whereas Middlesbrough were pushing a claim about an issue which occurred 2-3 years before.

The right to intervene may therefore differ.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely think Wycombe will be taking legal advice the fact of the matter is Derby have cheated and have benefited from it denying Wycombe a place in the league this year. 

The fact Derby don't have to submit amended accounts until the 18th August in which 2 league games would already be played you know for a fact they'll leave it to the last second. The EFL need to suspend the first 2 league games for both Derby and Wycombe or they shouldn't be given so long to resubmit the accounts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It surely won't happen but...

Suspend the first month and expedite the Appeal Process, this could definitely help to cover bases- but that said should the recalculation take so long?? Of the Amortisation for 3 years I mean.

I still wonder if no Pay no Play...Strictly speaking that's not correct but basically no Fixtures until such time as Revised Accounts submitted to the Panel.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Based on past precedent (SWFC), any potential points deduction would have to be reduced due to the time between when the penalty should have been applied (18/19) and the season it would eventually be applied (21/22).

SWFC had their 12 point penalty reduced by 6 for this reason, and we're now going to be 1 season further away...

I’m sure you are very proud 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Wasn’t the auditor a life-long Derby fan (no issue with that per se) but with links to Morris?

Well I beg to differ; if you were a clean owner you surely go out of town, well out of town, to recruit your auditor.

The fact Morris did not sums him up quite nicely. The egregious little ogre should be struck off for life from sitting on a board and should be drop kicked into the rough never to return to the beautiful game which he has so blatantly and flagrantly brought into disrepute. Shame on him and all involved. We are likely talking about criminal offences. I hope they all do time.

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

Just to clarify the record - Andersen where found guilty of criminal offences in 2001 following Enron later the convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court.  Neither business now exists.

Polly Peck went bust in 1988 and their accountants were admonished by the regulator.

I used PP as a mere example but thanks for digging around. I was of the view that AA Consulting was still going... No licence to do audits tho.

Edited by havanatopia
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, havanatopia said:

Well I beg to differ; if you were a clean owner you surely go out of town, well out of town, to recruit your auditor.

The fact Morris did not sums him up quite nicely. The egregious little ogre should be struck off for life from sitting on a board and should be drop kicked into the rough never to return to the beautiful game which he has so blatantly and flagrantly brought into disrepute. Shame on him and all involved. We are likely talking about criminal offences. I hope they all do time.

I used PP as a mere example but thanks for digging around. I was of the view that AA Consulting was still going... No licence to do audits tho.

Agreed Hav. Out of town auditors certainly feel the best bet in these scenarios. I could be getting my cases mixed up tbh but I do believe there were no notes documenting the discussion of this Amortisation policy, available for the Hearing last year.

The links between Andrew Delve and Mel Morris seem to go back years. Unsure how much I should post on a public forum even though it's all findable in the public domain.

Let's just say it's not a good look all this, surely.

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57604421

Wow, Wycombe's owner has come out swinging!

Labels the actions of Derby as 'systematic cheating' and appears to be threatening a legal claim vs Derby for lost Revenue if indeed they (Wycombe) drop into League One.

Seems to argue that Revenue hit would be £10-15m though that feels overstated. More like £5-10m maybe?

He's American and a lawyer by trade so his actions don't surprise me!

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

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't know if that was the technical reasoning behind that case, but happy to re-read the Written Reasons- thought it was more like the EFL had partially approved matters or hadn't forbidden it.

This article appears to be free which could help, well it helped to remind me anyway. One interpretation in the article was that the Stadium Sale was a mitigating factor, which is nuts. Also mentioned excessively severe- yet a 2-3 points deduction applicable to 2020/21 wouldn't be in terms of number...3/2=1.5...rounded up=2.

https://theathletic.com/news/sheffield-wednesday-point-deduction-why/RQQWPE5H9k6N

image.png.342fa32375076f7f6735f3988ec881e2.png

image.png.55b2dc26a0b50cc332bb61f6b4f0dda2.png

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What do you make the 3 year loss to 2018 anyway? Using a mix of your calcs both on the Amortisation and improvement in the Ince Profit, and the EFL Written Reasons I made it around £2.4m- granted it was a rushed calculation.

£2.4m from memory=4 pts, halve like SWFC=2 pts. Applicable to 2020/21.

Just inside the limit.
Bizarrely, KM now believes we'll be safe too.

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One thing that might be getting overlooked by everyone as well, is that the Panel came to their decision on Friday 7th May 2021- was released on Tuesday 11th May 2021, but the decision was actually reached on 7th May- the day before the Regular Playing Season ended. IMO that could constitute grounds to stick a deduction in 2020/21, as it was just in time.

I repeat... Past precedent means that will not happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, hertsexile said:

The EFL need to impose punishment now on Derby not hang around again it’s taken a few years of appeal after appeal there obviously is a case to answer. 
If a point deduction is imposed it needs to be for last season punishment to fit the irregularities as happened within Sheffield Wednesday! You cannot have one rule for one and different rule for another fair is fair 

Birmingham, Wednesday and Derby all charged for failing the 3 years to June 2018.

Birmingham received their penalty in 19/20, Weds in 20/21. 

Past precedent means any potential penalty doesn't have to be in the same season as Weds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I can hear those tears from 120 miles away

Ha ha. Couldn’t give a shit to be honest pal. However, if it was my club, I’d be a bit more humble about it. 
In fact, I’d be happily calling my owners out on it. 
All these clubs who seem to be under investigation have a fan base in utter denial. The only fans I ever knew who were humble and acknowledged the wrongdoings of their owners were QPR. 
Get over yourself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Harry said:

Ha ha. Couldn’t give a shit to be honest pal. However, if it was my club, I’d be a bit more humble about it. 
In fact, I’d be happily calling my owners out on it. 
All these clubs who seem to be under investigation have a fan base in utter denial. The only fans I ever knew who were humble and acknowledged the wrongdoings of their owners were QPR. 
Get over yourself. 

The Owls changed their attitude last season with very few using the points deduction as an excuse to bemoan their sad plight

Edited by Malvern Red
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Ha ha. Couldn’t give a shit to be honest pal. However, if it was my club, I’d be a bit more humble about it. 
In fact, I’d be happily calling my owners out on it. 
All these clubs who seem to be under investigation have a fan base in utter denial. The only fans I ever knew who were humble and acknowledged the wrongdoings of their owners were QPR. 
Get over yourself. 

I haven't been far wrong so far. I may have even stated it'll be a £100k fine months ago.
That somewhat shows my interpretation of events is more balanced than some on this forum demanding massive points deductions, instant relegation, members to be sacked off the EFL board, etc..

15 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

Why are you on this forum?

Because I enjoy most of the conversations with the likes of @Mr Popodopolous, even if we don't agree on a lot of stuff

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I would think that having Derby & Wycombe's fixtures reported as being interchangeable , I'd say it could. 

Face saving from the EFL, based on the 0.0001% chance a deduction could be applied to 20/21.
If Derby play L1 football in 20/21 , I'll record a video of me eating Rooney's underwear and post it on here.

  • Haha 1
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...