Indy

I've been critical of the way we've conducted business and where that has left our finances but on this particular charge I still maintain that I don't think we've done a hell of a lot wrong morally.

I'm getting to the point where I just want it done.
It's been 8 months since the EFL appealed. 

Not entirely unrelated to this thread I get the principles behind FFP but the reality we are seeing this season with the exception maybe of Barnsley having a cracking season is a league that is in danger of becoming a closed loop from the Premier League which is fuelled by the parachute payments, same/similar clubs yo-yoing between the two, the increase in punishments to clubs in our league making them too afraid to dare to dream of anything other than staying in the league.
The 3 coming down next season all have obvious claims of bouncing back, Brentford/Bournemouth/Swansea depending on who goes up will be thereabouts again. 
I'm well aware we have far bigger issues of our own to worry about but if I was a neutral I'd say this league is in real danger of going from exciting to boring very fast. 

It annoys me Kieran Maguire gets so much air time from Derby media sources.
He was the one who complained to the EFL about our accounting practices. Why? What was it to him?
We are in this mess partly, if not largely, down to him.

You missed the bit where we asked then if it was acceptable before we actually submitted the P&S figure to them

What I can't get my head around is that we have knowingly pushed the rules. Submitted them, expecting them to be rejected, but they haven't and we have continued to operate that way. On that basis, they cannot retrospectively punish us.
Also what we have done is not some random new way of reviewing assets, its common practice, so the notion that we have pulled the wool over their eyes is absolute tosh. 

Not in the eyes of the independent panel who had access to all of the relevant information though. 

Looking at other team’s forums and the heart warming responses on Twitter and the like makes you realise how people blindly lap up anything printed in the Daily Mail. No wonder we are stuck with Boris Johnson for the next 200 years. I had a read to check the number of modal verbs used in that badly written article and subsequently found another article that said our survival was ‘one of the most dismal sights of the weekend’.
I love the unbiased tone of that article. I am going to presume that Mel Morris has become friends with Jeremy Corbyn. I think it is the most likely explanation for this love affair they have developed with us, whilst conveniently ignoring all other transgressions, as pointed out elsewhere.
Personally I draw comfort from knowing that no matter how much that awful rag hates us, it will never be as much as I despise it and it’s bigoted, badly written divisive poo.
 
 

Can you blame them? Especially if what is read by supporters of other clubs are just the endless negative articles written about us by various papers.
It wasn't so long ago that everyone was rooting for us in a play-off final over a "cheating" QPR. Now the tables have turned. There's always the animosity towards the clubs that have splashed the cash to get up but failed, rather than those who were successful as they stuck two fingers up to the rules on the way up.
Lots of praise for teams like Leicester, Villa, Wolves etc in recent seasons for how they've done in the Premier League, with very little mention that they bent the same, or similar rules as we have apparently broken to get there. They were successful with it, we weren't. We're the ones who are vilified.

IIRC didn’t the EFL’s argument rest on the interpretation of their own regulations saying a method must be “applied consistently” which they retrospectively defined as consistent with other clubs? The panel said there was no legal definition of consistent in this case, and DCFC’s interpretation of it being consistent over time (ie we didn’t change the methodology each year to suit ourselves) was reasonable. 

IIRC didn’t the EFL’s argument rest on the interpretation of their own regulations saying a method must be “applied consistently” which they retrospectively defined as consistent with other clubs? The panel said there was no legal definition of consistent in this case, and DCFC’s interpretation of it being consistent over time (ie we didn’t change the methodology each year to suit ourselves) was reasonable. 

IIRC didn’t the EFL’s argument rest on the interpretation of their own regulations saying a method must be “applied consistently” which they retrospectively defined as consistent with other clubs? The panel said there was no legal definition of consistent in this case, and DCFC’s interpretation of it being consistent over time (ie we didn’t change the methodology each year to suit ourselves) was reasonable. 

Ignorant query:
How can we have lost £30m more by accounting for reduction in player values over the course of a contract at differing rates?
Surely that moves the losses to different years, rather than magics them away?
 

IIRC didn’t the EFL’s argument rest on the interpretation of their own regulations saying a method must be “applied consistently” which they retrospectively defined as consistent with other clubs? The panel said there was no legal definition of consistent in this case, and DCFC’s interpretation of it being consistent over time (ie we didn’t change the methodology each year to suit ourselves) was reasonable. 

Just going back to basics and excuse my ignorance but who said we cant use the amortisation policy we decided to use? Who said it was wrong and why is it wrong? 

Surely it isn’t as simple as saying that if we have to make adjustments, we fail P&S and get punished because if the EFL had done their jobs in the first place, as the governing body, they would have pulled Derby up on it. Derby would surely then have adjusted transfer plans accordingly to meet P&S at the time?

Depends on what the punishment might be:
If it’s slap on the wrist and a relatively small fine then yes, take it and move on. If it’s a points deduction, that’s a different matter and may depend on the number of points.
 

I think it should be made public if the EFL’s appeal means we are under a soft transfer embargo. If so, then that risks torpedoing our preparations regardless of the outcome of the appeal anyway. 

I know the saying “you reap what you sow” comes to mind but all the off field antics is really starting to tarnish my love for the game. 
Did Derby splash the cash under the presumption we’d get promoted? Yes
Did Derby fail to gain promotion in typical Derby manner? Yes
Are we in enough mud as it is without other clubs poking their noses in to our business? Yes
As far as I can tell we’ve used every loophole going. Which of course is against the spirit of the game. However if the loopholes are there then it is the EFL’s problem and they should change their rules to make them water tight. 
 
For saying football was in uproar in regards to the super league. It’s disgusting how the EFL and a handful of clubs are going out of their way to kill off a founding member of the football league. Have a day off.

Other clubs owner ( Gibson ) tried. He was told its not allowed. They can have no input. 

Not true we had a valuation provided by a competent international firm.  Undoubted.  That’s why they haven’t appealed.  I think there have been other values since that support the professional value

I think it should be made public if the EFL’s appeal means we are under a soft transfer embargo. If so, then that risks torpedoing our preparations regardless of the outcome of the appeal anyway. 

I’d suggest that in this case, the right of appeal should only be allowed for the charged party if found guilty. 
For the EFL, if their rules are so unclear that:
1) a club is able to misinterpret them
2) an independent tribunal is satisfied that the club acted reasonably 
then the correct action is for the EFL to show some humility, to admit they got it wrong, and to focus all their efforts on changing the rules/guidance to be clearer. 

Nicholsons piece in the DET. - Direct from the sun. It' well known by the entire planet the charge regarding the ground sale HAS NOT been appealed.  And what has the size of debt got to do with this charge anyway.  If Morris used the ground sale to service debt or light a bonfire it has no relevance at all. The charge related to the value not what it was spent on.
It says the dispute centres on the size of Derby’s debts and using the sale of their Pride Park stadium to cover those losses, as well as anomalies in the ‘transfer values’ of players.
When the local journalist is reporting such nonsense I struggle to see the point of his job 

But we were found not guilty weren’t we...