duncanjwitham

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...

I think at this point there’s too much we don’t know, such as what is the proposed deduction for? Is it for breaching the P&S limit in the years we had to restate? Is it for the next 3 year period that includes 2019? The one that includes 2020? (That one seems highly unlikely, given that Covid losses are allowable.) If we have breached the limit, is the proposed punishment purely for that or are they trying to claim for aggravating factors?
Saying that, if I’m reading between the lines of the article, it says ‘with a points deduction still possible’ - only ‘possible’ so not guaranteed? If it’s not guaranteed why would we accept it as though it was?
‘Under pressure from rival Championship clubs, the EFL is pushing for Derby to be punished’ - if we have obviously breached the limit why would they have to be put under pressure to try and punish us, and it wouldn’t only be ‘possible’, it would be written in the rules, so they’d just charge us with breaching it, let it go to another Disciplinary and be done with it, why would they effectively be negotiating with us? - unless they thought they would lose the case due to mitigating factors in our favour, so are trying to get us to accept something so they don’t lose face again?
It says ‘as expected’ about challenging the proposed punishment, ie. they don’t expect us to accept what they have proposed, presumably they think we’d accept a lesser amount, just to get it behind us, but why should we if it’s not guaranteed? If accepting a deduction doesn’t even get us out of an embargo, what does it get us? If we can’t add to the squad to mitigate the deduction, why not fight it, otherwise we’d have a small squad and a deduction, when we could fight it, have a small squad but maybe avoid a deduction. Why should we have to just accept both?
It, once again, points out ‘Derby have always maintained they did not seek any competitive advantage with their amortisation policy.’ which does make it look like as though it’s a limit breach, it’s in the years we’ve had to restate, they are trying to increase the punishment because of aggravation, trying to say that we deliberately went over the limit to give us an advantage, and we’re fighting our corner on it.
If it’s a small limit breach it may be that we’re trying to avoid a deduction at all, due to what was mentioned in the club statement post original charge, we can’t go back and retrace our steps to get back in line.
The DC made it very clear that we couldn’t have known at the time that what we were doing was going to be considered contrary to FRS 102. If it’s that we’ve ended up going over by an amount we could have sold a player for (so bid rejected) or played hard ball and increased what we sold a player for, not bought a player for, not paid a loan fee/signing on fee or wages for, as we couldn’t have known at the time that doing what we did would lead us to breach retrospectively, and different decisions would have been made at that time had we known, I don’t think we’d just roll over and accept it, and I wouldn’t want us to either.

Poo-stirring aside, I see only 4 possible sources of a points deduction:
The EFL are trying to add a points deduction to what we’ve already been found guilty of and fined for. Obviously we fight that.
The restated accounts have failed FFP. We sort of take it on the chin, but try to argue the deduction down due to mitigating circumstances (if we’d have known, we’d have sold a player etc).
The EFL are pushing for additional ‘aggravating circumstances’ deductions on top of an FFP fail. Obviously we fight this one, and cite the numerous references in DC 1 and 2 to us acting in good faith, having a reasonable expectation that what we were doing was permitted etc.
We’re plea-bargaining a punishment for the other issues (HMRC, non submitted accounts etc). Again there might be an element of taking it on the chin, but we absolutely argue mitigating circumstances for almost all of these. Suspended deductions, like the failing to pay wages one, seems appropriate to me.

Nixon’s fiction, but Percy is worsey. Hope that helps.

Poo-stirring aside, I see only 4 possible sources of a points deduction:
The EFL are trying to add a points deduction to what we’ve already been found guilty of and fined for. Obviously we fight that.
The restated accounts have failed FFP. We sort of take it on the chin, but try to argue the deduction down due to mitigating circumstances (if we’d have known, we’d have sold a player etc).
The EFL are pushing for additional ‘aggravating circumstances’ deductions on top of an FFP fail. Obviously we fight this one, and cite the numerous references in DC 1 and 2 to us acting in good faith, having a reasonable expectation that what we were doing was permitted etc.
We’re plea-bargaining a punishment for the other issues (HMRC, non submitted accounts etc). Again there might be an element of taking it on the chin, but we absolutely argue mitigating circumstances for almost all of these. Suspended deductions, like the failing to pay wages one, seems appropriate to me.

Nixon’s fiction, but Percy is worsey. Hope that helps.

If we hadn’t screwed up the original case and had presented our own expert witness, the original decision would probably have stood and there wouldn’t even be a £100k fine… 

If we hadn’t screwed up the original case and had presented our own expert witness, the original decision would probably have stood and there wouldn’t even be a £100k fine… 

If we hadn’t screwed up the original case and had presented our own expert witness, the original decision would probably have stood and there wouldn’t even be a £100k fine… 

Going back over it, it does look like the LAP asked the EFL to refer it back. I assume the EFL allowed it for the reasons in the LAP report - there would be no right of appeal over the sanction if they didn't refer it back, and they wanted a shot at arguing their case for a stronger punishment.
From DC2:

To me that's pretty clear that they had no say over the actual decision, only the punishment for it.
In terms of reading between the lines, it's bits like this:

That DC2 clearly felt the need to include in their written report, for some reason...

I'm pretty convinced that's what's going on, or at the very least we've shown the EFL what we intended to submit and are (were) arguing over the details.
I half wonder if the 6 day extension was to allow us to get a sign-off from an independent auditor, as DC2 suggested we should have done originally.

I'm pretty convinced that's what's going on, or at the very least we've shown the EFL what we intended to submit and are (were) arguing over the details.
I half wonder if the 6 day extension was to allow us to get a sign-off from an independent auditor, as DC2 suggested we should have done originally.

Going back over it, it does look like the LAP asked the EFL to refer it back. I assume the EFL allowed it for the reasons in the LAP report - there would be no right of appeal over the sanction if they didn't refer it back, and they wanted a shot at arguing their case for a stronger punishment.
From DC2:

To me that's pretty clear that they had no say over the actual decision, only the punishment for it.
In terms of reading between the lines, it's bits like this:

That DC2 clearly felt the need to include in their written report, for some reason...

I'm pretty convinced that's what's going on, or at the very least we've shown the EFL what we intended to submit and are (were) arguing over the details.
I half wonder if the 6 day extension was to allow us to get a sign-off from an independent auditor, as DC2 suggested we should have done originally.

Going back over it, it does look like the LAP asked the EFL to refer it back. I assume the EFL allowed it for the reasons in the LAP report - there would be no right of appeal over the sanction if they didn't refer it back, and they wanted a shot at arguing their case for a stronger punishment.
From DC2:

To me that's pretty clear that they had no say over the actual decision, only the punishment for it.
In terms of reading between the lines, it's bits like this:

That DC2 clearly felt the need to include in their written report, for some reason...

If we're being pedantic, DC2 didn't overturn their original decision, the LAP overturned it, and only handed it back to the DC to decide on the punishment.  It seems pretty clear to me (reading between the lines of the DC2 written reasons) they they disagree with the LAP and think the original decision should have stood, but they had no power to reverse the appeal.
It's not that the EFL gave the LAP the power to hand it back for this specific case, it's a power that's written into the EFL charter or rules or whatever and applies to all cases that go to appeal.  The reasons for the LAP handing it back are documented in their written reasons, and seemed fairly well reasoned from what I remember.
And once it's been established that our accounts were wrong (in legal terms anyway, I and probably many others still have doubts over that ruling), restating them is the obvious and logical response.  

If we're being pedantic, DC2 didn't overturn their original decision, the LAP overturned it, and only handed it back to the DC to decide on the punishment.  It seems pretty clear to me (reading between the lines of the DC2 written reasons) they they disagree with the LAP and think the original decision should have stood, but they had no power to reverse the appeal.
It's not that the EFL gave the LAP the power to hand it back for this specific case, it's a power that's written into the EFL charter or rules or whatever and applies to all cases that go to appeal.  The reasons for the LAP handing it back are documented in their written reasons, and seemed fairly well reasoned from what I remember.
And once it's been established that our accounts were wrong (in legal terms anyway, I and probably many others still have doubts over that ruling), restating them is the obvious and logical response.  

He's got to be absolutely 100% sure there isn't though, and if he isn't (and he doesn't get a shout etc), he should just be doing exactly what he tried to do.
Honestly, in this type of situation the ball back to the keeper (and then moving into space to receive the pass back) is probably no worse than turning yourself.  I certainly don't think it's really that much slower, and it's normally a lot safer.  The problem with playing passes backwards is where we've already broken the lines, then we play backwards and lose all that progress. This wasn't one of those cases.

Half the problem is that we basically know nothing at all - nobody, the club, the EFL, anyone, is telling us anything. So there's a vacuum that is getting filled with rumours and made-up nonsense.  The suggestion doing the rounds last week was that the HMRC debt is just us using one of the COVID deferment schemes, like a bunch of other clubs have.  If it's the case that us (and only us) are getting punished for something a load of clubs have done then 'beastly' is absolutely right, but we just don't know because no one is telling us anything.  It could be that the other clubs have all cleared their deferred payments months ago, but we are still sitting on ours, we just don't know.  The same with the accounts restatement - we know we've submitted something, but we don't know what it was, or why, or even when we submitted it.

Half the problem is that we basically know nothing at all - nobody, the club, the EFL, anyone, is telling us anything. So there's a vacuum that is getting filled with rumours and made-up nonsense.  The suggestion doing the rounds last week was that the HMRC debt is just us using one of the COVID deferment schemes, like a bunch of other clubs have.  If it's the case that us (and only us) are getting punished for something a load of clubs have done then 'beastly' is absolutely right, but we just don't know because no one is telling us anything.  It could be that the other clubs have all cleared their deferred payments months ago, but we are still sitting on ours, we just don't know.  The same with the accounts restatement - we know we've submitted something, but we don't know what it was, or why, or even when we submitted it.

Half the problem is that we basically know nothing at all - nobody, the club, the EFL, anyone, is telling us anything. So there's a vacuum that is getting filled with rumours and made-up nonsense.  The suggestion doing the rounds last week was that the HMRC debt is just us using one of the COVID deferment schemes, like a bunch of other clubs have.  If it's the case that us (and only us) are getting punished for something a load of clubs have done then 'beastly' is absolutely right, but we just don't know because no one is telling us anything.  It could be that the other clubs have all cleared their deferred payments months ago, but we are still sitting on ours, we just don't know.  The same with the accounts restatement - we know we've submitted something, but we don't know what it was, or why, or even when we submitted it.

Half the problem is that we basically know nothing at all - nobody, the club, the EFL, anyone, is telling us anything. So there's a vacuum that is getting filled with rumours and made-up nonsense.  The suggestion doing the rounds last week was that the HMRC debt is just us using one of the COVID deferment schemes, like a bunch of other clubs have.  If it's the case that us (and only us) are getting punished for something a load of clubs have done then 'beastly' is absolutely right, but we just don't know because no one is telling us anything.  It could be that the other clubs have all cleared their deferred payments months ago, but we are still sitting on ours, we just don't know.  The same with the accounts restatement - we know we've submitted something, but we don't know what it was, or why, or even when we submitted it.

Half the problem is that we basically know nothing at all - nobody, the club, the EFL, anyone, is telling us anything. So there's a vacuum that is getting filled with rumours and made-up nonsense.  The suggestion doing the rounds last week was that the HMRC debt is just us using one of the COVID deferment schemes, like a bunch of other clubs have.  If it's the case that us (and only us) are getting punished for something a load of clubs have done then 'beastly' is absolutely right, but we just don't know because no one is telling us anything.  It could be that the other clubs have all cleared their deferred payments months ago, but we are still sitting on ours, we just don't know.  The same with the accounts restatement - we know we've submitted something, but we don't know what it was, or why, or even when we submitted it.

Half the problem is that we basically know nothing at all - nobody, the club, the EFL, anyone, is telling us anything. So there's a vacuum that is getting filled with rumours and made-up nonsense.  The suggestion doing the rounds last week was that the HMRC debt is just us using one of the COVID deferment schemes, like a bunch of other clubs have.  If it's the case that us (and only us) are getting punished for something a load of clubs have done then 'beastly' is absolutely right, but we just don't know because no one is telling us anything.  It could be that the other clubs have all cleared their deferred payments months ago, but we are still sitting on ours, we just don't know.  The same with the accounts restatement - we know we've submitted something, but we don't know what it was, or why, or even when we submitted it.

That's 2 different things, I think. I doubt very much the restated accounts will appear on Companies House - I'd be surprised if they even allow companies to restate accounts years after the fact.  They'll be submitted to the EFL, probably just as revised P&S statements, and we'll probably never see them.
The other overdue accounts (18/19 and 19/20 IIRC) don't have to be approved by the EFL or anything, they'll go straight to Companies House when we're ready to submit them.  The EFL will only get involved if they look like they'll be close to the FFP thresholds.