duncanjwitham

17 minutes ago, metalsheep02 said:

On reflection I agree with you - I think it fixes the level the player accrues the 3 appearances at in terms of whether that division is equal to or higher than the one we are playing in at the time the player was registered.

Which would give us the weird circumstance next season, where if we're in league 1, academy lads starting games wouldn't count towards their 3 starts, as they were registered while we were a championship club.  And thinking about it, anybody that we signed in 2007/8 wouldn't count at all, as we were a prem club when they signed. Louie Sibley has been with us since U8s apparently, so he must be pretty close to that.  Not sure how long the likes of Bird or Buchanan have been around.

4 minutes ago, metalsheep02 said:

Not saying you are wrong at all but I would really like to understand this point. The agreed decision as provided by the EFL states the following which does seem to indicate that the date of the player's registration is significant:

1.1 “Permitted Player” means any Player who:

i) has at any point during their career, started in 3 League Matches (as defined in the EFL Regulations) in the same or higher division that the Club is participating in at the time of their registration; or

ii) is registered with the Club after the date of this Agreement.

That is *really* ambiguous. I initially read it as saying that the "time of their registration" bit just fixed the division we're talking about - so at the moment it's saying any player that's started 3 Championship or higher matches, but next season (assuming it still applies), it might be referring to League 1. 

But if you read it as "fixing" the players status at the point they are registered, then none of the current academy lads will ever fall under it.  Bird, Buchanan, Knight etc had all started zero league games at the point they were registered with us.

Be interesting to see if Thompson starts again. That'll be his 3rd start and then he'll officially count as one of the 25 players we're allowed to use.  It might give us some insight into what the thinking for January is.

Obviously he deserves to start, he's been fantastic so far.

2 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

Without any checking at all, it's something like the (offside) offence is obviously in the attacking half, 

37 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

take the free kick from the point of the offence. 

I think this is what's confusing people.  Under the current rules, the actual offence is touching the ball (or interfering with play etc etc) after being stood in an offside position when it was previously played by a team mate.  So the freekick does occur at the point of offence.  Being stood in an offside position, even if the ball was very clearly played to you, isn't an offence until you touch it (or otherwise interfere).

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Played for the U23s.

Interestingly no Byrne

He’s suspended after the red card the other week.

47 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

What’s wrong with an annual membership charge say £5, or more depending on the number of members.

Just charge 1p each time to post “Tom Lawrence” on the board. The weekly post-match meltdowns would generate a fortune.

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Wont this just be a rehash of the EFls version of the accounts with an "adjustment" from 2018 to 2019?

I think it's the summary of the overall financial position of the club that the administrators are required to file.

9 minutes ago, angieram said:

Well, I'm sure, it's because it isn't a done thing.

No matter how we have fallen, the answer doesn't lie in taking legal action against other clubs in this way.

I agree, but if 'Boro proceed and win, I don't see how we have any other choice.  Clubs suing each other over off-field issues would be the new normal.  It's potentially going to have as big an effect on on-field performances as parachute payments are - possibly even worse as it's a double-whammy (one club gaining a load of cash, the other club losing a load).

11 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Given that the statements have been reviewed by a large number of people and you seem to be prretty much the only one to come to this conclusion, please could you explain to us mere mortals how you KNOW this....

I don't think we know if for sure, but that business plan is very much tied to the points deduction decision. And we haven't actually left admin yet, and we don't even know on exactly what terms.  So I think it's unlikely we've seen the end of business plans yet.  It may well be the case that any future business plans build on the current one - it would be very weird if we had 2 different sets of recruitment restrictions operating on us at the same time.

8 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Are you even a Rams fan? I only ask because given the EFL are not suggesting we've done what you claim we have, it seems a bit odd that you appear to joined the forum solely to make spurious claims about the club's accounting policies.

 

To be fair, the BBC article about this last deduction explicitly said we were inflating values above what we paid for them, so it’s no wonder people are thinking that.  There’s so much misinformation flying about that most people have no clue what’s going on, outside of a dedicated bunch of accounting nerds on here (and I just about include myself in that, in case anyone thinks I’m being disparaging).

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can you start a game with only 10 players on the pitch?

I *think* so... You only need 7 for a match to be "legal".  It must be very unusual for a team to start a game with 10 men, but have subs they can bring on though.

Just now, PistoldPete said:

So being upfront about it or blatant is a help? Not knowing you have broken any rules because your auditors said it was ok is a hindrance? That’s not how I read our IDC findings.

and reading get off lightly because their owners are super rich? Whereas we get punished more because we are broke?

ok maybe I need to start learning more from this school of logic.

My understanding of the sanctions decision (DC2), was that all of the issues to do with the accounting methods/amortization etc was dealt with with the £100k fine.  If restating the accounts then resulted in overspend, that was to be treated purely in terms of it being overspend. There weren't to be additional points added on for the accounting or anything, as that would be us being punished twice for the same thing.

13 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Or start Forsyth and sub Cashin on in the 2nd minute?

Possibly an insane question... but if you start the match with only 10 players, do you have to take someone off to bring a sub on?

1 minute ago, Sparkle said:

It’s not really anybody to do with Derby county football club agreeing with this it’s the administrators doing it to sell the club under duress like a forced confession before hanging 

Like it or not, the administrators are the people currently in charge of running DCFC day to day. They are the people that get to make decisions for the club.  Not denying the whole thing stinks, but we are where we are.

9 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

That's actually the bit that is confusing me - it appears thast we weren't charged (for the reported breaches based on the re-done accounts), but have been punished anyway....almost like some sort of plea bargain. I guess that's why the EFL make a noise about "the principles of the Regulations" rather than follwoing due process - gives them the wriggle room to pretty much do whatever they please....

A plea-bargain is exactly what it was.  Both sides agree on the punishment, get independent sign-off on it, and then move on.  Either side could have refused the agreed decision, in which case it would have gone through the formal charging process, with DCs, LAPs and so on.  Presumably both sides wanted to avoid another lengthy process on top of the one we've had already.

7 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Professor Pope saw the deed done in the Library by Colonel Mustard with the dagger. 

I’ve been mentally calling him Professor Plum since the first DC (for various reasons…). I have to double check every post when I mention his name in case I’ve written the wrong one.

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I dont know where to find it either and CBA , but I think it's there in the process.

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

“6.4          Any Disciplinary Commission convened pursuant to or otherwise in relation to any matter covered by these Rules shall include at least one member who holds a nationally recognised qualification as an accountant or auditor (but who shall not sit as the chairman of the Disciplinary Commission, who shall be qualified as set out in Regulation 90.3.1) (the Finance Member).

6.5          The Finance Member shall be selected by the Independent Directors of the Board from a panel of Finance Members approved by a simple majority of the member clubs in the Championship division as at the date the panel is presented for approval.  For the purposes of Regulation 90.3.2, the Finance Member shall be deemed to be the member appointed by The League”

13 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Look at the losses under No. 22 of the attached https://www.efl.com/contentassets/065e21d5596b42e7a882322d3a203509/efl-v-dcfc-agreed-decision-approved-for-publication-15-november-2021.pdf

The policy change will not have effected the amount of the losses, just the timing. All our deferring of writing down the values of Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, etc., would have hit the 2018/19 accounts hard. Long before EFL charged Derby in Jan 2020 and COVID hit us all in Mar 2020.

Bear in mind that those losses are all rolling 3 year losses, so the actual losses are only a third of what’s quoted there.  The total FFP overspend is about £33m (although it could be higher depending on how those listed figures deal with ‘resetting’ losses in previous seasons). I think that overspend falls into the season we sold the stadium, so it would have been interesting to see if we could have used the reserve valuation thingy at that point - I’m probably mangling this, but we basically ‘stored’ some of the profit from the sale of the stadium for future use, but if we knew where we were on FFP terms we may not have done that at all.  All it takes is using that, and maybe some other action like not signing Bielik, and we’re not that far off hitting the target.

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

This was all being decided in May of this year. Would have been done and dusted by now.

It took from sometime in 2019 to get to that point. Obviously COVID affected things, plus other factors, but we have no way of saying how long it would have taken. We’re not just talking about a referral back to the DC to reassess something here, that specific LAP power (as I read it anyway) is basically to order a completely new hearing from scratch.

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be desirable to us, and may well have been the right decision, but it’s not some quick fix that would have sorted everything overnight.

2 minutes ago, plymouthram said:

Sorry if I get this wrong. If we can't transfer in any players, take on any loans, not go above 25 players in the 1st team squad. What happens in January if we lose the 2 players on the 6 month contracts and on top of that, we lose 3 or 4 players that other teams buy. The EFL wanting to help and save clubs does'nt make sense with these restrictions in place.

Or does the goalposts get moved if we have a new owner of the club prior to January or the end of the season ?                                            Also, how long does the suspended -3 points stay in place

We can still sign frees and loans (with no loan fee). The rules are a bit more relaxed, and some of the youngsters won’t count at the moment. We basically have 20/25 slots filled IIRC, with a few youngsters part way to counting. We’ve probably got a bit of wiggle room to bring a couple of players in in January as it is, and a few more if the likes of Marshall leave.

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There's quite a significant cost to relegation. And a lot of time playing matches that may not mean anything when you get 21 points deducted.

But another round of DC and LAP hearings could have added years onto the process. We could still be going through this stuff next season and facing further deductions in league 1.

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

That’s true and I didn’t remember that. But what @Pistoldpete was advocating was that it go back to the same panel 

It does seem a more sensible option though. The entire case came down to whether Professor Pope was a reliable witness, and the LAP made their decision entirely on the basis of what the DC wrote in their report, they never even got to speak to him themselves.  Although there are obviously significant time and cost reasons to not want a brand new DC.

4 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

So there is a detailed set of procedural rules designed to ensure everyone knows how disputes will be resolved. And those rules are (obviously) applied universally, because it’s fair for everyone’s disputes to be handled the same way. And you’re saying that for  ‘proper remedy’ you should depart from those rules in our case ? Really??

Ordering a new hearing before a new DC is one of the powers the LAP had under the existing rules.

Watson has started 2, one last season, one this. McDonald started one last season too.

4 minutes ago, Chris_D said:

A qualified accountant who was totally independent of the matter being discussed?  

Like the one on the DC? A 30+ year experienced forensic accountant?