EFL charge Derby over ffp

[Curtains]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

No. He's in charge.

He must rely  on Stephen Pearce though. 
 

 

[Curtains]

Just now, Coconut said:

Clearly not, or else they wouldn't have to refer it to a panel to make the decision.

Will this panel be arbitrarily detached from the EFL ! 

[DCFC1388]

Am I right in thinking that the £41m valuation of the stadium as an asset within our Accounts was a fixed amount and couldnt actually be revalued as an asset. 

So we sold the stadium for what it was actually worth, according to an independant valuation which the EFL then signed off?

Maybe at the start of every financial year the EFL should independantly value every stadium themselves & let the club know, that way it can be a 'true' value. 

As previoualy mentioned, the £41m was the initial valuation that couldnt be changed within the financial reports. It could have gone up or down in value it would have always stayed at 41m in the books.

Or am i completely wrong?

As it stands it seems to me like it is a case of our independant valuation vs EFLs independant valuation, but in our favour the EFL have already signed our valuation off. 

Also, if the EFL do win this case can we not sue them as any of our dealings after such as Bielik were based on them signing off the stadium sale, had they not we can surely say we wouldnt have paid what we did for Bielik etc

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Exactly. This is the main point. How are we so far over FFP that we need 80m from the stadium?

Because he has continued to throw money at club, improving the facilities and buying players that the fans are always calling for.

If I go on the transfer thread I assume that you will be on there saying no signings in this transfer window?

[Ramleicester]

35 minutes ago, R@M said:

All very well, but if you look into it, very few Football Clubs actually own their stadium. If this is retrospective action, after it was signed off, there would be a legal obligation to do the same diligence for every stadium transaction under the EFL’s jurisdiction. 

If other clubs racked up massive debts then sold the stadium to cover them then yes. Not in law but under their own governance. FFP is not law it is the rules of a competition.

I may be wrong but has it ever been 100% clear and proven that the EFL 'signed it off'. If they did this action would surely not be happening as three year losses for the period were well within FFP. A lot of 'we understand the EFL were aware' comments but can't see much more than that in terms of confirmation.

Update:

I see that statements have been made that DCFC had some written indication. Never from the EFL though. I see a few sources are hinting that the issue maybe to do with the fact that the two parties have 'common ownership'. 

Bottom line is we just don't know lol........

 

 

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, Ramleicester said:

If other clubs racked up massive debts then sold the stadium to cover them then yes. Not in law but under their own governance. FFP is not law it is the rules of a competition.

I may be wrong but has it ever been 100% clear and proven that the EFL 'signed it off'. If they did this action would surely not be happening as three year losses for the period were well within FFP. A lot of 'we understand the EFL were aware' comments but can't see much more than that in terms of confirmation.

 

 

That’s the issue did they ever sign it off. 

[papa_lazarou]

This statement says it all in a nutshell:-

Derby said in September they “adhered to the profit and sustainability rules” over the sale of Pride Park. “The stadium was subject to an independent professional valuation before sale, nearly 18 months ago, and the EFL indicated in writing the arrangement was in accordance with its rules and regulations,” the club’s statement said. “The EFL cannot now, long after approving the arrangements, suggest Derby County breached the rules.”

How the flying f£@k! Can the EFL now win this in any kind of professional process? They indicated in WRITING it was in accordance with its rules and regulations.

It's a farce!

 

[May Contain Nuts]

3 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Will this panel be arbitrarily detached from the EFL ! 

[DCFC1388]

How soon after our valuation was the EFLs done? If its over a year later maybe the valuation of the stadium has dropped for whatever reason but even then it doesnt matter as we sold it for what it was worth at the time? 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

7 minutes ago, Carnero said:

That Kieran Maguire chap (Price of Football) reckons without the stadium sale our 3 year loss for P&S/FFP purposes was £53m.

By my maths, in order to keep within the rules we'd have had to have sold the stadium for at least £55m.

According to John Percy, the EFL value of the stadium is £50m.

Putting these pieces together means that in a worse case scenario of being found guilty we'd have only breached the rules by £5m max.

Hardly a major breach and more likely to result in a fine or transfer ban than a points deduction.

As @G STAR RAM stated earlier, the losses for the 3 years were £14m, £8m and £25m (excluding deductions and stadium sale) so at most, we only needed a £49m stadium sale. 

[Comrade 86]

How about we wait and see whether this is just some ultimately meaningless EFL sabre rattling to appease the likes of Gibson before we pass judgement on Morris and co, eh? What's been reported thus far tells us the square root of duck all other than a charge has been made so let's at least hold fire on slaughtering Mel until the club has released a statement and we have some salient detail.

Frankly I'm more irked by the fact that half the folks slagging off the chairman now were the exact same folk bragging on his business acumen at the time of the stadium sale. 

[LeedsCityRam]

Fascinated to know how the EFL are able to mount a claim given they apparently confirmed in writing that the sale was in line with their regulations. But in some way not surprising from the same clowns that brought us the derisory TV deal, Bury's destruction, Bolton nearly going the same way, Coventry being exiled from their own city for a second time & the creation of the MK Dons.

My main wish here though is that any case is conducted swiftly. Sheffield Wednesday were charged on 14th November & still no resolution. Their stance is less secure than ours too as the allegation is their profit on the sale of the ground was declared in a different financial period.

 

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, papa_lazarou said:

This statement says it all in a nutshell:-

Derby said in September they “adhered to the profit and sustainability rules” over the sale of Pride Park. “The stadium was subject to an independent professional valuation before sale, nearly 18 months ago, and the EFL indicated in writing the arrangement was in accordance with its rules and regulations,” the club’s statement said. “The EFL cannot now, long after approving the arrangements, suggest Derby County breached the rules.”

How the flying f£@k! Can the EFL now win this in any kind of professional process? They indicated in WRITING it was in accordance with its rules and regulations.

It's a farce!

 

They indicated it was in accordance.

I can see the lawyers arguing about this one .

It could go on for years 

Having said that the EFL could act and Derby would need to appeal the case 

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, DCFC1388 said:

Am I right in thinking that the £41m valuation of the stadium as an asset within our Accounts was a fixed amount and couldnt actually be revalued as an asset. 

So we sold the stadium for what it was actually worth, according to an independant valuation which the EFL then signed off?

Maybe at the start of every financial year the EFL should independantly value every stadium themselves & let the club know, that way it can be a 'true' value. 

As previoualy mentioned, the £41m was the initial valuation that couldnt be changed within the financial reports. It could have gone up or down in value it would have always stayed at 41m in the books.

Or am i completely wrong?

As it stands it seems to me like it is a case of our independant valuation vs EFLs independant valuation, but in our favour the EFL have already signed our valuation off. 

Also, if the EFL do win this case can we not sue them as any of our dealings after such as Bielik were based on them signing off the stadium sale, had they not we can surely say we wouldnt have paid what we did for Bielik etc

Going completely from memory here but I think the ground cost £20m to build in 1997?

I think around about 2006 it was revalued up to £60m.

It would then have been depreciated until 2013 when it was professionally valued again and retained its value at around £50m.

So basically the EFL are saying it has lost value over the last 13 years.

As I say I am going from memory there but I think my figures are about right.

[StarterForTen]

Lots of water to run under the bridge on this one. But there is only one absolute certainty....

....plenty of lawyers are going to get very, very rich!

[Millenniumram]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Because he has continued to throw money at club, improving the facilities and buying players that the fans are always calling for.

If I go on the transfer thread I assume that you will be on there saying no signings in this transfer window?

Improving the facilities doesn’t count towards FFP I don’t believe, certainly not the youth expenditure if I remember correctly. Sure the fans want players bringing in, but I’m sure they don’t want them bringing in if they knew it was gonna push us over FFP. We don’t have access to that information, so of course we’re gonna want signings without that knowledge. But if the club is run correctly, they should know exactly where we stand with respect to FFP, and whether making a signing is a good idea or not. They’ve clearly got our FFP forecast incorrect if they believed we could afford all the wages etc that we’ve paid out, given we’re now so far over the limit without the stadium sale. 

If you told me that a signing was gonna push us over FFP, then I’d be on the transfer thread saying no transfers this window. That’s correct. But without that knowledge prior to today, of course I’m not going to be saying that!

[superzak]

All you peasants on here who have not had to handle anymore money than can i pay at the aldi checkout desk have no idea what its like to be dealing in millions of pounds...it easy to spout on here what you would do different. Whether we make it to the prem or not Mel will always have my admiration for trying.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

As @G STAR RAM stated earlier, the losses for the 3 years were £14m, £8m and £25m (excluding deductions and stadium sale) so at most, we only needed a £49m stadium sale. 

And that is accounting losses, I am sure adjustments are allowed to reduce the accounting losses to the FFP figure.

[GenBr]

42 minutes ago, Ramleicester said:

One thing for sure is that noone will know until the case comes forward and is in the open. Hope it happens quickly.

One thing I do know is that the EFL are VERY keen to ensure that more clubs do not sell their biggest assets in terms of stadiums to fund losses. Was at a recent sports law briefing at St Georges and that came through very clearly, it has also been signalled pretty clearly in the media.

 FFP is there to keep clubs financially viable for the long term. Selling a stadium to clear debts is a one time deal, we may find that is at the root of this saga.

If its in place to keep clubs financially viable in the long term they need to change how its implemented, because its not working at all at present. If they didnt want people selling assets to cover FFP losses then they shouldnt have removed the prohibition from the rules.

8 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Unfortunately the EFL make the rules 

I mean they have the power above all else as it’s their league. 

A lot of major decisions are voted on by member clubs - the EFL can't just do whatever they like. The decision to implement FFP was voted on by the Championship teams and approved by all but 3 teams. Same thing happened when Gibson wanted everyones accounts to be reviewed by external accountants, but that was rejected by the clubs when they voted.

[Ramslaar]

27 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Ok. You are right Mel has done a wonderful job. 

I dont doubt his heart was in the right place, but he has lead us into turmoil over the past few years. 

And to be fair i totally understand how alot of this has been seen. If only people new the half of what goes off but i guess only a small amount is known.not that thats anyones fault just the way it is and will know doubt always be.