duncanjwitham

I'm not actually 100% sure the EFL can do this.  The rules don't seem massively clear on it, but it seems to me that it's case of we either do an Agreed Decision, or the EFL formally charge us and it goes to another DC. There's no allowance in the rules for the EFL to just arbitrarily slap a points deduction on us themselves (outside of the fixed 12 point penalty for going into admin etc).
The graded penalties for levels of overspend (the 1 point per £Xm of overspend stuff) don't seem to be in the rules anymore (if they ever were...).  They're referenced as being part of the 'guidelines' in the Sheffield Wednesday appeal written reasons, but I can't find those guidelines online anywhere.  And I think that was the only mechanism that could have existed for an automatic deduction (without going to a DC etc).

Any question that starts "do we know for certain" is going to result in a "no" answer at the moment.
We don't know what the discussion is about, and honestly, whether we've broken the rules and what punishment we might be due aren't entirely separate things.  If we're still arguing over exactly what amortization models are allowed, then the answer to that question will determine the extent of any overspend, and hence the extent of any punishment.

Whether the guide has been removed or not, our 'alleged' offences were over the same 3 year FFP P&S period as Sheff Wed and therefore they should use the same guidelines for us.   
I also find that there is no indefinite period for this to go on is nothing short of holding a gun to Mels head.  I think he may just tell the EFL to GTF and go down the disciplinary route.   My understanding of Mel is that he is very headstrong and often will not take advice from those around him.  I'm guessing that is why we are in the complete mess we are in.....
I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if Mel just tells the EFL to go down the disciplinary route if the punishment is not going to be capped at 3 - 6points..... 
One final point - This can't be a punishment for the amortisation of players as we've already been punished £100K for that, it must be to do with the way that the accounts have been resubmitted and the EFL have another p*ssy on, because we presented them again in a legal way of accounting practices that the non-financially trained EFL do not like.....  Tough they should accept it and just close the loop and give clear direction on how amortisation of players should recorded.
Part of me hopes that Mel does take them on no matter how long it takes, then sue them, should we lose our Championship status, after wrongly hounding us for the last 18 months.  Other clubs including Boro have done similar things with zero comeback, yet Derby seem to ne the whipping boys, as someone has said because of the TV deal.....

Any question that starts "do we know for certain" is going to result in a "no" answer at the moment.
We don't know what the discussion is about, and honestly, whether we've broken the rules and what punishment we might be due aren't entirely separate things.  If we're still arguing over exactly what amortization models are allowed, then the answer to that question will determine the extent of any overspend, and hence the extent of any punishment.

Any question that starts "do we know for certain" is going to result in a "no" answer at the moment.
We don't know what the discussion is about, and honestly, whether we've broken the rules and what punishment we might be due aren't entirely separate things.  If we're still arguing over exactly what amortization models are allowed, then the answer to that question will determine the extent of any overspend, and hence the extent of any punishment.

I'm not actually 100% sure the EFL can do this.  The rules don't seem massively clear on it, but it seems to me that it's case of we either do an Agreed Decision, or the EFL formally charge us and it goes to another DC. There's no allowance in the rules for the EFL to just arbitrarily slap a points deduction on us themselves (outside of the fixed 12 point penalty for going into admin etc).
The graded penalties for levels of overspend (the 1 point per £Xm of overspend stuff) don't seem to be in the rules anymore (if they ever were...).  They're referenced as being part of the 'guidelines' in the Sheffield Wednesday appeal written reasons, but I can't find those guidelines online anywhere.  And I think that was the only mechanism that could have existed for an automatic deduction (without going to a DC etc).

The relevant bit of the rules:

And for reference...

So it's basically someone who could potentially lead a Disciplinary Commission.  Not a member of the EFL board, or Steve Gibson or anything. 

The relevant bit of the rules:

And for reference...

So it's basically someone who could potentially lead a Disciplinary Commission.  Not a member of the EFL board, or Steve Gibson or anything. 

The relevant bit of the rules:

And for reference...

So it's basically someone who could potentially lead a Disciplinary Commission.  Not a member of the EFL board, or Steve Gibson or anything. 

The big thing for me is how often we're doing it.  I have no problem with us setting up defensively as a one-off in arguably the most difficult game of the season, particularly off the back of a poor performance again Birmingham.  And by and large we've tried to play decent football this season, even if it hasn't always worked.  What I don't want to see is this style creeping in more and more because it sort of worked here.  We need to stick to our guns and keep trying to make the decent football work for the majority of the time.  

If I had to stake my life it, I reckon we've submitted something that the EFL don't believe meets FRS102, but we do.  We've either not used a straight-line amortisation method, or it's something to do with the "missing £30m", or some other big of jiggery-pokery.  I'm almost certain we won't have submitted something that breaches the FFP thresholds, because we'd be absolutely mad to.  If we went down the route of submitting accounts that show overspend and try to argue mitigating circumstances, it's admitting that we were wrong for a start, and the original accounts were 'hiding something'.  It's potentially opening us up to other charges on the HMRC thing, not submitting accounts etc - it goes from "we can't submit it until the EFL clarify things" to "we didn't submit it because we got caught hiding something else".  There's just no major incentive for us to do it IMO.
Whether the straight-line/no-trickery accounts actually show overspend or not is another matter. 3 years ago, I would have been certain that Morris wild stand his ground and submit what he thought was right, just for the principle of it.  But now, with everything that's going on, I'm not so sure.  

More likely it’s a rest with 3 games in a week, Lawrence just back from injury and Morrison having done a round trip to Jamaica.

If I had to stake my life it, I reckon we've submitted something that the EFL don't believe meets FRS102, but we do.  We've either not used a straight-line amortisation method, or it's something to do with the "missing £30m", or some other big of jiggery-pokery.  I'm almost certain we won't have submitted something that breaches the FFP thresholds, because we'd be absolutely mad to.  If we went down the route of submitting accounts that show overspend and try to argue mitigating circumstances, it's admitting that we were wrong for a start, and the original accounts were 'hiding something'.  It's potentially opening us up to other charges on the HMRC thing, not submitting accounts etc - it goes from "we can't submit it until the EFL clarify things" to "we didn't submit it because we got caught hiding something else".  There's just no major incentive for us to do it IMO.
Whether the straight-line/no-trickery accounts actually show overspend or not is another matter. 3 years ago, I would have been certain that Morris wild stand his ground and submit what he thought was right, just for the principle of it.  But now, with everything that's going on, I'm not so sure.  

If I had to stake my life it, I reckon we've submitted something that the EFL don't believe meets FRS102, but we do.  We've either not used a straight-line amortisation method, or it's something to do with the "missing £30m", or some other big of jiggery-pokery.  I'm almost certain we won't have submitted something that breaches the FFP thresholds, because we'd be absolutely mad to.  If we went down the route of submitting accounts that show overspend and try to argue mitigating circumstances, it's admitting that we were wrong for a start, and the original accounts were 'hiding something'.  It's potentially opening us up to other charges on the HMRC thing, not submitting accounts etc - it goes from "we can't submit it until the EFL clarify things" to "we didn't submit it because we got caught hiding something else".  There's just no major incentive for us to do it IMO.
Whether the straight-line/no-trickery accounts actually show overspend or not is another matter. 3 years ago, I would have been certain that Morris wild stand his ground and submit what he thought was right, just for the principle of it.  But now, with everything that's going on, I'm not so sure.  

If I had to stake my life it, I reckon we've submitted something that the EFL don't believe meets FRS102, but we do.  We've either not used a straight-line amortisation method, or it's something to do with the "missing £30m", or some other big of jiggery-pokery.  I'm almost certain we won't have submitted something that breaches the FFP thresholds, because we'd be absolutely mad to.  If we went down the route of submitting accounts that show overspend and try to argue mitigating circumstances, it's admitting that we were wrong for a start, and the original accounts were 'hiding something'.  It's potentially opening us up to other charges on the HMRC thing, not submitting accounts etc - it goes from "we can't submit it until the EFL clarify things" to "we didn't submit it because we got caught hiding something else".  There's just no major incentive for us to do it IMO.
Whether the straight-line/no-trickery accounts actually show overspend or not is another matter. 3 years ago, I would have been certain that Morris wild stand his ground and submit what he thought was right, just for the principle of it.  But now, with everything that's going on, I'm not so sure.  

Huddersfield used Butterfield in a *very* different way to what we did.  They played him in the hole in a 4231 (i.e. in the middle of the 3). They then had 3 very mobile guys playing around him and running off him (the likes of Nakhi Wells, Sean Scannell, Joe Lolley etc).  Their game plan was get the ball into Butterfields feet and just have him play endless through balls for those guys to run onto. He didn't have to run around, he didn't have to pass-and-move, he didn't have to defend or track runners, just get it and play someone through.
We literally did none of that. He mostly played in the 2 holders in our 4231, so he was much more exposed defensively and lack-of-mobility wise.  We played 3 direct runners in the 3 (the likes of Ince, Camara, Russell, Ward etc), but they were all starting miles ahead of Butterfield and running away from him, instead of running off him.  So those cute little 10 yard through balls at Huddersfield needed to be 40 yard inch-perfect balls to have the same effect.  Added to that, we had Martin dropping off the front, effectively doing the same job Butterfield had done at Huddersfield, so even if he did get forward, he was competing for space and touches.
It goes back to what @Bris Vegas said about understanding players. We seemingly had no clue what he was good at or why he succeeded at Huddersfield - we just seemed to think that because he was a good passer, he would be a drop-in replacement for Will Hughes.

Huddersfield used Butterfield in a *very* different way to what we did.  They played him in the hole in a 4231 (i.e. in the middle of the 3). They then had 3 very mobile guys playing around him and running off him (the likes of Nakhi Wells, Sean Scannell, Joe Lolley etc).  Their game plan was get the ball into Butterfields feet and just have him play endless through balls for those guys to run onto. He didn't have to run around, he didn't have to pass-and-move, he didn't have to defend or track runners, just get it and play someone through.
We literally did none of that. He mostly played in the 2 holders in our 4231, so he was much more exposed defensively and lack-of-mobility wise.  We played 3 direct runners in the 3 (the likes of Ince, Camara, Russell, Ward etc), but they were all starting miles ahead of Butterfield and running away from him, instead of running off him.  So those cute little 10 yard through balls at Huddersfield needed to be 40 yard inch-perfect balls to have the same effect.  Added to that, we had Martin dropping off the front, effectively doing the same job Butterfield had done at Huddersfield, so even if he did get forward, he was competing for space and touches.
It goes back to what @Bris Vegas said about understanding players. We seemingly had no clue what he was good at or why he succeeded at Huddersfield - we just seemed to think that because he was a good passer, he would be a drop-in replacement for Will Hughes.

Huddersfield used Butterfield in a *very* different way to what we did.  They played him in the hole in a 4231 (i.e. in the middle of the 3). They then had 3 very mobile guys playing around him and running off him (the likes of Nakhi Wells, Sean Scannell, Joe Lolley etc).  Their game plan was get the ball into Butterfields feet and just have him play endless through balls for those guys to run onto. He didn't have to run around, he didn't have to pass-and-move, he didn't have to defend or track runners, just get it and play someone through.
We literally did none of that. He mostly played in the 2 holders in our 4231, so he was much more exposed defensively and lack-of-mobility wise.  We played 3 direct runners in the 3 (the likes of Ince, Camara, Russell, Ward etc), but they were all starting miles ahead of Butterfield and running away from him, instead of running off him.  So those cute little 10 yard through balls at Huddersfield needed to be 40 yard inch-perfect balls to have the same effect.  Added to that, we had Martin dropping off the front, effectively doing the same job Butterfield had done at Huddersfield, so even if he did get forward, he was competing for space and touches.
It goes back to what @Bris Vegas said about understanding players. We seemingly had no clue what he was good at or why he succeeded at Huddersfield - we just seemed to think that because he was a good passer, he would be a drop-in replacement for Will Hughes.

Huddersfield used Butterfield in a *very* different way to what we did.  They played him in the hole in a 4231 (i.e. in the middle of the 3). They then had 3 very mobile guys playing around him and running off him (the likes of Nakhi Wells, Sean Scannell, Joe Lolley etc).  Their game plan was get the ball into Butterfields feet and just have him play endless through balls for those guys to run onto. He didn't have to run around, he didn't have to pass-and-move, he didn't have to defend or track runners, just get it and play someone through.
We literally did none of that. He mostly played in the 2 holders in our 4231, so he was much more exposed defensively and lack-of-mobility wise.  We played 3 direct runners in the 3 (the likes of Ince, Camara, Russell, Ward etc), but they were all starting miles ahead of Butterfield and running away from him, instead of running off him.  So those cute little 10 yard through balls at Huddersfield needed to be 40 yard inch-perfect balls to have the same effect.  Added to that, we had Martin dropping off the front, effectively doing the same job Butterfield had done at Huddersfield, so even if he did get forward, he was competing for space and touches.
It goes back to what @Bris Vegas said about understanding players. We seemingly had no clue what he was good at or why he succeeded at Huddersfield - we just seemed to think that because he was a good passer, he would be a drop-in replacement for Will Hughes.

Huddersfield used Butterfield in a *very* different way to what we did.  They played him in the hole in a 4231 (i.e. in the middle of the 3). They then had 3 very mobile guys playing around him and running off him (the likes of Nakhi Wells, Sean Scannell, Joe Lolley etc).  Their game plan was get the ball into Butterfields feet and just have him play endless through balls for those guys to run onto. He didn't have to run around, he didn't have to pass-and-move, he didn't have to defend or track runners, just get it and play someone through.
We literally did none of that. He mostly played in the 2 holders in our 4231, so he was much more exposed defensively and lack-of-mobility wise.  We played 3 direct runners in the 3 (the likes of Ince, Camara, Russell, Ward etc), but they were all starting miles ahead of Butterfield and running away from him, instead of running off him.  So those cute little 10 yard through balls at Huddersfield needed to be 40 yard inch-perfect balls to have the same effect.  Added to that, we had Martin dropping off the front, effectively doing the same job Butterfield had done at Huddersfield, so even if he did get forward, he was competing for space and touches.
It goes back to what @Bris Vegas said about understanding players. We seemingly had no clue what he was good at or why he succeeded at Huddersfield - we just seemed to think that because he was a good passer, he would be a drop-in replacement for Will Hughes.

Thank god that distraction is over and we can go back to talking about accountancy regs and whether Mel Morris is the messiah or just a very naughty boy.

When I was buying a house in Derby, I went to see a lovely one. You couldn’t get in the front door because there was a sofa blocking it, I had to come in round the back. I couldn’t go down to check out the cellar, because there was a chest of draws blocking the entrance.  The bathroom was borderline falling apart, but she had a bidet in there. And my *God*, was the current owner proud of that bidet. I think she thought it would sell the house purely on its own ceramic merits.  Needless to say, I passed on that. Feel free to draw your own parallels or conclusions from that little story…

When I was buying a house in Derby, I went to see a lovely one. You couldn’t get in the front door because there was a sofa blocking it, I had to come in round the back. I couldn’t go down to check out the cellar, because there was a chest of draws blocking the entrance.  The bathroom was borderline falling apart, but she had a bidet in there. And my *God*, was the current owner proud of that bidet. I think she thought it would sell the house purely on its own ceramic merits.  Needless to say, I passed on that. Feel free to draw your own parallels or conclusions from that little story…

I don't think they necessarily need to be "decided by the manager". Obviously, the manager should have the final call on whether to sign them or not, but I don't think they always have to be involved from the start.  If Morris was dead-set on making this Derby-Way stuff work, it shouldn't really matter if the manager is involved anyway - everyone should be pulling in the same direction.  We should have a style of play in mind and be appointing managers that play that way, signing players that play that way, and developing academy players to fit too.
I genuinely have no idea who was in charge of transfers in those early Morris days, and I'm not sure it was one single person.  We seem to know Blackman was a Clement request.  We know Weimann and a few others were lined up (but not confirmed, obviously) before Clement was given the job.  There's various suggestions/allegations about Sam Rush's approach to transfers.  A few of the signings honestly feel like Morris either wanting to get the boys back together(Ince, Shackell, Wisdom), or basically have a new train set to play with (Johnson).  There was definitely a too-many-cooks problem somewhere there.
I have no idea what McClaren's job actually entails, but I think someone like him in charge of making sure the Derby-Way happens is absolutely what we need.  Someone that actually understands football, understands youth-development and is willing to make hard decisions ("we are *not* signing Malone when we have Buchanan and Lowe in line, you can have a loan for a year if we need it" etc).

Thank god that distraction is over and we can go back to talking about accountancy regs and whether Mel Morris is the messiah or just a very naughty boy.