RandomAccessMemory

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

I’ve spoken to David, he’s done his report, sent it to the club to check it’s ok with them.
The clubs not managed to get it signed off yet. One can only assume that they have other pressing matters, players contracts etc if you read what Mr Nixon has said.
I’m assured that there is some further detail to what’s already been released by the Punjabi Rams and Jim Wheeler on Radio Derby.
I was worried that everyone was waiting with baited breath only for the exact info to be in David’s report that was already out there anyway.
Please try and see it from his side, he’s piggy in the middle, and wants to make sure everything is ok with what’s in his report.
As far as I’m aware, due to David having to leave just before the end to catch the last train he missed an agreement to let Jim Wheeler do a piece to RD this morning.
But, that’s not what we go to the charter meetings for. We go to ask questions and to report to our members, not be a face to a joint statement. 

David never put our name to a recent open letter to the club, and will never do so.
So please be patient, the timescale is out his hands, and he’s getting grief left right and centre on Social Media. In my opinion non of the other groups who were there are.  But that comes with us being the biggest group of Derby County supporters on the internet.
He’s losing his hair, what he has got doesn’t want turning grey.
 

Exactly, and other than saying “yes I will”, how else could you prove it? It’s not exactly like a proof of funds.
Most likely pulled out of Nixon’s rear end, but with the EFL, you just never know.

Wonder how many other clubs are required to do this?

I'm pretty sure the whole meeting, or even just the points allowed to be discussed publicly, can't accurately be surmised within the Twitter character limit. Punjabi Rams released those tweets quickly and possibly didn't expect how much blood the twitter "fan" base  was baying for.
The phone-in guy this morning seemed a little more balanced and was able to articulate a little more.
I'm reserving my judgment until we can be told what we can be in a bit more detail.
I'm not saying what PR or RT have put out there so far isn't honest, just that more detail is needed if possible. 

The quote from Coles (from page one) is that the club were in discussions with HMRC about throwing some money their way
There is nothing in the statement which suggests the club were in full control of that - HMRC could very easily have turned around and said "no, actually we want the exact amount once you've filed your accounts thank you" - There isn't enough information in the statement to accurately conclude that the club would be able to pay HMRC on their own terms
You can't just read stuff and assume the rest - We have a limited amount of information available to us and we can't assume that idle speculation is correct

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’.

Yyyyuuuupppp
If it's tied into the submission of the accounts then surely that needs to wait until after the EFL have approved the accounts?

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

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.

Wisdom not on the list we are trying to sign 

Me every time I see one of the perpetual moaners saying they're thinking of not going on Saturday.

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.

Totally agree with this, and the guy who does the administration at Punjabi Rams is always very balanced. I do recall something similar happening at a previous SC meeting, though, where the guy he'd actually sent to the meeting took a rather negative slant on things.
It's the same on here, people reading (or mis-reading, or missing bits altogether) and then repeating stuff as if it 's fact. 
I hope David doesn't read anything anyone else has written before he writes his down. Less chance for contagion! 

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.

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.

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.

Stephen Pearce printing contracts 7 a.m this morning.

My little input regarding the academy involvement.
When Mel took over, he started investing heavily in the academy, which he knew would take a number of years to bear fruit. Investment went into the first team in his 2nd season, which theoretically wouldn't impact the long term prospects of the academy. Involvement of fringe academy players was reduced under certain managers (Pearson, Rowett). I believe Mel has previously suggested he was misled during the interview process Academy products were involved a lot last season, but Buchanan and Sibley in particular should have been used a lot more than they were Minutes given to academy graduates in the league

 
Bad recruitment
This could fall under the manager, recruitment or even Mel.
15/16, Pearce/Shackell - Signed both at the same time (4 and 3 year deals respectively), only for Shackell to play in the first season and Pearce to play in the second, with minimal involvement in the other seasons. Why didn't we sign just 1 of them, with Rawson in reserve? 15/16, Olsson - Warnock and Forsyth already at the club with Lowe on the fringes 15/16, Blackman/Camara - We already had Ince, Russell and Weimann, with Bennett on the fringes 16/17, Anya - We already had Ince, Russell, Weimann, Blackman and Camara on the wings. One of the most pointless signings of all time. 18/19, Malone/Cole - Forsyth and Lowe. We also had McDonald on the fringes. 18/19, Jozefzoon - With Wilson, Lawrence, Waghorn and Bennett already as options, we should have given minutes to LThomas, McAllister or JML 19/20, Hamer/Dowell/Paterson - all pointless loans