AnotherDerbyFan

Force majeure under EFL regulations. You're right, if there is a breach then we should have additional points deducted. Mel was vague in waht he said - he didn't say if it was what the EFL deemed the overspend to be, or whether it was the with a new 'Derby amortisation method'. I suspect the former. That's for P&S, not for administration.

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January? I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better). The EFL regs state: Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry). A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion. As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

It's certainly hopeful thinking but it could happen. If, there is conclusive proof that without Covid the club could have avoided administration, then I think it's too soon to rule it out. After all, a loss of £20m income is a big wedge of cash - that's a years worth of funding at £1.5m per month. I'm hoping the 12 points is wiped out or even just reduced, but I'm still expecting to come out of this entire mess with a bigger deduction and the commencement of early preparation for L1.

When are you buying your first Derby shirt? ?

Not forgetting income during the 18/19, 19/20 and 20/21 seasons. Sevco 5112 turnover in 17/18 was £29.1m. 18/19 & 19/20 - likely averaging out at £30m. Playoff final (vs semi), cup runs with games away at Chelsea, Man Utd and on TV. Offset by c£5m loss in income due to Covid 20/21 - c£15m due to no match receipts or commercial/hospitality. Player sales and compensation for managers during that period of roughly £25m - Vydra, Weimann, Jerome, Luke Thomas, Bogle, Lowe, Whittaker, Bennett, Evans, Holmes, Delap, Gordon, 3 youngsters to Man Utd, Rowett, Lampard Along with the stadium that would be £180m cash. With a vastly reduced wage bill, I'm highly doubtful we could have burnt through all of that in just over 3 years.

Obviously, whislt still owner he would have to sell the stadium at fair value (lower now due to covid), but once sold, he'd be able to gift it to the (eventual) new owners as an unrelated party, surely?

Erm... last season being 20/21...

I'd have to listen back, but I thought he said something along the lines of the EFLs version of the restated accounts showed an overspend equating to 4 points?

Percentage of income lost last season would have been about 50% (£15m). Name another club which lost a higher percentage.

Season on season or overall from then 'til now? Season on season 18/19 would have seen a modest decrease in the wage bill. Vydra, Weimann, Jerome, Shackell, Bent, Baird, Ledley all out permanently. Hard to see the wages of Waghorn, Marriott, Malone, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Evans, Wilson, Mount and Tomori exceeding what we offloaded. 19/20 would have been another decrease. Nugent, Butterfield, Blackman, Pearce, Johnson, Bryson, Thorne, Keogh, Olsson all out. Bielik, Shinnie, Rooney and a few cheap loans in. 20/21 another decrease. Martin, Anya, Huddlestone out, with Jozwiak, Byrne, Marshall and Kazim in. 21/22 another decrease. Malone, Carson, Marriott, Waghorn, Jozefzoon, Wisdom out. Allsop, Stearman, Jagielika, Morrison and Baldock in. Overall Squad list at the time of the stadium sale: Carson, Roos, Mitchell, Keogh, Davies, Shackell, Pearce, Wisdom, Forsyth, Olsson, Huddlestone, Thorne, Baird, Johnson, Ledley, Butterfield, Bryson, Hanson, Palmer (loan), Anya, Lawrence, Weimann, Russell, Bennett, Blackman, Vydra, Martin, Nugent, Jerome, Bent, Winnall (loan) Squad list now: Roos, Allsop, Marshall, Davies, Jagielka, Stearman, Byrne, Ebosele, Forsyth, Buchanan, Bielik, Bird, Shinnie, Knight, Sibley, Morrison, Watson, Hutchinson, Jozwiak, Lawrence, Baldock, Kazim, Stretton I think it's fair to say we've made considerable cutbacks.

It's not looking too go for us, but you must be pooing yourselves for this season. Draw vs newly promoted Blackpool, now a defeat vs Forest Green. Ouch

That'll be because the club are in discussions with the EFL regarding the accounts. We want to get them right before formally submitting, and unsurprisingly, there are a few disagreements on what is acceptable or not - either a new amortisation policy or the extra £30m relating to the stadium.

That was the conclusion I came to shortly after posting too ?

Technically 27 but the rest still stands. Marshall, Roos, Byrne, Ebosele, McDonald, Buchanan, Forsyth, JBrown, Bielik, Shinnie, Bird, Knight, Sibley, Watson, Lawrence, Jozwiak, Kazim, Stretton and Hutchinson have all played first team games (Hutchinson only in L1 and L2) Bardell, Williams, Solomon, LThompson, Aghatise, Ibrahim, Duncan and Cybulski played in the Chorley game. The confusing but is further down on the EFL's embargo page. Given we've been told we can't sign anyone yet, the 'professional standing' rule applies as the 'established player' rule would only include 10 current players (Marshall, Roos, Byrne, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Hutchinson, Lawrence, Jozwiak, Kazim)

3 are clearly due to the charge and appeal. It won't be long for those to be cleared off the list. Transfer fee installment supposedly due to the failed takeover in December, causing Marriott's contract extension to be revoked, and us being in discussions with the EFL about it since. I assume it's still on the list as it hasn't been paid (am I right in saying that?), so i'm surprised we didn't pay in when Mel freed up the cash to continue covering club losses in Jan. The HMRC one is odd.

13 'senior' players, but 17 who were regulars in the matchday squad towards the end of last season - 2 of those were in at least 50% of the squads throughout the season. 18 when Davies signs a new deal. It's not too concerning at this point, with a month before the season starts. This too sounds odd. First time anyone has suggested a soft embargo means you can't extend contracts. My guess would be him looking at the Marriott situation and concluded 2+2=5 No transfer/loan/agents fees were well known restrictions, so too was the wage cap.

I feel indifferent about it.. didn't bother me if it remained allowable or not. If it was still permitted under the rules and a club sold their stadium I wouldn't care. You cant exactly say we would have failed if it wasn't allowed... we would have done something to stay within the limits, whether player sales or something else.

Which rules did we knowingly break? The final verdict was us unknowingly breaking a couple.

I've simply argued my viewpoint, which is seemingly the same as the IDC's. Go through my previous posts and you'll see I'm not blinded by bias Wrong? Yes. Cheated? No. Not unless the restated P&S figures show we exceeded the limits anyway. I feel a fine is suitable for the punishment - improperly stating the amortisation policy in the accounts and using an improper amortisation policy. I don't agree with the verdict of the policy being invalid (just as the original IDC didn't either), but I do feel the punishment is suitable nonetheless. A points deduction wouldn't be suitable for that infraction, but would be for overspending. Where have you seen the date for DCFC verdict? Neither the EFL or DCFC mentioned a date in their statements. Precedent is valid regardless of timelines to reach the point of having a verdict. The precedent is not having enough time to 'right the wrongs' off the pitch on it. SWFC started the season with a points penalty, whereas DCFC haven't had one at all, so it can't be a case of applying the penalty for both in the same season. You've only used the difference in Ince, whereas there's also Russell, Dawkins, Albentosa, Christie, Shotton and Weimann

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

I can hear those tears from 120 miles away

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

Just inside the limit. Bizarrely, KM now believes we'll be safe too. I repeat... Past precedent means that will not happen

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 think you've misread that post. Looks to me like the comment suggests the renewal means staying within allowable limits, but the EFL would reject the extension to ensure the club fall foul. If under an embargo, I could understand it being rejected for being above the allowable wage threshold. However, the contract extension was signed in OCTOBER when we weren't in one. Reading between the lines, it looks like approval was withdrawn 2 months later following the non-payment of wages. You repeatedly mention the non-submission of accounts, despite it being widely reported that this is due to the ongoing case. I'm sure the EFL are well aware of that, and wouldn't be surprised if they were given 'draft' calculations.