AnotherDerbyFan

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t see how you can expect anything less than a 12 point deduction for Administration.  Them be the rules, there is no sliding scale.

Force majeure under EFL regulations.

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 I don’t see how you’ll get away with the points deduction for the other EFL charges, whether that be 9 (plus 3 Suspended) or another amount of points. Morris already admitted to a breach of FFP in 2018.  He didn’t elaborate whether that was one cycle breach, or multiple cycle breaches.

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.

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

With Covid, there is already a process to submit losses and allow these to be allowable exclusions for FFP.

That's for P&S, not for administration. 

46 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

You will be punished further next season,.expect to do a Portsmouth and bolton

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

45 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Covid was first reported end Jan 2020, it's impacts not felt for a couple of months afterwards. Odd it therefore prevented publication of accounts for the period June 2018/2019.

You see the problem with claiming all these 'ifs and buts' sums is they're meaningless without reference to non-impaired accounts and the problem at Derby is it appears most linked entities are allergic to posting those.

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.

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The force majeur argument looks suspect to me.

It opens the floodgates if allowed to stand. No accounts post June 2018 and the general integrity of the League, well if Derby's administration appeal allowed to stand then many clubs could try to cut corners.

I guess that their administrators are a safe pair of hands, - 21 points if and when implemented should send Derby down which after all is the title of the thread.

Some very ignorant and arrogant gobby characters on DCFCFans too. Small memo, your owner admitted to breaching P&S once restated. Fact- trip to Pride Park, looking forward to that once both deductions hopefully in place.

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.

12 hours ago, Hxj said:

mmmm - I think that some on here are confused!

When are you buying your first Derby shirt? 

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

The alternative is that they have burnt through £81 million cash in roughly three years.  I could have paid off all the debts and still had a great time with the remaining £20 million or so .......... 

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.

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Still trying to grasp and wangle their way out, some fans still of that mindset...

Erm, I can't see the EFL accepting that!! How do you give away for free as part of a deal, a stadium that a) 'Sold' for £81.1m in 2018 and b) Has a lease of, can't recall but it's either 20-25 years. The annual rent is about £3m too low as well possibly.

Football Creditors had to be paid in full I thought? HMRC less clearcut.

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?

14 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

'..last season'...what season that? Could be it's a much lower percentage than most clubs, depending upon which period the ground sale actually fell in, as opposed to what Morris stated.

I thought Derby County FC LTD only filed accounts to the period end June 2018 at Companies House. That the accounts to June 2019 are overdue by 15 months, surely fans must have cottoned-on to what's been happening?

Forget the fiction filed with the EFL, let's see what Morris' latest version of events comes up with.

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

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Have you any thoughts though on the owner admitting a P&S breach of 4 points to 2018 under the restated method? 

There's little denial now, HE admitted it in an interview.

Overarching settlement seems the best bet. Otherwise it's into administration, - 12 and the EFL continue with the embargo, the charges and the process which has no timescale on it.

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?

5 hours ago, frenchred said:

Just listened to the whole Morris interview on radio derby, wow all to do with covid, and derby effected more than others! Man is a deluded fool!!

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

19 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't even know how much they tried to cut back after the Stadium sale in reality.

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

On 29/07/2021 at 00:59, Mr Popodopolous said:

Been meaning to return to this thread for a while, but have not.

Few quick updates.

Derby County

Still nothing at CH for the Club, Sevco 5112 Limited, Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, DCFC, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited. It does seem that they can sign some players under EFL conditions though, maybe 4 or 5- or read Nixon said 4 plus Davies, perhaps they're trying to swing it in his case as a player coach- still showing as under Embargo for 4 reasons at EFL, 3 x Accounts and 1 x HMRC- one reporter suggested movement on that this week which may ease Embargo a bit more...shouldn't ease it much given no Accounts! No Confirmation Statements for 2021 either for Sevco 5112 Limited- and 2020 in their case- Gellaw Newco 203 Limited, DCFC Academy Limited, Club DCFC Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited- Club one isn't due until November.

The conditions remain similar I assume, ie wage limits, no transfer fees etc.

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.

23 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I can only guess that the distinction in rules for “Professional Standing” and “established player” is down to the embargo reason.  Looks like you can be under Registration Embargo for reasons other than P&S.  Derby themselves have 5 counts against them, one of which is P&S.  Perhaps if Derby’s only issue was P&S, the established player rule might be applicable….but as we see, Derby have 4 other issues.  That’s the only thing I can come up with.

Derby County

Regulation 16.2 - Failure to provide audited annual accounts

Regulation 16.3 - Annual Accounts not filed with Companies House

Regulation 17 - Default in payments to HMRC

Regulation 51.2.3 - Default in paying transfer fee instalments

Profit and Sustainability Rules - non-submission of audited accounts

22 hours ago, Hxj said:

It's where I got too as well - so it must be right!

That was the conclusion I came to shortly after posting too 

On 10/07/2021 at 01:53, Mr Popodopolous said:

PPS, a few might be interested in this post.

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

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

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)

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reading in breach- Confirmed!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes

Derby also under Embargo for multiple reasons, but intriguingly not yet P&S/FFP.

Stoke, Blackburn, Sheffield Wednesday all seem to be in the clear...

Derby's rap sheet! 

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.

14 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

What a mess! https://talksport.com/football/efl/905728/efl-derby-liverpool-jordon-ibe/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=talksportfacebook&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2_dOCT_yuGTkHgsU2xtFwMVWkPZdW28UvimAtDmFVxpOLTuBl2RG4-ZKA#Echobox=1625245543
 

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

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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

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

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

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

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

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Amusing Freudian slip by Maguire, although could have as @Davefevs says done it on purpose.

Notice both returned to the Board in recent days- may as well ask @AnotherDerbyFan and @AnAstonVillafan what they think about this vote to ban Stadium Sale Profits from P&S outcomes? You and a few others would have been screwed had the EFL not botched it in 2016 when transferring the old Rules across- either that or Harvey was relaxed about such a loophole.

Possible the other loophole was in terms of Sponsorship @PHILINFRANCE .

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.

33 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

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

Which rules did we knowingly break?

The final verdict was us unknowingly breaking a couple.

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Do you genuinely believe that your club have been above board and within the rules? 
If your answer is Yes, you are blinded by your bias. 
If your answer is No, you really should be calling it out. 
Yet you seem to be happy, nay, even arrogant, about the whole situation. 

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

1 hour ago, 054123 said:

Doesn't that make you sad?

Do you accept in any way that your club has done wrong and essentially cheated?

I think that’s the part I struggle with. I completely respect and accept your loyalty and decision to stand by your club, but you are still allowed to acknowledge that they’ve done wrong, tried to cheat and been caught out.

Do you also see how Derby not being punished appropriately just means it’s okay for everyone else to cheat in the same manner?

I just don’t get it.

 

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.

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's not entirely like with like as the regular playing season had ended after the Verdict reached in the case of Sheffield Wednesday whereas 7th May us still just within the regular playing season. I'm pretty sure that the Sheffield Wednesday Verdict was 25th July or similar?

Had the EFL been looking at a 2-3 pts deduction, a win vs Sheffield Wednesday would still have sufficed- fairly tenuous I accept.

Kieran Maguire's figures seem to swing about which is confusing. I'm sure he mentioned something about £6m 3 year P&S loss on Twitter before his forecasted £30m swing in Amortisation. I have a feeling that he might have been using the Club Accounts in isolation with that calculation, whereas the EFL Written Reasons from last August show that 2016/17 and 2017/18 were the Consolidated Accounts, and there was a £6m swing in the 2015/16 loss too.

Possible of course that Derby are within but his figures seem to vary. What's the methodology for your compliance? Mine is EFL 3 years to 2018, plus the difference (as posted by you) between Club method of Amortisation for those years and Straight Line with Contract Extension, adding to the losses the difference between the two before reducing from the losses a £2m improvement in Profit on Ince which I think you mentioned a while back- which parts am I missing here?

Precedent argument is an interesting one. A problem there is that the cases and timelines differ vastly.

All 3 stand accused or were punished for breaching FFP in the 3 years to 2018...the two completed cases first.

Birmingham

Straight overspend, admission. Signing Pedersen didn't in fact see them punished which was odd but probably escalated matters ie public announcement of an Embargo and Business Plan.

Breach to June 30th 2018, charged early August 2018, punished in March 2019. Nice and neat though I still have a preference for in-season punishment based on the 3rd year Projections.

Sheffield Wednesday

Under Embargo from Summer 2018 to sometime in 2019, been in and out for 3 years and counting and believed that the Stadium Sale and leaseback had saved the day.

Charged in mid November 2019, then Secondary charges aimed at Chansiri, Meire and Redgate which along with Covid ironically took time out and if anything the EFL should have pursued the Personal Charges second if at all. They got relegated in the end but justice delayed etc. These Personal Charges were dropped in say Mid March 2020.

Verdict reached late July 2020, announced July 31st 2020.

Appeal lodged mid August 2020, final verdict by LAP was early November 2020.

Ongoing Derby case

*Charged mid January 2020.

*Verdict mid to late August 2020.

*EFL intention to Appeal first week or so September 2020.

*Stuff about Middlesbrough trying to get involved plus EFL trying to get 2019 factored in too, can't recall the dates but that adds to it all. December 2020 perhaps?

*EFL Appeal finally begun 20th March 2021.

*Verdict reached 7th May 2021, and announced 11th May 2021, ie the guilty bit.

These timelines all differ wildly so unsure how strong the precedent argument is, and besides both Derby and Sheffield Wednesday were charged in 2019/20, Sanction for the latter came in 2020/21, so with that in mind, should Derby's not also apply to 2020/21?

The other thing that surprises me is that given the sheer disregard for the Regulations your hierarchy appear to have, the position of Stephen Pearce on the EFL board is a joke. Get the Barnsley guy on.

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

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.

8 hours ago, Harry said:

I’m sure you are very proud 

I can hear those tears from 120 miles away

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

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

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

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...

On 16/06/2021 at 02:05, Mr Popodopolous said:

Bit on the Marriott thing- interesting post and not having a go, using it to highlight but have to wonder about the 2nd line.

Pretty sure they can, in a round about sort of way. IF renewal on existing terms can see either an individual wage or a Club exceeding their allowances, yes they can depending on the conditions the Club are working under. This may vary from Club to Club as no two cases are identical, but I believe that the right does exist. For example if a Club are under Embargo type conditions and as @Davefevs has mentioned elsewhere the £600k per year or thereabouts bit, and say Marriott is on £20k per week then yeah- they likely can! See Morrison at Birmingham and even a youth player in 2018/19, see Reading unable to offer Richards what they thought was his dues and even see potentially Stoke having problems renewing Powell- who to the surprise of many has his contract expiring in 2022 rather than 2021, but in mid April O'Neill came out and declared that renewing Powell was a problem- presumably on existing terms. I suspect several clubs are under Plans albeit with differing limits depending on the size of the problem, cooperation etc and obviously, the EFL will keep this silent and Clubs, they will be only too happy to do likewise!

The Amortisation bit does feel a red herring however, I do agree.

The relevant Regulations I was set to post about earlier.

Believe that 2.8 through to 2.8.3 are likely quite relevant here but it's unclear- but would make sense- if it included Regulations that were up to the Lower Loss Threshold as well as the bit that exceeds the Lower but falls below the Upper in conjunction with each other. In theory, Marriott renewal on existing terms could have an adverse effect on T+1 and maybe even T+2.

What is Regulation 16.20 however? I've mentioned it before but...

Seems to be at least plausible to me that renewal of Marriott on existing terms could have posed an issue- it matters not if he s an existing player! In particular, 16.20.3! That said, it seems to be more about solvency than FFP. Quite broad.

Oh and non-cooperation- see the dragging feet over Accounts, submission of info late, submission only in August 2020 of the Gellaw Newco 203 Draft Accounts can also quite rightly come back to bite a Club- this Regulation is excellent!

I'd suggest that Derby's compliance with the Disclosure Requirements is suspect. As a consequence, 4.3 is quite broad...that means that e.g. Refusal to Register an existing Player is something that can be triggered irrespective of a referral to a Disciplinary Commission basically! Would significantly reduce the chance of Clubs having the ability to prevaricate, stall and as a result to gain an unfair advantage in short.

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.