RandomAccessMemory

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

Lots of ways of saying "please sort it out involved parties"

I know what you mean, but so thankful that people are trying their very hardest to get it out there and try and bang some heads together.

1 minute ago, LauraH said:

Watching now, she got the founding year wrong (1888) but she's getting all her points across. 

I think she was referring to the year the football league was formed as being 1888.

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.

When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.

That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.

Well, well done EFL, you found a way.

What an absolute disgrace.

1 hour ago, Boycie said:

Would there be any benefit to a buyer if a delay takes them past the window and some players are sold?

 

I doubt it when you consider that if we were under new ownership we’d be somewhat stabilised and clubs would know we weren’t going to accept a pittance for our players, if not then they’ll be thinking they can try their luck with pathetic offers and they’ll believe we’ll have no choice but to accept it. That’s of no benefit surely? If we’re going to sell players we want the offers to be realistic, it devalues the club even more if not.

23 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Not sure that's relevant. Had the rules been adhered to the GP would have finished under the safety car so that defence is completely moot. The safety car can only leave the track at the end of the lap AFTER the track is cleared, not the same lap. As you say, I agree  that the FIA will likely try to wriggle out of their predicament but would a civil court find in RB's favour? I'd venture that's rather less cut and dried. If Merc make it clear that's their next option should the FIA choose to ignore their responsibilities, will the governing body be so keen to gloss over their errors or will they have to take their licks and do what is right. After the great publicity the sport has enjoyed this season, the FIA has managed to totally destroy the good will earned, so there are arguably wider issues in play too should they wish viewing figures to remain buoyant.

Exactly, the rule states the safety car will come in at the end of the following lap (which would have been the final lap) after the last lapped car goes past the leader, not about 5 seconds later at the end of the same lap!

28 minutes ago, Malagaram said:

You would be better driving down to London armed with your bad intentions and a pitch fork and taking it out on those tossers at EFL H ouse

You’d be going in the wrong direction, the EFL are based in Preston ?

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Established player rule is only for soft embargo, isn't it?

Probably, I think I’ve lost the plot trying to keep up with all the rules! ?

Players under the age of 21 don’t count to any limit for any other club though, which has the same effect.

Quote

43.9        Squad Lists

43.9.1    Clubs shall be permitted to name up to a maximum number of Players in their Squad List based on the following provisions:

(a)           in respect of Championship Clubs, 25 Players of which a minimum of 8 must be a Home Grown Player; and

(b)           in respect of League One and Two Clubs 22 Players of which a minimum of 8 must be a Home Grown Player.

43.9.2    The following Players do not need to be included in the Squad List to be eligible to play in League Matches:

(a)           in respect of Championship Clubs, any Under 21 Player (save for any Under 21 Player who is registered with the Club on a Temporary Loan Transfer); and

(b)           in respect of League One Clubs and League Two Clubs:

(i)            any Under 21 Players; and

(ii)           goalkeepers.

The amount of fans of other clubs that I’ve seen in the last few months say things like "Derby delayed it by appealing" is crazy, the only thing we’ve ever appealed is the administration deduction, which has now been dropped.

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I read it the same as you.  And the new rules make no mention of the staffing up if under the limit, it's very much a hard cap of 25. So I think this new rule actively bans us from playing academy lads in the first team (they can only start 2 games), whereas the previous ones didn't.

It’d have to be agreed with the player being subbed off, but I’d love it if Wayne made a sub to bring one of the youngsters on after a few seconds.

I know we might end up having to play with less players if we get injuries during the game, but it would certainly make a clear point, especially if it was a TV game, and would be within the rules as they’ve been presented in that document.

5 minutes ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

It states that the squad size / incomings etc are as of the date of the agreement.

My understanding of that is if current players ie Cashin Hutchinson Watson Stretton etc accrue 3 appearances after that date then that is fine.  

I don’t read it that way, am I reading it wrong?

I read it as anyone that has started 3 league matches at Championship level or above (the level the club was at when they signed or higher) at all in their career (so including their career from now) counts towards that 25 man limit. Anyone signed, of any age and with any or no experience, counts towards the 25 man limit if signed from now until the end of June.

We’re still not allowed the same number of players as every other club, and it’s pretty obvious why they’ve done that.

Other clubs have the ‘Established Player’ rule, which is 24 players (under 21’s don’t count) that have started 5 games.

Quote

Established Player (Championship Clubs) - A player aged 21 or over as at the 30 June immediately prior to the commencement of the season in which the Club is subject to the Embargo and who has been named in the starting XI on a total of at least five occasions*.

*in EFL League, EFL Cup, EFL Trophy, FA Cup or equivalent competitions for any Club in any equivalent League to the Championship or higher.

We have the ‘Permitted Player’ rule, which is 25 players (of any age) who have started 3 league matches in the Championship or above, or any player registered after the agreement.

What they really mean is if you plan on signing some players, or extending some contracts in January, we’re going to stop you playing your youngsters from the start in games as they will count towards the 25 players if they start 3 games.

Basically we’ve taken a massive punishment and we’re STILL being made to play by different rules to every other club in this league.

Disgraceful.

24 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Mine was a more general point that we had been struggling to fit within P&S for a few years, which is an allowable loss of 13m per year I think. 

Making continuous losses when you have the revenue is not evidencing a resilient business model. More a hope and a prayer that nothing goes wrong. 

 

I think there’s only so much you can do to reduce costs when player contracts are watertight and they are the biggest cost.

We’d done all we could on that score, let high paid players go as and when their contracts ran out, if we couldn’t agree a new contract within our new self-imposed limits.

We also tried to get at least part of their wage off the books before that happened with loaning them out if we weren’t planning on trying to keep them.

We sold when we got decent (not cheekily low) offers for players.

20 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

It will fit the definition, but our case will hinge on the bit about whether the club did everything they could to prepare...

We will claim we have been reducing costs, no doubt the EFL will try to claim running up debts is not consistent with "doing all you can to prepare..." 

It'll be a bunch of technical arguments I suspect.... 

I thought the debts built up during Covid, because of it, not before? The MSD loan/s were certainly taken during Covid. The relevant charges are dated August and October 2020.

I know the previous winding up order issued by HMRC in the January before Covid has been mentioned, but I can’t see why it would have been withdrawn so soon afterwards if they had not been paid, wouldn’t they have stuck with it?

I’m glad the administrators are appealing the deduction, it may not work, but I think it has a good chance when I read the rules on the EFL site.

Quote

12. Sporting Sanctions 

Introduction

The following Regulation provides for how sporting sanctions will be applied to Clubs when the Club, or any Group Undertaking, becomes subject to or suffers an Insolvency Event, and also makes provision for an appeals mechanism, but only on the grounds of ‘Force Majeure’.

By way of clarification the following are identified as circumstances which it is intended would be embraced under the category of ‘Force Majeure’. It is intended that this appeals process should be limited to circumstances which are deemed unforeseeable and unavoidable. In all these examples, each case would have to be considered on its own merits:

Club Income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

Quote

12.10  A Club may appeal:

12.10.1  against a decision of the Board to impose a points deduction arising from an Insolvency Event of a Group Undertaking under Regulation 12.2; and/or 

12.10.2  against an automatic deduction of points imposed where a Club, Premier League club or National League Club suffers an Insolvency Event under Regulations 12.1, 12.6 or 12.7 respectively, 

but only on the ground that the relevant Insolvency Event(s) arose solely as a result of a Force Majeure event (‘Sporting Sanctions Appeal’). 

12.11  For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

If they have the proof of the bits in bold being true, and I’d have thought the accounts would show this very clearly, then why wouldn’t you appeal it?

This is different to Wigan’s situation that keeps being mentioned, their owner bought the club during Covid, you cannot argue they did their due diligence when we were already in lockdown when they purchased the club, they at the very least would have known the possibility of it continuing at that point.

I think you have to ask yourself, prior to Covid would you ever have anticipated what happened? Around 18 months of no one being in Pride Park, losing two thirds of your income but still having to try and cover all of your outgoings? I know I wouldn’t. How can you possibly have a contingency plan that covers that large an amount?

Yes, other clubs have lost money too due to Covid, but this isn’t about them, this is about how it affected us and us only, and is subject to the rules above. I think it’s best to ignore the noise from fans of other clubs.

23 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

https://www.ad.nl/nederlands-voetbal/phillip-cocu-geniet-van-vrijheid-maar-wil-nog-hoofdtrainer-zijn-ook-in-nederland-zou-ik-weer-kunnen-werken~ac8b97ad/

Good interview, he’s always seemed a really nice guy, glad that he’s doing ok and is ready to go back into management soon.

Although I’m not sure my translator is the best!

?

Does anyone know, with Mel owning the stadium under the Gellaw Newco 202 company (with it’s parent being Gellaw Newco 204) and those 2 companies being listed on the same Companies house charge documents, as ‘The Chargors’, with the club associated ones, does that mean it is the same loan?

If those 2 companies aren’t in administration (while all of the others listed are) and Mel has to keep paying MSD to not lose control of the stadium to them, would that mean that the entirety of the MSD loan is not actually the clubs to pay off?

16 minutes ago, angieram said:

I don't blame the young players, they are just looking out for their careers. It's the system that's wrong.

 

I have so much respect for what the Bellingham’s did for Birmingham, apparently all through the process of the move they made sure to do what was best for Birmingham too.

Imagine if any of ours had done that for us, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

It’s sickening it really is.

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

That teaches me not to skim read the regs when I'm busy doing more important things ?

At least it’s one thing they can’t deliberately hold over us until it hurts us the most.

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

Aye, it will have been because we defaulted on a payment due to Christmas/NY. They do it for fun unless you're Vodafone. 

Does that show that the current HMRC debt has been built up since then?

If we were behind on other payments at that point, would the winding up order have been withdrawn?

33 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

12.4.1  the Club would be relegated in accordance with Regulation 10.1.2(b) or 7.7, the points deduction will apply in the next following Season (including in the National League if appropriate); or

Quote

 

12.3  Subject to the provisions of Regulation 12.4 below, where the Club becomes subject to or suffers an Insolvency Event, or the Board impose a deduction in accordance with Regulation 12.2:

12.3.1  during the Normal Playing Season but prior to 5.00pm on the fourth Thursday in March, the points deduction shall apply immediately; 

12.3.2  during the Normal Playing Season but after 5.00pm on the fourth Thursday in March, Regulation 12.4 shall apply; and 

12.3.3  outside the Normal Playing Season, the points deduction shall apply in respect of the following Season such that the Club starts that Season on minus 12 points (including in the National League if appropriate). 

12.4  Where the circumstances set out in Regulation 12.3.2 apply and at the end of that Season, having regard to the number of championship points awarded (ignoring any potential deduction):

12.4.1  the Club would be relegated in accordance with Regulation 10.1.2(b) or 7.7, the points deduction will apply in the next following Season (including in the National League if appropriate); or 

12.4.2  the Club would not be relegated as aforesaid, the points deduction will apply in that Season and Regulation 10.1.2(b) or 7.7 will then apply (if appropriate) following imposition of the points deduction.

 

The above suggests it will be this season regardless. 12.4(.1/.2) only comes into play with 12.3.2, which is if the Insolvency Event is after 5pm on the 4th Thursday in March.

6 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

The HMRC issued a winding up order in Jan 2020, Covid didn't begin to have an impact until 13th March 2020 when the EFL decided to suspend the league so i don't see how the club can blame Covid for the HMRC situation.

That winding up order was withdrawn 6 days later.

22 hours ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said:

Rooney has been paying for all away travel and accommodation out of his own pocket. He is a credit to our club. 

What an unbelievable thing to do, absolutely incredible. We’re so very lucky to have him.

2 hours ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

The accounts may well have been compliant legally for companies law, but this has no bearing on the rules of the football league. Clubs agree to compliance to the rules, it is in their articles of association.

40 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

This is completely wrong. We were ordered to resubmit accounts which were in accordance with FRS102... not necessarily straight-line

Exactly, also the bit I’ve quoted above, definitely not true in the case of amortisation, there was no mention of how only that it must be done, the only regulation relevant is that the accounts have to be in accordance with FRS102.

Also, as an aside, I keep seeing people mention that Mel cannot sell the stadium back for a lesser amount, and that the EFL would be all over it. From everything said in both ours and Sheffield Wednesday’s DC documentation this is untrue, the only reason he had to sell it for fair market value is because he was a related party to the sale, if he is no longer a related party, which he won’t be, it is irrelevant.

The ruling for the stadium is done, the EFL had 14 days after the ruling to appeal it, they didn’t. What happens going forwards has no bearing on what happened in the past, circumstances have changed so plans for the stadium have subsequently changed, it doesn’t change the reasons for the previous sale.

2 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

What I have an issue is Mel saying that no one would commit to putting in £1-1.5 million per month

Surely that was by design? P&S is set up to allow an owner to pit in £8m per season. Mel always said he wanted to fund it up to the limit. Mel decided to invest lots in P&S exempt tings like the academy (maybe £5m per year), semi-synthetic pitches at PPS, MF and Loughborough at £1m each per season. 

If he couldn't sustain it, he shouldn't have committed the club to it.

This is where you can definitely argue Covid has had an impact, what you can sustain pre Covid changes when Covid hits because a huge part of your income, income that you’ve planned everything around, just disappears in the blink of an eye.

11 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

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 what happened there was they refused to sell him for about half of what they eventually got, the EFL charged them, the DC cleared them, the EFL appealed, the LAP overturned the ruling due to some legal reason, but they realised how ridiculous it was so they still only effectively gave them a slap on the wrist for it.

I’m not sure how a business plan would work with a change in owner, as they’d have their own business plan anyway.

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.