PistoldPete

Oh it's a he. We need to have those he/ him/his labels.

Shinninho.
Shinnaldo.

All I’m saying is that it’s pretty dirty tactics to throw in an allegation of bad faith at Derby at the last minute. If they were going to accuse Derby in that way, they should have done that from the outset when they had opportunity to throw it at the witnesses  and cross examine them ,  as de Marco pointed out.
by doing that at the last minute it just comes across as a desperate attempt to get a penalty point deduction . Quite rightly that attempt failed .
 
anyway there are rumours that we might be near to a deal with the Efl so hopefully this poo show will be over once and for all. 

Last season we had 8 points from 15 games. Yet still stayed up. This season we have 18 points from 15, so we are already 10 points ahead of last season at the same stage.  Even with a points deduction our position is not completely impossible .

I agree that the change in amortisation policy was a misjudgement. But it wasn’t completely unreasonable when it coincided with a big investment in new players. If you invest £4million in a 23 year old why would you expect that amount to depreciate by 25% in the First year due to an artificial straight line hit.
 
of course if that player is Kamil Jozwiak that argument doesn’t look so strong.
the amortisation thing was bad judgement as were the signings that went with it. But I don’t believe it breaks any rules.

I agree that the change in amortisation policy was a misjudgement. But it wasn’t completely unreasonable when it coincided with a big investment in new players. If you invest £4million in a 23 year old why would you expect that amount to depreciate by 25% in the First year due to an artificial straight line hit.
 
of course if that player is Kamil Jozwiak that argument doesn’t look so strong.
the amortisation thing was bad judgement as were the signings that went with it. But I don’t believe it breaks any rules.

I agree that the change in amortisation policy was a misjudgement. But it wasn’t completely unreasonable when it coincided with a big investment in new players. If you invest £4million in a 23 year old why would you expect that amount to depreciate by 25% in the First year due to an artificial straight line hit.
 
of course if that player is Kamil Jozwiak that argument doesn’t look so strong.
the amortisation thing was bad judgement as were the signings that went with it. But I don’t believe it breaks any rules.

All I’m saying is that it’s pretty dirty tactics to throw in an allegation of bad faith at Derby at the last minute. If they were going to accuse Derby in that way, they should have done that from the outset when they had opportunity to throw it at the witnesses  and cross examine them ,  as de Marco pointed out.
by doing that at the last minute it just comes across as a desperate attempt to get a penalty point deduction . Quite rightly that attempt failed .
 
anyway there are rumours that we might be near to a deal with the Efl so hopefully this poo show will be over once and for all. 

I think if the athletic story is true you may have hit the nail on the head. Efl want to present it as 12 points for admin and 3 for ffp … in reality they might be worried about losing the admin appeal and that setting a precedent for other clubs. So they will present it as a 12 points for admin as that looks better for them.

All I’m saying is that it’s pretty dirty tactics to throw in an allegation of bad faith at Derby at the last minute. If they were going to accuse Derby in that way, they should have done that from the outset when they had opportunity to throw it at the witnesses  and cross examine them ,  as de Marco pointed out.
by doing that at the last minute it just comes across as a desperate attempt to get a penalty point deduction . Quite rightly that attempt failed .
 
anyway there are rumours that we might be near to a deal with the Efl so hopefully this poo show will be over once and for all. 

All I’m saying is that it’s pretty dirty tactics to throw in an allegation of bad faith at Derby at the last minute. If they were going to accuse Derby in that way, they should have done that from the outset when they had opportunity to throw it at the witnesses  and cross examine them ,  as de Marco pointed out.
by doing that at the last minute it just comes across as a desperate attempt to get a penalty point deduction . Quite rightly that attempt failed .
 
anyway there are rumours that we might be near to a deal with the Efl so hopefully this poo show will be over once and for all. 

I think if the athletic story is true you may have hit the nail on the head. Efl want to present it as 12 points for admin and 3 for ffp … in reality they might be worried about losing the admin appeal and that setting a precedent for other clubs. So they will present it as a 12 points for admin as that looks better for them.

I think if the athletic story is true you may have hit the nail on the head. Efl want to present it as 12 points for admin and 3 for ffp … in reality they might be worried about losing the admin appeal and that setting a precedent for other clubs. So they will present it as a 12 points for admin as that looks better for them.

No idea if the Athletic story is true. Why would the FFP penalty be reduced to 3 points when previously the talk was of 9 points? Maybe Efl are worried they could lose the administration appeal and open the floodgates for other teams? Who knows?
anyway if the deal is a 15 point overall deduction. If that brings enough certainty to secure a buyer that guarantees our future , and an end to the poo show with the Efl then it’s a qualified yes from me , even if it means near certain relegation. It’s the lesser of the evils. 

Shinninho.
Shinnaldo.

Shinninho.
Shinnaldo.

Er.. it's a joke.

1) they do not implement the maximum possible.. they try and get the maximum they can.Why? The rules do not insist they have to get maximum penalties possible , or even any penalties at all. Why can they not judge each case on its merits? And why even bring charges they don't actually succeed with?
2) see earlier in this thread with exact quotes from IDC hearings. Also EFL statement they were disappointed we only got a fine. 
3) See IDC appeal (when we were fined £100k)
4) John Percy of the national press, the  Daily Telegraph quoted that EFL sources were "shocked"
5) Kevin Hectoring, I believe
6) FOr alleged breach of amortisation rules, EFL sought penalty point deduction. There is no scale of penalties for this  , so no penalty points were deducted, but EFL wanted it anyway. For stadium sale , allowed under the rules EFL were trying to punish us, but failed. But like I say there is nothing to say the EFL has to go right up to the maxium penalty allowed under the ruiles anyway. They can judge each case on it merits. But no they go for the adversarial route every time.
   
 

Well at least we get information on the sexual preferences of  some forum members . 

Just further evidence for you.
 
Here is extract from  EFL statement from May 2021
"More specifically, the panel determined that the Club’s policy was not in accordance with accounting standard FRS102 because it failed to accurately reflect the manner in which the Club takes the benefit of player registrations over the lifetime of a player’s contract.
The original Disciplinary Commission had already concluded that the Club did not adequately disclose in its financial statements the nature and or effect of its change in accounting policy, and there has been no appeal against that decision."
 
Now my original reading of this, yes my opinion, was that this was deliberately misleading by EFL to put these two things together. Anyone reading that could conclude that Derby's alleged breaches of FRS102 was something they had got away with since 2015/16 only beause they hadn't adequately disclosed their policy.. possibly deliberately been misleading.
 
Sure enough  EFL's submission to the IDC on the penalties to apply , they made claims of bad faith on Derby's part, despite not making that charge at the original hearing (which De Marco naturally picked up on, as  I have highlighted). Sheff Wednesday were charged with bad faith (but not found guilty). Derby were not even charged with bad faith yet EFL still tried to allege it late in the process  in order to get us maximum penalty. Here is the extract, and to cut a long story short the IDC rightly agreed wih de Marco. EFL were trying it on.
"(EFL allegation) That the Club’s conduct had been ‘reckless’ and not in good faith, in the sense that the
Club must have known or suspected that the efficacy of its amortisation policy was
questionable (because its amortisation policy differed from that operated by other
clubs), yet had chosen not to investigate the same properly or at all prior to
implementing and operating the policy. In that regard the EFL pointed to
i) The Club’s failure to seek or obtain written advice (before implementing the policy)
as to whether the proposed new amortisation policy would comply with FRS 102
ii) The Club’s failure to keep written records of its operation of the amortisation policy

iii) The Club’s failure to keep written records of any advice sought or received as to
whether, as the policy was in fact being operated, compliance with FRS 102 was
being achieved
iv) The Club’s failure to seek confirmation from the EFL that the amortisation policy
that it was proposing to adopt, and then was applying, complied with FRS 102
(3) That the Club’s conduct (in not approaching the EFL proactively in connection with the
change in policy, in mis-recording the policy in its Annual Accounts and (on the EFL’s
case) in being less than open when it met with the EFL in May 2019) was consistent

with a desire on its part to ‘conceal’ the changed amortisation policy that it was in fact
applying, specifically from the EFL but also more widely
(4) That the Club had been negligent, and had behaved carelessly and unreasonably, by
adopting the amortisation policy that it did and by recording the same in the inaccurate
terms that it did in each set of Annual Accounts
59) Mr De Marco QC for the Club objected in strong terms to any suggestion by the EFL –
explicit or implicit – that the Club had acted deliberately (in the sense of dishonestly), in
bad faith or recklessly or that the Club had sought to consciously conceal anything about
the amortisation policy that it was operating. No such suggestion, he reminded us, had
ever been put to the Club or any of its witnesses. Likewise, the EFL
(1) Had not pleaded any such mens rea in connection with the Second Charge, and
(2) Had not presented its case on the Second Charge before us last year on any such
basis.
The Club’s position was accordingly that we should approach sanction on the basis that
the Club had acted honestly and in good faith in all respects";

 

Well at least we get information on the sexual preferences of  some forum members . 

If you don't get facts from this forum, why are you on it? To give us your facts? Programmed to give but not receive?

So maguire is ok to highlight the fact that our wage bill tripled between 2014 and 208 but a rams fan cannot point out that the wage bill is back to the 2014 level again?

Well so far Efl has tried two with two charges to deduct points off us and failed both times. 
in my view that says more about the Efl than it says about Derby. 
 
 

We do but the admin team are challenging that too.