EFL charge Derby over ffp

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Unfortunately the EFL make the rules 

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

Yes but we need to keep in mind that the EFL is made up of the 72 clubs. Every year they have a conference in Portgual where they all get together and agree these rules. FFP/P&S has been debated to death and agreed upon by all the clubs

Our CEO sits on the board of the EFL specifically to represent the Championship teams. Sour grapes from one team has kicked this all off

Trust me, the other 70 clubs have no interest in setting a precedent where goalposts are moved retrospectively. Why would they? It could be them next if a rival club decides to kick up a stink about something petty

 

And also worth remembering that we've done nothing illegal in the eyes of the law. We have filed accounts as appropriate. This is all to do with the EFL interpretation of what certain entries in the books count towards (or don't count towards). They interpreted that it was all OK, but now they've changed their minds. If anything - they are the ones that need to put the strong case forward - not us

 

 

[Ramos]

2 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Unconfirmed sources suggest that reports that the charge relates to the sale of the stadium are wide of the mark.

It is suggested the amount Derby exceeded the 39 million allowed is a mere 100 pounds. 

During a recent audit by the efl an invoice was discovered in mels top drawer for 120 pounds relating to the cost of breakfasts purchased for unknown members of a local internet forum.

 

I heard the drawer below was full of sausages. Unconfirmed. 

[chewbacca]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

It's quite funny when you ask the people who say our recruitment is rubbish, and they could do a better job, who they would sign!

The answer is often 'someone cheap, on low wages, who turns out to be good'.

To be fair, I assume most people on forums are not scouting staff by trade, and are expecting better from the people that are ?

[Millenniumram]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Thing is anyone can say that there are good cheap players out there and then next year saying we should have gone for such and such.

There are 44 teams in the top 2 leagues and you've not given many examples of teams that have done well with the approach that you are suggesting.

Our current approach appears to be a few wise old heads, promoting youth and maybe a few loans, dont see much wrong with that as a strategy.

Of course they can, because we’re fans and not scouts. If it was my job to find good cheap players, then maybe I’d have the time to do so. As it stands I don’t, so hindsight is all me and others have. Regardless, the point isn’t that I could do a better job, because I couldn’t, it’s that the scouts generally should be doing a better job than they are as professionals in the area. Simple as that. 

Personally I see a lot wrong with that strategy. The older players will end up with no value, so all the money spent on them is gone. That’s where signing younger players is much better, they’re much more likely to increase in value as an asset. It’s similar with loans, it’s too short term. If you can’t sign permanently, then you’re left with needing to spend more money to replace them. Then we ultimately rely long term on our academy. Now I’m all for giving youth a chance, but there’s never any guarantees that we’ll have players come through who are good enough. It’s a lot of pressure to put on them and I’m not convinced that’s even very good for their development. It’s a big gamble. 

[Archied]

13 minutes ago, Sexydadbod said:

It’s much better to be liked, respected and have a good reputation though. Makes it easier to attract players, I think it was said that Rooney wouldn’t have come but for Lampard helping Derby’s reputation in a good way. All these off the field issues over the last few years have been laughable to be honest, Lampard helped to restore some of the good will but it’s still not like it used to be , the drink drive saga was the worst of it. I do feel for Cocu though, in his last few jobs- in Turkey and here , it’s developed chaos. 

Do me a favour , players go where the money and chance of winning is ,end of ,,, lampard my ass ,he had the players out on a massive piss up between Leeds away and Wembley, I want Derby to do well and don’t give a stuff what a load of plastic glory hunting tourist prem club fans think 

[cheron85]

4 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Of course, but the EFL are gonna have to make themselves look like total fools to backtrack on this now. And regardless, there shouldn’t even be a chance of punishment from this if the finances were managed correctly.

Maybe - But on the other hand it's a great get out of jail card to play by the EFL regarding the many complaints other clubs have made and the threat Gibson keeps making to sue them - They can now say "we leveled charges because that's what everyone wanted and out it to an independent panel" - Then it's no longer their responsibility and other clubs can't complain

Morris made a point back in June on Talksport - Tax will have been paid on the sale of this asset - Are the EFL claiming that HMRC haven't done their due diligence over the valuation of an asset? That's a bold claim for them to be making IMO

[CharltonFan]

Bloody hell it really has been one thing after another for you lot this season. 

[Millenniumram]

8 minutes ago, Archied said:

Perhaps along the lines of the lad we’ve just sent back to Everton 

Nope, Dowells played enough games at this level to tell he isn’t good enough. The recruitment team should have been able to tell he wants suited before we signed him in the first place. It was a terrible transfer indicative of our poor recruitment.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, chewbacca said:

To be fair, I assume most people on forums are not scouting staff by trade, and are expecting better from the people that are ?

Agreed.

Our scouts must be awful for us to have made the play offs 4 times out of the last 6 seasons...

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, Millenniumram said:

Nope, Dowells played enough games at this level to tell he isn’t good enough. The recruitment team should have been able to tell he wants suited before we signed him in the first place. It was a terrible transfer indicative of our poor recruitment.

Really? 

He signed before the recruitment team had even seen how Cocu was going to set up.

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

2 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Yes but we need to keep in mind that the EFL is made up of the 72 clubs. Every year they have a conference in Portgual where they all get together and agree these rules. FFP/P&S has been debated to death and agreed upon by all the clubs

Our CEO sits on the board of the EFL specifically to represent the Championship teams. Sour grapes from one team has kicked this all off

Trust me, the other 70 clubs have no interest in setting a precedent where goalposts are moved retrospectively. Why would they? It could be them next if a rival club decides to kick up a stink about something petty

 

And also worth remembering that we've done nothing illegal in the eyes of the law. We have filed accounts as appropriate. This is all to do with the EFL interpretation of what certain entries in the books count towards (or don't count towards). They interpreted that it was all OK, but now they've changed their minds. If anything - they are the ones that need to put the strong case forward - not us

 

 

Exactly Mel has got this, I’m not that concerned. 
All bases will have been covered, why else would Mel have bought the ground.

Mel is a very shrewd and successful businessman and has surrounded himself accordingly with legal eagles etc. I am sure that the EFL and it’s legalities were checked and double checked and no foul play was uncovered not that long ago. 

My guess is this is potentially a case of misdirection on the EFLs part, there’s possibly something else going on that they are trying to brush under the carpet. 
 

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Of course they can, because we’re fans and not scouts. If it was my job to find good cheap players, then maybe I’d have the time to do so. As it stands I don’t, so hindsight is all me and others have. Regardless, the point isn’t that I could do a better job, because I couldn’t, it’s that the scouts generally should be doing a better job than they are as professionals in the area. Simple as that. 

Personally I see a lot wrong with that strategy. The older players will end up with no value, so all the money spent on them is gone. That’s where signing younger players is much better, they’re much more likely to increase in value as an asset. It’s similar with loans, it’s too short term. If you can’t sign permanently, then you’re left with needing to spend more money to replace them. Then we ultimately rely long term on our academy. Now I’m all for giving youth a chance, but there’s never any guarantees that we’ll have players come through who are good enough. It’s a lot of pressure to put on them and I’m not convinced that’s even very good for their development. It’s a big gamble. 

Who are all of the older players that we have spent money on?

[Archied]

13 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Glad you’re not in charge of recruitment either then...

Followed all your pre season and onwards posts regards lack of transfers and am glad your not either as we would be far deeper in it than your moaning about us being already ,,, clue , sometimes it’s just right to put your hands up and say fair cop 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

1 hour 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. 

5 mill fine, 10 point deduction and transfer ban for 2 windows should do it.

[Millenniumram]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

It's quite funny when you ask the people who say our recruitment is rubbish, and they could do a better job, who they would sign!

The answer is often 'someone cheap, on low wages, who turns out to be good'.

Where have I ever said I could do a better job?? My point isn’t that I’m some sort of recruitment genius, so I don’t get why who I would sign is remotely relevant. My point is that our recruitment is poor compared to other teams at this level, therefore, we should be doing a lot better. You may disagree, but it doesn’t make my opinion invalid. You’re not better than the rest of us on here you know, so I’d watch your attitude.

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, CharltonFan said:

Bloody hell it really has been one thing after another for you lot this season. 

It's not been great, and as others have mentioned, we're not a club with a huge amount of goodwill from other fans lately.

We'll survive, and frankly our situation is nothing compared to what Charlton fans had to go through.

[Millenniumram]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Really? 

He signed before the recruitment team had even seen how Cocu was going to set up.

He said as soon as he signed that he wanted a 433. Dowell is a number 10 by trade. Don’t think it’s hard to see that he wouldn’t suit what we were aiming for. Granted, we actually shifted towards a 4231 to suit the mis match of personnel we have. But that wa s never the original plan, believe me.

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Of course they can, because we’re fans and not scouts. If it was my job to find good cheap players, then maybe I’d have the time to do so. As it stands I don’t, so hindsight is all me and others have. Regardless, the point isn’t that I could do a better job, because I couldn’t, it’s that the scouts generally should be doing a better job than they are as professionals in the area. Simple as that. 

Personally I see a lot wrong with that strategy. The older players will end up with no value, so all the money spent on them is gone. That’s where signing younger players is much better, they’re much more likely to increase in value as an asset. It’s similar with loans, it’s too short term. If you can’t sign permanently, then you’re left with needing to spend more money to replace them. Then we ultimately rely long term on our academy. Now I’m all for giving youth a chance, but there’s never any guarantees that we’ll have players come through who are good enough. It’s a lot of pressure to put on them and I’m not convinced that’s even very good for their development. It’s a big gamble. 

Like beliek?

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, Millenniumram said:

Where have I ever said I could do a better job?? My point isn’t that I’m some sort of recruitment genius, so I don’t get why who I would sign is remotely relevant. My point is that our recruitment is poor compared to other teams at this level, therefore, we should be doing a lot better. You may disagree, but it doesn’t make my opinion invalid. You’re not better than the rest of us on here you know, so I’d watch your attitude.

The post wasnt aimed directly at you but I'm sure if I looked hard enough I would find a post where you said you could do a better job. Thanks for the warning, I will keep a check on my attitude from now on.

Just now, Millenniumram said:

He said as soon as he signed that he wanted a 433. Dowell is a number 10 by trade. Don’t think it’s hard to see that he wouldn’t suit what we were aiming for. Granted, we actually shifted towards a 4231 to suit the mis match of personnel we have. But that wa s never the original plan, believe me.

I believe you.

[Ghost of Clough]

To highlight the importance of knowing if the stadium sale was acceptable...

The set of accounts in question were filed in April 2019, for the year ending 30 June 2018. 
We sold Hughes before this date, but Ince and Christie afterwards. If we knew the stadium sale wouldn’t have been acceptable, maybe we would have sold those two a week earlier to be closer to the limit. Maybe we would have held out for slightly more for Hughes as well?

edit: I seem to recall the sale of Ince actually being included in the 17/18 accounts, despite actually being sold a few days late