AnotherDerbyFan

He signed the extension in October when he went out on loan. Approval was withdrawn by the EFL in December. Discussions between club, agents and EFL since January.

I recall a £16m profit on the sales of Hendrick, Hughes and Ince - so we're looking at about £3m profit under the 'Derby Method', whereas it would have been more like £5m under the standard method. KM's figures seemingly included all potential add-ons - promotion bonuses, appearance bonuses, etc... A massive chunk of that would have been promotion bonuses, but some appearances based. it's no secret we stopped playing Thorne and Anya becuase of those high appearance based add-ons (£25k per game for Thorne) Very true, and I cannot deny breaching P&S regulations, but the punishment has to fit the crime. I'm just struggling to see how a points deduction can be justified if the recalculated figures show we're withing P&S limits. A fine seems the most logical punishment. i'm sure if someone delved into the records for accounting malpractice in football you'd only see punishments of fines and/or bans from football related activities. So very little will be coming to us then. Thanks for that. The DC and LAP both concluded we were guilty to differing degrees - I'm not arguing we're innocent. But those two clubs were found guilty of exceeding allowable spend limits whereas we weren't. Different cases required different punishments Okay... I'm very surprised that haven't yet

You mean like this club statement? "even if the EFL succeeded, would have only lef to the Club re-submitting its P&S calculations". Except, you've already stated you don't trust a word the club say...

I've previously said we would have failed the 3 years to 2017 under the straight line method. The numbers do seem to indicate we would be between £1.6m and £3.6m within the limits for the following seasons though. The difference is Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday both failed P&S, whereas all evidence points to Derby not. By overspending, BCFC and SWFC gained an unfair advantage. By staying within the limits, DCFC didn't. Yeah.... they failed P&S. Nothing official, but it's also hinted at in the charge. To paraphrase: Charge 1 - related to a true value of the stadium would result in being over the limit and failing P&S Charge 2 - the amortisation policy isn't compliant with FRS102 Pull up the official document(s) and take note of the actual wording. Rather than just being "non-compliant" it would have mentioned failing P&S if it was the case.

The LAP concluded we were open an honest through the whole thing so can't see us getting punished for "misleading". The charge was only for using an improper amortisation policy, not for failing P&S due to the policy. That's backed up by the club's statement of "would have only led to the Club re-submitting its P&S calculations", and further backed up by my own P&S estimates (£1..7m inside the limit).

Proven by not failing P&S under a standard amortisation method, so we could/would have had exactly the same sqaud...

Except it's not. Sheffield Wednesday were guilty of putting the stadium sale in the wrong accounting period. Sheffield Wednesday overspent in the 3 years to 2018. Derby were found guilty of only incorrectly defining the amortisation policy in the accounts by accountants, and by using an incorrect amortisation policy by lawyers. Derby did not overspend in the 3 years to 2018, even when using a 'commonly accepted' amortisation policy. Logic dictates that no on field advantage means no on field deduction (points). As it was simply an accounting c*ck up, a fine is the reasonable punishment.

It was -£5.6m https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2016/03/record-turnover-is-the-highlight-of-derby-countys-201415-financial-results -£5.6m, -£21m, -£21.4m Total = -£48m (£9m over limit) Also, Albentosa, Shotton and Dawkins. Along with Ince, the total difference is likely in the £3m region. Overall, £6m over the P&S limit. Saying that, I'll be surprised if they do charge us for the 3 years to 2017. They would surely have charged us with failing at the same time as the 2018 period.

Wasn't that under the old FFP rules which were a lot more basic, hence including the sale of tax?

In all honesty, I have no idea. I would have expected us to submit all accounts then restate the relevant figures if needed in following accounts

I expect to hear something from next week onwards. I'm still certain we won't get any form of punishment, but we'll see. Can't see it being linked to be honest. You can only get strung along for so long before enough is enough - 1 year on from when talks started, 4 months on from it going through "imminently", and 3 months on from "sending the money over". It's hard to see it being anything else without selling the academy graduates already in the team (Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Sibley). Come the summer, we won't have many other players worth anything, in fact, we won't have many players left at all. Given we posted a £25m P&S loss in 18/19, amortisation jumping from just under £5m in that period to £25.1m in 19/20 (slightly offset by a reduction in wages {c£10m?}), I'm expecting another rabbit to be pulled out of the hat just to get us under the 20/21 limit to be honest. I'm already bracing myself for the backlash from you when those account eventually come out ? Once we reach a conclusion with the EFL hearing, it won't be much of a wait until we get to see the 18/19 and 19/20 accounts which will provide a much clearer picture going forward. For the current 2021 period, my 3 would be Reading, Stoke and Cardiff. Derby would be 4th. I'm amazed Reading have so far escaped punishment. They were very close to the limit in 2019 so I find it hard to believe they are still within limits given their transfers since. Stoke and Cardiff must be pretty close too given their wage bills, bloated squads and parachute payments reducing. I don't see any others being in danger. For 2022, a lot depends on how well the recently relegated teams have cut their wage bill and dealt with amortisation. Along with Stoke and Cardiff, I think Swansea and Huddersfield may struggle (without promotion). Reading and Derby would also remain on my watch list. Forest will need to cut their wage bill to stay within limits, but shouldn't be too tricky for them to achieve that.

Pearce was asked about the accounts on Radio Derby the other day. He said ours haven’t been filed due to the ongoing EFL P&S case, and depending on the outcome may have to make adjustments. It makes sense, but couldn't we submit the accounts as they are, then make adjustments (if required) in the following accounts? Still doesn't explain Sheff Weds.

Based on a quick Google search, Weimann was on the 3rd of July. Based on a couple of our sales (such as Ince) which completed on similar dates, I belive his sale falls into the previous season. It should be Derby vs Extension but figures won't be massively out if you use original instead. I should point out, that I think the figures stated in the accounts include add-ons (I certainly hope so!). Total potential add-ons in 17/18 about £13m. I would therefore assume that our amortisation in following years should be lower than estiamte due to not paying out on promotion bonuses and appearance fees? That may explain why the Hearing Decison Document stated amortisation is £25.1m for 19/20 as we had to calculate a 'worst case scenario' - meaning paying out for promotion? It'll still be above £15m either way

I believe there are a few methods in use: All upfront (typically used in non-league I believe) The infamous Derby method - use of residual values Amortise over the original contract Make adjustments if a contract extension has been signed Impairment being an additional part to most club policies Just from using figures from transfermarkt (plus filling in a couple of blanks), you can see the difference between the methods here: KM has overstated the figures by about about £2.3m (2016), £2.7m (2017) and £4m (2018) compared with the 'acceptable' methods. My first instinct was he added on agents fees, however the actual figures for those seasons were £0.3m, £2.0m and £2.2m. So it can't be that. Most of our business is done in the summer. The accounts therefore give a good indication of what we spent by looking at the "post balance sheet events" section (which includes EFL levies and agents' fees) Based on the accounts more accurate upfront figures would be: 2016 - £27.24m 2017 - £17.03m 2018 - £12.76m Over that 3 year period, transfermarkt is only out by £200k (estimating winter signings at the transfermarkt values). I made the assumption of summer sales not having an amortisation charge against them for the upcoming year? Even if I've got that wrong, KM is still £6m too high.

I think it depends on the circumstances for the delay. If it's a consequence of the EFL's appeals for example... Presumably he's used the very basic amortisation method (over original contract), rather than one of the other accepted methods (taking account of contract extensions). My calculations estimate £30m for the old method (£15m lower than Kieran's guess). As you point out, profit on players would also increase, notably Ince and Weimann.

I'll be surprised if it is staggered as I'm struggling to think of an instance this has happened in the past for any club. With the Final being the end of May, I would have expected that money to be accounted for by July. I don't doubt the EFL could have put a much stronger case forward if that chose a competent expert. With the EFL not appealing this part of the charge then I think this is the end of it. I thought the rules prevented the submission of new evidence, instead only appealing the decision based on the evidence already provided. Maybe asked a friend/colleague (who visited a while back) for his opinion who described our facilities as "basic". The club's amortisation policy requires a review every 6 months (iirc). If the review says the change is required... The extensions to Butterfield, Johnson and Blackman? It would have pushed a reasonable chunk of losses into 19/20. If my understanding of the policy is correct... An example would be signing a player for £5m on a 5 year contract. £500k amortisation a year for the first 4 years with the rest £3m in the final year. Am extension in that final year reduces that amortisation in the 5th year to £500k, with £2.5m in the 6th year. It may not be 10% per year in the actual policy but it helps illustrate the point. 19/20 shot up to £25.1m. £15m is a reasonable drop from £25.1m, don't you think? It does but it also helps keep the squad size at a healthy level. If we had to sign replacements then the same wages would be going put anyway. Don't think it'll make much P&S impact. You'd hope so. Holmes was a £500-700k signing so a welcome profit on him. "A bit more youth". Any more youth and we'll be an U12 side ? My point was more about doing things 'the right way', rather than looking at amortisation which indicates behaviour from the past. I think the papers suggested around £4m. Doubt it'll be paid upfront . Knowing Cocu he would be happy enough with deferred payment given the financial situation at the club. Given we've allowed him to join MK Dons I'll be very surprised if it hasn't been resolved.

A harsher punishment due to unexpected takeover delays seems harsh to me. Mel was assured the takeover would complete on the 24th of December and the wage bill will be accounted for. If he knew he would have freed up some cash, but he didn't know so he didn't free it up. However, if an owner simply chooses not to pay the wages then that obviously required harsher punishment. Seems to be in part due to the charges brought upon the two clubs by the EFL. I don't think it has a material impact on P&S submissions so does it really matter to the EFL? I'm with you on the 2021 period but I assumed a move back to 3 years for 2022. I think the difference in P&S loss is only a couple of £million either way. Average AND Covid allowances is strange. There must be a reason for it? The EFl will but for us who like to estimate the P&S losses is doesn't really matter if you use a correction value - something like an improvement of £7m from the group accounts or £3m worse than the club accounts over the 3 seasons. Lampard officially joined Chelsea on the 4th of July. It's another of those in the first week of July which creeps into the previous accounting period for some reason - see Ince and Weimann(?) as examples in the past. I'm still surprised the EFL didn't push back on this one during the hearing. It would have been easier to win that than the stadium fee or amortisation charges. Yep. That's mostly due to the group of players who signed extensions in 18/19, only to leave in the very early part of 19/20, the fault with our amortisation policy - Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, Anya and Huddlestone all left on frees in the 19/20 period after costing a combined c£20m. I've estimated a drop to £15m in 20/21 (pending no extensions). This could decrease by almost half if Wisdom and Waghorn sign extensions though. Dropping again to £9m in 21/22 (pending no extensions), made up mostly from Lawrence and Marriott. Only Bielik and Jozwiak of significant book value beyond that, with their contracts currently set to expire in 2024. Rooney's wages would be a complete guess. One source suggests the following for other players above £10k: Lawrence - £30k Davies - £25k Wisdom - £23k Clarke - £22k Carson - 20k Malone - £20k Bielik - £20k Marriott - £18k Jozwiak - £15k Byrne - £11k It's hard to argue against those figures being too far out. Only those in bold are currently set to stay beyond this season. te Wierik was another supposedly in the £10k+ camp, but he's on his way back to the Netherlands. Marriott has also returned to Sheffield Wednesday on loan who will pick up most of his wages. Holmes off to Huddersfield for £1m and a small saving off the wage bill. We'll have a tiny squad for next season at the moment. Marshall, Roos, Byrne, Evans, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Lawrence, Jozwiak, Ibe and Marriott are the only players with more than a season and a bit of experience to their names. I don't think anyone can use the wage bill as a stick to beat the club with anymore. Same for transfers where fees received exceed fees going out.

We're currently under a soft embargo due to not paying the wages. Once paid, the embargo should be lifted. It appears like Covid has helped us pass P&S for 19/20 and 20/21 due to the 4 year period. I wouldn't bet against P&S losses for the 18/19 and 19/20 seasons to be far off £25m and £36m respectively. I recall the Decision Document stated £29.5m for 18/19, which wouldn't include the playoffs or the Lampard compensation. There's no way we would have stayed within the P&S limits for the 2020 period and 2021 would have been difficult, requiring a lot more academy graduates being sold. With the high earners off the wage bill, I have no concerns about the 2022 period though. I'll be surprised if Waghorn is outside the £15-20k range. You look at the squad list beyond this season and the only high earner remaining will be Lawrence. Bielik, Jozwiak and Marriott the next highest earners, but unlikely to be on much more than £15k

If I’ve understood that post correctly, that’s £20m total amortisation still to show up in the accounts. £10m this season, £5m next (Lawrence and Evans’ contracts end), then £5m over the following two seasons (Bielik’s contract ends). As we both know, some of those players will sign extensions delaying the amortisation shown. Looking at the squad, I’d be surprised if first team wages were much higher than £20m. Total club wages will probably be £5m higher. How would changes to the amortisation and stadium rules affect solidarity payments from the PL? I thought I read a while back though our rules need to be aligned with there’s so ensure EFL clubs still get those payments. The best part of £5m for Championship clubs, £700k for L1 and £500k for L2.

Fancy a bet on which club makes it to the Premier League first? ?

Move on and forget about the stadium valuation. The EFL already has.

The training ground is owned by the club Regarding the squad based on the OS: Goalkeepers: 1st choice, 2nd choice, keeper we want to loan out, U23 keeper Defenders: 5 competing for a start, 1 ageing pro who will have limited game time, 1 U18 player Midfielders: 1 player coming back from a year long injury and will still be out for a couple of months, 1 CB/DM cover, 2 U23 players, 6 others Forwards: 2 are wingers, 2 are forwards 25 players listed in total, with 4 of them have never kicked a ball in professional football, and a further 7 have played fewer than 100 games.

£81.1m originally. Marked down to £74.4m to get through the P&S submissions, with view to enter further discussions at a later date. At the later date, both sides agreed to using the £81.1m figure. Probably the only position we don't need any players.

Those two being sold should mean we'll meet the 4 years to 2021 P&S limits. We were hoping to get more for Bennett and actually sell Malone and Jozefzoon, which may have meant keeping one of Lowe/Bogle. The coronavirus impact and P&S period changing to 4 years appears to have saved us from a hefty penalty, for what would have been the 3 years to 2020. Although, if it wasn't for the extended season, we would have almost certainly sold players to stay within limits anyway. We've got a paper thin squad now, with only 16 senior players, one of which we're doing whatever we can to offload, and another two of those having played fewer than 100 professional games. From the 16, 4 are currently injured, with 2 only just returning to the team following injuries.

Changes between 17/18 and 18/19... Wages removed: Russell (1/2 season), Palmer (1/2 loan), Vydra, Weimann, Shackell (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Blackman, Lowe (loan), Jerome (1/2 season), Martin (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Baird, Bent (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Pearce (1/2 season), Thorne (1/2 season), Butterfield (1/2 season loan), Ledley (1/2 season) Wages added: Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Evans, Wilson, Mount, Tomori, Cole (1/2 season), King (1/2 season), Ambrose (1/2 season) I guess the profit on players is the difference between mine and the official figures. Strike my £4m profit of and we're bang on the money. According to transfermarkt, Vydra, Weimann and Jerome were signed for a combined £13.5m minus a bit of amortisation them it won't be far off £12.8m. Surprised we only sold them for £11.7m when Vydra was rumoured at about £11m, Weimann at £2m and Jerome £1-1.5m.