RandomAccessMemory

At a guess, Mel was on about being a 5% or less shareholder, with what seems absolutely no obligation to disclose who they are to the EFL, hence the not in writing bit?

5 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

He said it's down to Morris to fix this with the EFL

That doesn't give ANY useful info about what the problem is - Just puts responsibility for it on Morris to get the EFL to sort it

Exactly, and the EFL could be asking for anything, including something completely unreasonable, that no other club owner has ever had to/will ever have to agree to, just to put the pressure back onto Mel and the club.

Unless we know exactly what it is he has to ‘sort’ then it’s not as simple as saying ‘well sort it then’.

Nixon’s article I think

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/15787710/Derby-eight-players-free-transfers-crisis-rooney-morrison/

Quote

Veteran centre half Curtis Davies is set to sign, but will also join the coaching staff. 

The others include Ravel Morrison, Phil Jagielka, Richard Stearman, Sone Aluko, Tom Carroll, Ryan Allsop and Sam Baldock.

6 minutes ago, Footymum2017 said:

If staff and players believe what a fan group is saying on twitter then there are more problems in the club than we all thought!

I get what you’re saying, and it does sound ridiculous, but once something like that is posted, it spreads like wildfire and it becomes gospel.

I’d completely understand why that comment would lead to the players and staff wanting some more answers.

10 minutes ago, MK-Ram said:

Hey, we may be a mess but this morning Alan Nixon has gone from 'Mel doesn't want to make signings' to 'the EFL needs to tell Derby how many signings they can make' to 'Dcfc have handed out blank contracts' to 'The EFL haven't told Derby how much they will let them pay'.

 

It’s possible that handing them all contracts is the club trying to say to them ‘we want to sign you, we’re not stringing you along, but until the EFL tell us what we’re allowed to pay you then we can’t put that part in the contract, and we don’t expect you to sign it yet’ but at least they know then that we DO want to sign them.

ETA-I’ve just seen the latest Nixon tweet, it looks like this is exactly why they’ve done it.

I don’t like to criticise, but I don’t think the Punjabi Rams have helped here, I understand why they wanted to get ‘something’ out there quickly, people were almost begging for information, but tweets with limited information wasn’t the best way to do it. There’s no context, no explanation as to when, or why, something was said. Was it in answer to something? Was it a tiny comment amongst a longer statement?

Look at the storm it has apparently caused, that comment on no transfers, people read into it what they want, and now we hear that it’s causing problems with the staff and players, when it’s one interpretation of one comment amongst a 4 hour meeting, by one person.

I completely understand why @David wants to get everything out in one post, when he’s had the chance to get it all down. This is what happens if you get out of context snippets.

Is it just me that reads the academy comment as meaning that in the past the academy players weren’t being brought through, which left us in a worse position to keep some of the others, or to get really good money for them, rather than now?

Rooney has given a lot of them game time, as did Cocu, but before that not many were given a chance, only really Bogle.

At the time we had Lowe, but we bought Malone, who ended up not being used too much in his second year and then going out on loan through to the end of his contract, and we ended up selling Lowe for probably less than we could have got had he played more the year before, rather than having been sent out on loan to Aberdeen. In the end we sold him to let Buchanan through, which is exactly the way the academy should work, in an ideal world, but we likely would have gotten more for Lowe with more game time.

Knight probably could have broken through in the Lampard season, given how quickly he broke through the next year, but instead I think the first time we see him (on the bench) is at Leeds in the play off semi, despite IIRC having had many injuries to midfield players during the season.

9 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Page 30 (on the document, page 31 in the PDF) onwards in here: 

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/202021/general-news-images/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf

"‘This was more about [the EFL] wanting an understanding of the process, as they accept that there is nothing they can question on it as it is an acceptable accounting policy under accounting standards. We discussed this with them and they are now comfortable with the treatment’" etc

 

The EFL can argue all they want that they didn’t understand the application of the method, but they certainly understood the implications of it. That email (to himself) is a plain as day, they knew that there was the potential for being a large charge in the last year of the contract.

2 minutes ago, Jayram said:

Yes because I’m a grown up who doesn’t seek to blame the mess we are in on those nasty EFL people as opposed to the owner of our football club. Why hasn’t the club filed accounts for the last 3 years? Why have we tried to game the system while other clubs haven’t? Mel isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and the football authorities have caught up with him, simple as that. 

Because of the EFL case! Their case was that simply by filing the accounts with the amortisation method we used was breaking the rules, how could we file new accounts when we had no idea until the conclusion of this case whether we could or could not use that method?

Just now, Spanish said:

I think we got a better hearing with the DC than we did with the LAP.

That’s not ‘undoubtedly’ though?

You, nor I, have any idea what the LAP will do, using such a word as undoubtedly is incredibly misleading.

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

thinks that's what @SamUltraRamsaid?

LAP could have decided on punishment they handed it back to DC.  DC have decided on a fine if EFL appeal it goes to LAP who will undoubtedly give a points penalty but maybe they will say it is applied 21/22.  No appeal to their decision

Sorry, why will they ‘undoubtedly’ give a points penalty? There are many steps between a £100k fine (+reprimand) that don’t equal a points penalty.

28 minutes ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

But this has all been self induced.... just do the accounts properly, do it the same as everyone else, why give them the ammunition in the first place. 

But they were of the belief, as were their auditors, that they did do the accounts ‘properly’.

It does not mention how you’re supposed to account for amortisation, they believed they were fine within FRS102 to do it as they did, the original IDC decision vindicated this, yes I know the appeal has since gone against them, however what that should show you is that it is not at all clear cut, it seems to boil down to a difference in opinion.

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I assume, as it's been talked about, that punishment for submitting non-compliant accounts isn't 'points deductible'? There will be punishments set out by the EFL. Think it was @Ghost of Clough saying such when he was working out the 'new' accounts submission figures based on straight line amortisation.

 

You’d like to think so wouldn’t you, especially if we’d have been under the limit anyway with the recalculated accounts, as during the 3 years in question it would have made zero difference, if that’s the case.

But we’re talking about the EFL, and they seem to like to ask for maximum punishment, that’s what I’m saying, I expect them to do that, I don’t expect the DC to agree with them though.

7 minutes ago, angieram said:

I think maybe people are taking what Nixon is saying a bit too literally. I personally think that he is implying that the EFL will be more favourably disposed towards us generally once Mel is gone.

This might mean pressing less about the punishment, which could in turn influence the DC's decision; or just agreeing to the DC setting the punishment rather than the LAP (which I am not sure if they have done as yet?)

I don't think it's right that there is this issue between the EFL and Mel,  but people would be naive to think that it is not there, or that it hasn't influenced the EFL's recent behaviour.

The club statement said they have agreed to that

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The maximum punishment is still based on what was wrong - which from the appeal report suggests its accounting. Only if we resubmit and go over P&S can we be looking at points deduction.

Of course, but according to the first DC document, they are saying we broke the P&S rules just by filing non compliant accounts, not (yet) by going over the spending limit. So they may still ask for the maximum punishment for breaking P&S rules, even if we think it’s ridiculous to do that as it’s purely an accounting thing.

Like I’ve said though, just because they might ask for something, doesn’t mean the DC will think it’s at all justified.

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

That's still not an appropriate stance for a regulator to have, and effectively that's what the EFL are in terms of the football league. It implies that the relationship between the club and the EFL will change how the rules apply to you.

 

I completely agree with you.

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

They still have to base it on whether we're guilty and what of if so.

Yes, they do, but the EFL might ask for maximum punishment as there is no precedent. It doesn’t necessarily mean the DC will think they are right to do so.

12 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

How can Nixon know anything about potential points deduction, before the original panel have reconvened and discussed the facts ?

Two buyers in talks ?

I wonder if he knows what the EFL are asking for as a punishment?

By that I mean, I think both sides have their say and the EFL put forward what punishment they want us to have (but the final decision on what punishment is handed down is with the DC) maybe he means they will ask for a lesser punishment if Mel no longer owns us?

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It wouldn't be whether we gained any advantage - it would be whether we attempted to gain an advantage compared wit us not changing policy. Wanting to compete against parachute payments also isn't a good defence.

I’m wondering, if as apparently stated by the club, we don’t fail P&S even with straight line amortisation, whether those restated accounts might actually form part of our sanction mitigation.

Rather than wait to see if part of their sanction is to make us restate them, preempt it and get them done anyway to show we didn’t gain any advantage in this time period doing what we did as we’d have been under the limit. It would prove our case that we genuinely thought it was a better way of accounting, rather than trying to gain any kind of unfair advantage, which is clearly why everyone assumes we did it.

3 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

This sounds pathetic from us:

I’m not quite sure why there is so much furore about this particular snippet today on social media, all of this has been known since the IDC decision.

It made comment to the club referencing Transfermarkt and it wasn’t the only way they calculated values, it’s not new news.

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Spot on. But conduct will be relevant to sanction. And there are countless folk on here saying we’re purer than the driven snow. IMo fans should be angered by the club’s statement because it treats fans like fools and because it reflects a culture that has damaged the club.  

But the sanction is being given by the original IDC, who did not make those comments.

Just now, Spanish said:

Oh dear, one of our strongest lines of defence was never used but I imagine we could use it at sentencing as part of our mitigation on penalty but not on guilt

You’d hope so wouldn’t you!

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

What was the quality of that request though?  I can't recall whether that was used extensively in a defence in the DC.  You would think that that would be estoppel territory

That was the club’s argument for not wanting the LAP to rule on it, which we cannot appeal, because our procedural defences were rejected in the IDC, but ultimately we didn’t need them as they dismissed the charges anyway (bar the fifth particular).

Allowing the LAP to rule on the appeal, means that we are found ‘guilty’ of something we can’t appeal as it’s not like we could appeal the original decision to get the rejection of our procedural defences overturned, because we won without them.

Can I just point out the factual error from the article that was posted, it said one point would send us down, it would not as our goal difference is better than Wycombe’s.

13 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

there are numerous comments in the judgement which seriously call into question the club's good faith - see some below. These are papered over in the club statement, which is an attempt at a whitewash.  The Club must have considered a high level resignation in response to this episode. Problem is, it's got so personal between MM and the EFL that his judgement is clouded. It's no wonder we have become such an outcast

 

25. These explanations were at best confusing and at worst seriously misleading. As appears below, they misstated the principles relating to ‘residual values’ (which were always nil at the end of the period of the player contract) (see DC decision [52][58][223b] and [228a]) and wrongly stated that they assumed an ‘active market’, which they did not do.

26 ...the note of the meeting records that the policy was said by the Club to be “in line with that disclosed in the Club’s accounts” (which was quite wrong) and records the explanation that “the Club used residual values when assessing each Player’s amortisation charge” (which was also quite wrong). Given the confusion, which was at least largely the fault of the Club, the criticism of EFL by DC seems remarkably harsh,

28. The DC made disclosure orders in relation to documents in the Club’s control relevant to the accounting treatment. However, the Club did not produce a single document evidencing or relating to the accounting treatment adopted and confirmed that none existed.    

Ultimately irrelevant as the only thing the LAP did was substitute their decision for the IDC’s on the second particular only.