Indy

1 hour ago, OUTSIDER said:

Just landed Gatwick for the game tomorrow,  have the scarf hanging on bag as ususl ....

The amount of ... And I quote ...

"I hope you f@#king do it!"  Is Over 20 plus so fatn from airport staff, passengers to railway commuters 

Up the rams 

I’m guessing there’s no love for the EFL and stupid points deductions around Luton!

21 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

And what’s worse EFL then used that to say we misled them. If they were misled into thinking as they did they were misled into thinking we we’re massively non-compliant. Why on Earth would we do that deliberately? 
 

thankfully the IDC saw right though that allegation from EFL, absolutely shameless as it was. 
 

That’s true. Also, someone at the EFL looked at what we were planning and said that the amortisation process, whilst compliant, ran the risk of stockpiling bigger losses that would need dealing with at a later date - which sounds like they understood it perfectly!

Basically, they gerrymandered the “misleading notes” charge to give themselves a get out when asked why they approved the method over all those years, and to give Boro a pretext to pursue us directly as part of the back room deal they had in place. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. 

13 hours ago, BoroWill said:

I think he's very dissimilar to Mel Morris, once you get past the local owner passionate about the local area. I also think there's quite a bit of false equivalence happening comparing selling one of any football clubs biggest assets in their stadium, compared to moving tax losses to another group company. One of your major stumbling blocks is due to not owning your stadium, and it has been a common theme with administration/liquidations of football clubs over the last 20+ years. Selling tax losses to another group company increases the value of the football club, selling the stadium gives you a short term boost but ultimately strips the football club of it's single largest asset.

 

If the label of cheats was based solely on the stadium sale I would agree with you, but having accepted a punishment for falling foul of FFP it certainly wouldn't be defamation to refer to you as cheats on that basis.

In your analysis of us “falling foul of FFP”, I think you’ve simplified it so much that you’re either deliberately misrepresenting the situation, or you genuinely don’t understand the implications of the latest EFL statement. 

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

I think the working professionals at EFL at the time  understood perfectly and even advised us there was a risk of a big write down in the final year, quite rightly urging caution. But then that buffoon Parry took over, instructed an academic who according to the IDC lacked common sense. The academic just assumed we were using non zero residual values, without actually considering the possibility that we didn't actually mean that. Ok, DCFC's fault (or their auditors fault to some extent in using the wrong technical term) but even so, use some common sense.

Exactly. As soon as I read that the EFL assumed we were using non-zero end of contract values, I thought that must be wrong. The Bosman ruling is universally known and I couldn’t believe Derby would be so stupid as to assume something that was obviously false - and they weren’t. It seems incredible to me that, if the EFL thought that, they didn’t just pick up the phone and say “I must’ve misunderstood this bit”.

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

I only said don’t rule them out. Especially when they play us next, don’t get cocky now. 

I think their game in hand is against Bournemouth, though - who are still very much in a fight to keep the automatic promotion place. 

We could tell everyone it’s linked to the 50th anniversary of being Champions of England for the first or two times …

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

I think the EFL told him to take it up with the clubs auditors. To be fair that would seem a reasonable response...  if he had a professional issue with the accounts that had been signed off by auditors. I don't know whether he did ever take it up with the auditors, but nothing seemed to happen for another two years nearly.   

So from that can we infer that the EFL’s position was that if it was passed by auditors, then it was no concern of theirs? Wonder when EFL/Gibson’s back room deal came into play. 

34 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Where does it say it has to be another Club that brings a breach to the attention of the EFL? Why can't you or I do it, or anyone, or maybe even the EFL using its own initiative? 

Indeed - didn’t Kieran Maguire first raise issues with our amortisation with the EFL, not another club? Be interesting to hear if the EFL told @The Baron that only other clubs could raise issues or - as I suspect - the EFL are still making up the interpretation of their own regulations as they go along. 

2 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

I'd love the Derby fans there today to use a poo load of humour. People really struggle to cope with humour when they're expecting vitriol.

The matter is settled and I think a lot of us believe the timing is totally intentional by Gibson in terms of the transfer deadline AND today's game.

He's positioned himself on moral the high road knowing that if Derby fans klick off we will look even worse than if he was still threatening action.

Steve Gibson, he's one of our own would be a funny and lovely sarcastic chant that would get others on side.

Trashing the ground and attacking pubs just makes you look thick and not only disliked even more by other clubs, but by other Derby fans too.

Enjoy the day.

 

 

I totally agree that they won’t know what to do with humour when expecting vitriol, but also agree with the response before that people might think we mean it. 
 

Personally, I am expecting 90 mins of “Stevie Gibson w*nks off dogs”. If anyone complains, we can just say it might not be true, but we don’t know it’s not, and so we have to act as though it might be true. That’s the logic that seemed to apply to us stopping Boro getting to the premiership. Makes perfect sense. 

23 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Inspired song choice

 

A ton of insanely good goals. 

It is annoying me that this year should be all about the 50th anniversary of Derby and Clough’s achievements, but instead the only time Derby are in the minds of other football fans it’s linked to this utter sh*tshow.

1 hour ago, WestKentRam said:

The EFL have already answered this in their statement of 17th Jan 2022:

https://www.efl.com/news/2022/january/efl-statement-derby-county/

8. Is there a conflict of interest at EFL Board level? What involvement do all Board members have in decisions relating to Derby County?

Any EFL Board members conflicted on any matter do not take part in any discussion and are asked to leave the meeting. In addition, any Director who is conflicted does not receive any board papers in respect of the conflicted matter. The position on whether any director is conflicted is reviewed on a meeting-by-meeting basis. At present there are two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter with Derby County and as such do not participate or engage in any of the decisions. 

I assume the 'two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter' are those from Boro and Forest. If so, is the Forest representative truly conflicted, or is it someone else? Is Jez Moxey at Burton likely to have a conflict of interest??

Club representatives

Nicholas Randall QC - Championship - Nottingham Forest

Peter Ridsdale - Championship - Preston North End

Neil Bausor - Championship - Middlesbrough

Jez Moxey - League One – Burton Albion

Steven Curwood - League One - Fleetwood Town

John Nixon - League Two – Carlisle United

It might be Moxey as he’s involved with the Appleby bid. Or it might have been Forest as, at the time, they were trying to asset strip us with low ball offers for our players. 

12 minutes ago, ram59 said:

If it wasn't for the fact that the EFL treated reading leniently, because they accepted their punishment, by giving them only a6 point penalty target than 9 points, we'd only be 1 point back now. 

I hope that this doesn't come back to bite us at the end of the season. But then we could sue reading for not getting the correct penalty.

That’s how it works, apparently. 

4 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

Mel Morris is well aware that pursuing him as a former director of a limited company is impossible, it is an empty offer. As I said earlier, if Morris is genuinely interested in helping you exit administration by dealing with claims then he can indemnify the club against our claim.

Limited company status gives protection to the directors by having separation from the corporate entity. If Mel offers to waive that protection, then that’s a different ball game. 

48 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

You shouldn't underestimate just how much our fans love Gibson.

People wrote fan mail to Charles Manson too. 

1 hour ago, BoroWill said:

For those who were asking earlier where the animosity from Boro fans towards Derby fans comes from, it's stuff like this ?

It’s easy to take the moral high ground when it’s not your club being extorted into oblivion despite already having been punished. 

1 hour ago, On the Ram Page said:

Indy: Excellent work. I would be interested if you sent this to Rick Parry for his comments!

I’ll get it over to see what he, Danny and Steve Gibson make of it!

1 minute ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:

Are you sure that every other club uses straight line amortisation fairly?

Is it not true that clubs cheat this regularly by claiming Impairments in favourable accounting periods like Stoke have most recently due to Covid and I believe was common among teams being relegated from the PL but must say haven’t checked.

And didn’t Parry mention in one of his emails that clubs were able to nominate which year the profit from a player sale fell into if it affected FFP? This sounded really dodgy to me. You either insist that the accounts reflect the reality of what happened or you don’t. I expect Sheffield Wednesday would be very interested to hear that profits form the sale of assets can be nominated into an adjacent accounting year if needed …

I’m sure we must’ve discussed this at some point, but I’ve just re-read the judgement on Middlesbrough’s application to join as an affected party in our original case (covering both stadium valuation and amortisation). I remembered that their request to join as a party (and therefore be considered to be awarded compensation by the panel) had failed. What I had forgotten was that the ruling also said that they could not commence their own arbitration regarding these matters. That being the case - why can we not just point at this finding and say an independent panel has already ruled that this current action is not permissible?

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf

14 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

Using a different method isn't cheating. Using a different method to show that you passed FFP when in fact you failed is cheating, which is why your club accepted a 9 point deduction for it.

This makes no sense at all. If using a different method isn’t cheating (which it isn’t), then using that (legal) method to pass FFP also isnt cheating. 
 

I suspect we accepted a 9 point deduction in order to draw a line under it and facilitate a sale. I don’t remember any admission of guilt (similar to paying out an out of court settlement). 

9 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

Your submissions up to that period could have been recalculated by an independent set of accountants using the standard amortisation policy used by other clubs in the league at that point though, which would have provided basis for a claim if the other party felt that these were not in line with the rules.

But it wasn’t. Unless I’ve missed that submission somewhere. 

1 minute ago, BoroWill said:

Intermediate accounts are published to the EFL part way through a season so that they can forecast to see if teams are going to hit their FFP/P&S limits. Given the EFL is made up of the member clubs I'd assume this makes them available to member clubs at that point.

But this isn’t about intermediate accounts, it’s about if the amortisation ruling went against us. In January 2019, any accounts would’ve used our amortisation process based on live player values - I don’t even know if we submitted these at that time as the method was in dispute. It was only after this point that they decided the notes were insufficient, and then only after accounts were restated that any FFP breach was charged. 
 

So in January 2019, we hadn’t been found to have done anything wrong. 
 

Happy to be corrected if my recollection of this is wrong. It was a while ago!!!

18 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

If this is all true, why did he start the action long before you went into administration and were looking to be taken over? Your theory doesn't make any logical sense.

If we believe the timeline being put forward by Gibson, he started action in January 2019 - is that correct? Because that’s five months before we were found guilty of anything. So what would be the basis of that complaint? And how could DCFC reasonably be expected to respond to an accusation of wrongdoing that was still being adjudicated upon at that point?

2 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

I thought the first hearing concluded that it was lawful (amortisation treatment) but the 2nd (at which there were no qualified accountants) hearing concluded it wasn't in line with EFL regs (as opposed to law). I could be wrong but that was my take on it at the time. 

I may be misremembering but my understanding was that they said it didn’t break the accounting standard (and therefore was in line with the regs) but wasn’t sufficiently explained in the notes. In my opinion, that secondary charge exists for two reasons:

1. To indemnify the EFL from the accusations that they cleared the accounts previously (“but only because Derby’s notes confused us”), and

2. To manufacture a guilty verdict to give the pretext for Gibson to pursue separate action. 
 

I don’t believe they didn’t understand the method, as their initial analysis was that the method was not contravening the standard but would likely lead to a glut of losses at a later period and enhanced risk - which sounds like they understood it perfectly!!

16 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

But 'systematic cheating' is not breaking laws, it's breaking the rules set out by the EFL.

Valuation - was agreed in law but not in EFL hearing.

The EFL regs are different from law and we're talking about Directors responsibilities here and whether MM can actually legally take this on - i.e. it was the Ltd Company that did 'stuff' and not MM.

Fundamentally the EFL are there to represent all members and they are patently not doing this by allowing member clubs to circumvent their own rules and principles. The only reason can be to save their own skin.

But that’s entirely my point in my post. The valuation was agreed in law (as it has to be for tax purposes) and also by the EFL convened panel.
 

And the EFL regs on the amortisation states that they have to meet accountancy standards. If they had said they had to be “straight line amortisation only” then, in that case, the regs could be different from the law and be applied differently - but they didn’t and they still don’t. 
 

In these two instances, the EFL regulations and the law are concurrent, so to say there is systematic cheating in breaking EFL rules I my makes sense if your accusation is that the relevant laws have also been broken.