duncanjwitham

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

A competent poster on here could tbh.

They overspent by ~£70m in their promotion season, but managed to convince the EFL that enough of it was “exceptional items”, and thus could be excluded from FFP, to squeeze in under the threshold. I have no idea how plausible those exclusions are.

He was also a judge, so I’m pretty sure he’s adept at putting mouthy lawyers in their place.

He was also a judge, so I’m pretty sure he’s adept at putting mouthy lawyers in their place.

He was also a judge, so I’m pretty sure he’s adept at putting mouthy lawyers in their place.

It certainly explains one thing. Once we’d explained our amortisation model to the EFL they basically said they didn’t like it, but it was legal. They warned us that we couldn’t count any future years where a load of stored-up amortisation dropped as an exceptional FFP item and we accepted that. Then all of a sudden, we’re getting charged for it…

There's endless precedent in EFL cases about not being able to correlate overspending with specific footballing outcomes.  You simply cannot argue that one team breaching rules directly affects the results/league position of any other team. 
That covers the confidentiality issue they moan about too.  We don't need to know what their actual claims are. If they are claiming that their league position was affected by our overspending, then there's no case to answer, regardless of how they are claiming we 'cheated'.

The Quantuma statement saying the claims were the only remaining major obstacle suggests the same.

The Quantuma statement saying the claims were the only remaining major obstacle suggests the same.

A competent poster on here could tbh.

That Wycombe Guy: "I don't know anything"

And that date wasn’t the end of the process either. If we overspent in those accounts, it was the start of a whole new process that only resulted in deductions in November 2021, and that was with a supposedly expedited agreed decision.

And that date wasn’t the end of the process either. If we overspent in those accounts, it was the start of a whole new process that only resulted in deductions in November 2021, and that was with a supposedly expedited agreed decision.

It's all in DC2. There's pages and pages of it, but this is a good bit:

Someone can use this as a starting point if they want...
Timeline of events, beginning with the introduction of financial regulation in the Championship.
1.       2012 - FFP Rules (monitored over 1 season) implemented
2.       24/05/14 - Derby lose to FFP cheats QPR in the Playoff Final
3.       November 2014 – P&S rules (monitored over 3 seasons) voted in to replace FFP rules for the 16/17 season onwards.
4.       Summer 2015 – Derby change amortisation policy for the 15/16 season (after discussing the change with the auditors)
5.       07/04/17 – 15/16 accounts are submitted to Companies House
6.       06/04/18 – 16/17 accounts are submitted to Companies House
7.       Spring 2018 –2016-18 P&S information submitted to EFL (within limits)
8.       12/04/18 – Revised 2016-18 P&S information submitted to EFL due to differences between FFP and P&S calculations (£5m over the limit)
9.       04/05/18 – DCFC placed under embargo
10.   May 2018 – Stadium valued at £81.1m (profits basis) and £74.4m (DRC basis) by JLL
11.   June 2018 – Discussions with EFL to agree on stadium sale and how much to be included in the accounts)
12.   28/06/18 – Stadium sold for £81m. Revised 2016-18 P&S information submitted to EFL (within limits)
13.   03/07/18 – Embargo lifted
14.   04/07/18 – EFL confirmation that DCFC met their P&S requirements for the 3 year period to 2018.
15.   15/02/19 – EFL Executive confirmation that £81.1m was fair value for the stadium.
16.   06/03/19 – placed under embargo for late submission of P&S statements
17.   29/03/19 – 2019 P&S statements submitted to EFL (within limits) and embargo lifted. New embargo placed on club due to being close to the limit.
18.   05/04/19 – 17/18 accounts are submitted to Companies House
19.   April 2019 - MFC queried, “in forceful terms”, the legitimacy of such a sale and leaseback arrangement
20.   15/04/19 – EFL query why amortization fluctuates so much between seasons.
21.   13/05/19 – Meeting between DCFC and EFL to discuss amortization, EFL stated “it is an acceptable accounting policy” with the EFL stating large future impairments are a risk for the club to take on
22.   24/05/19 – MFC submitted a claim against Derby, stating we cheated P&S by selling the stadium for too much and it wasn’t arms length.
23.   09/07/19 – MFC claim PPS should have been sold at a fair value of £22.8m
24.   11/07/19 – Embargo lifted
25.   30/07/19 – MFC officially threatened the EFL and DCFC with proceedings unless the EFL initiated disciplinary action against DCFC
26.   06/09/19 – MFC servered notice of arbitration to get profits from stadium sales excluded from P&S calculations (including those in the past)
27.   02/12/19 – EFL hired expert valued stadium at £42-50m. Expert had not visited the stadium but deemed the facilities to be “bog standard” and drew comparisons to Morecombe’s 6476 stadium with 3 terraced stands.
28.   16/01/20 – Derby charged with selling the stadium above it’s true value and for using improper amortization policy, resulting in exceeding P&S limits in the 3 years to 2018
29.   Early 2020 – Derby placed under embargo
30.   25/08/20 – DC cleared of overvaluing the stadium, found guilty for 1 of 5 particulars relating to the amortisation policy (not worded it adequately in the accounts), but insisted the policy was compliant with FRS102. DC panel consisted of accountants
31.   07/09/20 – EFL appealed against the DC decision
32.   07/09/20 – Boro started an arbitration against Derby and the EFL, in particular regarding the stadium valuation which allowed us to sign Waghorn
33.   22/10/20 – Boro’s application rejected
34.   30/11/20 – De novo hearing held and dismissed (EFL wanting draft 18/19 accounts submitted after DC decision to be considered)
35.   15/12/20 – EFL application for new evidence to be considered (18/19 draft accounts), dismissed 22/01/21
36.   July 2021 – LAP decision resulting in a restatement of 15/16 accounts onwards with a compliant amortization policy and a £100k fine. LAP did not consist of any accountants.
37.   22/09/21 – Derby enter administration
38.   16/11/21 – Administrators agree 9-point deduction due to EFL’s claim of a P&S overspend, a result of the EFL rejecting our new amortisation policy
 
Other noteworthy events:
EFL stated as wanting the points deduction against Derby to be applied in 20/21 to cause maximum punishment (relegation) when the season had already concluded.
Embargoes: 04/05/18-03/07/18, 06/03/19-11/07/19, early 2020-present

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

Even that’s spurious because of Sheffield Wednesday though. If they’re consistent on that, then Sheff Wed stay up, or get relegated in a previous year and there’s a completely different composition to the league.
And that’s not counting the fact we weren’t even given the points deduction until November 2021, the delay almost entirely being out of our hands with EFL appeals, ‘Boro sticking their noses in etc.

That's a good find ?. I did wonder if they were trying to argue some difference between legal action and EFL arbitration, but that seems pretty clear.

But the claim wasn't concluded in Autumn 2020...
The original hearing result was August 2020, when we were basically cleared of everything.
The EFL appeal result was May 2021.
The decision on Sanction was June 2021.
The agreed decision on FFP issues was November 2021.

Does anyone genuinely have any idea what they're talking about? Their attempt to wangle in on the appeal hearing was mostly focussed on the stadium sale value, but that's been so thoroughly cleared by the first hearing they've literally got no chance of getting anywhere with it.  And given the sheer number of people who've been over out accounts for that period, I'd be amazed if there's something else lurking there that literally nobody else has found.  And even if there is, it must be incredibly minor (in cash terms) or it would be obvious.

Quite remarkable to be completely honest... Derby weren't even charged until January 2020, and the amortisation charge was unexpected. Prior to this, Middlesbrough felt we cheated solely due to the stadium sale, and continued with this view up until their arbitration application was rejected on 22/10/2020.
Probably because there isn't any credible basis for any claim against Derby. The "systematic cheating" was already addressed in previous hearings and dismissed.
The issue here is the EFL's processes. Birmingham, Sheff Weds and Derby were all charged with failing the 3 year P&S period up to 2018. Birmingham had their points deduction in 18/19, Sheff Weds in 20/21 and now Derby in 21/22. This claim should be against the EFL for not punishing all 3 clubs in the 18/19 season.
They're 100% confident that Middlesbrough would have placed 6th if the EFL had handled everything as they should have? Bristol City should have a very strong claim against that comment.
Middlesbrough is not a Football Creditor.
The administrators have no legal requirement need to contact Boro to exit administration.

Yeah sorry, should have made that clear. Have edited the post ?

There's endless precedent in EFL cases about not being able to correlate overspending with specific footballing outcomes.  You simply cannot argue that one team breaching rules directly affects the results/league position of any other team. 
That covers the confidentiality issue they moan about too.  We don't need to know what their actual claims are. If they are claiming that their league position was affected by our overspending, then there's no case to answer, regardless of how they are claiming we 'cheated'.

But the claim wasn't concluded in Autumn 2020...
The original hearing result was August 2020, when we were basically cleared of everything.
The EFL appeal result was May 2021.
The decision on Sanction was June 2021.
The agreed decision on FFP issues was November 2021.