EFL charge Derby over ffp

[Spanish]

25 minutes ago, steve bloomer said:

Derby are facing a potential 21-point deduction & collapse of proposed takeover after being charged by EFL for making excess losses under FFP regulations. Not good news to wake up to if you're a Derby fan!

I heard we are to be forced to train in Iran and wear shirts criticising Trump

[Bubbles]

12 hours ago, Sexydadbod said:

It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things but it upset me looking at the sky sports comments how non Derby fans are glad this has happened to us, I’m not just talking about Leeds or forest fans either, even those who have completely no affiliation or rivalry with us are celebrating this and glad it’s happened to us.

I know a lot of you probably don’t care about this but it’s a bit upsetting to see the reaction to our club the last few years and how people are starting to really dislike us.
In 2014 after the play off final, many non Derby fans said to me they were gutted for Derby because they wanted us to win as we played football in the right way without spending much money. I gathered it was a similar reaction on the internet back then. We were like everyone’s second favourite team like Sheffield United now are because they’ve been a breath of fresh air in the premier league without spending much.

It doesn’t really matter but it’s a much better feeling when we are respected and liked by everyone else , makes me proud to say I’m a Derby fan. All the events over the last few years has made me feel a bit ashamed.

if it was bolton people would be protesting the EFL

[Carnero]

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

This is bonkers... Looking at the numbers the Guardian are quoting

£14.7m loss in 15-16

£8m loss in 16-17

£25.3m loss in 17-18

Total 3 year loss of £48m (ie, £9m above FFP rules)

Ground Sale @ £80m - Profits listed as £39m - ie, the asset value was £41m as listed on ALL previous approved accounts for the last 10 years 

So we're claiming the ground has increased in value by £39m since 10 years ago - However all we need to hit FFP is an increase in value of £10m - (ie, asset sale value of £51m)

Just saying - If that pile of rubble and wood which is Hillsborough is worth £60m then PP is worth at least that

Agreed.

If ultimately found guilty then the 3 years to 2017/18 breach will be relatively minor if The Times are correct that the EFL value of th ground is £49m.

Slap on the wrist at most.

However the issue is bigger than just whether we have breached in the 3 years to 17/18 as a £30m difference in asset value has a massive effect on the future P&S/FFP calculations ie the 3 years to 18/19 & 19/20.

[gccrowdpleaser]

So much nonsense spouted here.

You can pay as much as you wish for a fixed asset. It's worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The amount was paid and also, of particular importance, the taxes were also all paid in line with the amount. Making the whole sale absolutely legal.

The rules stated that fixed assets could be sold. That is exactly what is happened. 

EFL can have only two allegations...one around fraud. The other around the spirit in which the transaction took place.

As we saw with Leeds and the spy gate issue. They broke no rules but they were still charged and fined due to not adhering to the spirit of the rules. The EFL then saw fit to fine alter the rules in accordance.

This is what will happen here. The accounts were approved by the EFL. They cannot now retract that approval without there being a material difference in the info provided or indeed fraudulent activity in the provision of the accounts. Neither of which are alleged or part of the charge.

Yes we have probably contravened the spirit of the rules but not the rules themselves. They are under pressure from the Gibson lawsuit so need to show some willing but cannot actually act. They will be ripped through he court by a man with far far deeper pockets.

Spirit of the law contravention then we move on 

One slight aside. And it may be an interesting diversion. In breacing and being deducted points Birmingham actually had the rolling three year period completely reset. Therefore 2019/20 is year one of their 3 year FFP period. For everyone else it is a rolling three years. With that in mind...if I was anew investor...I would be inclined to want the FFP period to be reset to zero in order that my investment can be used to it's full potential. Just a thought.

[Wolfie20]

9 hours ago, Gut_Reaction said:

Not preaching, simply my opinion. The response to my post indicates you are not supported in your view by fellow Rams. 

I wouldn't take too much notice of the poster you quoted as being representative of Rams fans - he's a bit of an attention seeker if truth be told.

[gccrowdpleaser]

1 minute ago, Carnero said:

Agreed.

If ultimately found guilty then the 3 years to 2017/18 breach will be relatively minor if The Times are correct that the EFL value of th ground is £49m.

Slap on the wrist at most.

However the issue is bigger than just whether we have breached in the 3 years to 17/18 as a £30m difference in asset value has a massive effect on the future P&S/FFP calculations ie the 3 years to 18/19 & 19/20.

There was every interesting narrative from Mel at the time about investment in a retractable roof and pitch covering that was being developed to allow 100 events a year to be staged at PP which would increase turn over by 10/12 million per year. That was the basis for the increased valuation. It's a business proposal.

It's no more far fetched than Scott Malone being worth £2m on the balance sheet as an asset.

[Carnero]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

@G STAR RAM

2016 = -£14,725,353
2017 = -£7,872,715
2018 = +£14,571,628
Profit on fixed assets (stadium) = £39,940,387

Total loss without sale = -£47,966,827
Overspend = £8,966,827

You have the loss at £48m, Kieran Maguire (Price of Football twitter) has the loss at £53m, which is why I pieced it together as needing a stadium sale of £55m compared to your £50m.

Can you think of a reason why he has the loss £5m higher than you?

[RamNut]

It’s hard to believe that we got into this mess by buying the very average players that we did, but the rules allow very little margin for error.

a few simple operating rules would have helped.

• keep wages and running costs steady and within a prescribed limit.
• keep annual transfer spending within prescribed limits of @£6m max per annum.
• never pay more than £3-4m for a player
•  don’t buy a player if you can’t imagine fully recouping the transfer fee after 2-3 years
• do recoup the fees wherever possible. 
• take immediate remedial action if costs exceed budget.
   

we have allowed wages and running costs to escalate, and exceed budget.

we have overspent on transfers and individual players

we have signed players with no resale value 

we have failed to take corrective action except to pull two tricks - stadium sale being one of them.

The powers that be should change the rules to prevent stadium sales being a legitimate option under ffp, as it is a fundamentally bad move.

 

 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

6 minutes ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

You can pay as much as you wish for a fixed asset. It's worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

In that case, why didn't we sell it to Mel for £200 million? I know duck all about FFP, but you can't use that argument when the buyer is also effectively the seller.

[WhiteHorseRam]

We are the greatest football club on earth, that has to stand us well in our defence ?

[Anon]

12 hours ago, Sexydadbod said:

It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things but it upset me looking at the sky sports comments how non Derby fans are glad this has happened to us, I’m not just talking about Leeds or forest fans either, even those who have completely no affiliation or rivalry with us are celebrating this and glad it’s happened to us.

I know a lot of you probably don’t care about this but it’s a bit upsetting to see the reaction to our club the last few years and how people are starting to really dislike us.
In 2014 after the play off final, many non Derby fans said to me they were gutted for Derby because they wanted us to win as we played football in the right way without spending much money. I gathered it was a similar reaction on the internet back then. We were like everyone’s second favourite team like Sheffield United now are because they’ve been a breath of fresh air in the premier league without spending much.

It doesn’t really matter but it’s a much better feeling when we are respected and liked by everyone else , makes me proud to say I’m a Derby fan. All the events over the last few years has made me feel a bit ashamed.

What I find totally confusing is that, whilst we've spent money, we've never been the biggest spenders in the division. When you look over our transfers the Clement season is the only time we spent without recouping a similar figure in player sales. Sometimes you just have to tell other fans to go and duck themselves because they're being disingenuous ricks. For 5 years under Clough we operated on a relative shoestring and had people laughing about Derby having no money, the moment we have the temerity to spend in line with other big clubs at this level everybody starts whinging about us cheating.

I'm not a fan of our big spending model though. What's hurt us more than any of the fees are the inflated wages we've been paying to very ordinary players with massive egos. I'd be a damn sight happier if I'd never seen the likes of Butterfield, Johnson, Lawrence etc wearing the black and white.

[Ghost of Clough]

9 minutes ago, Carnero said:

You have the loss at £48m, Kieran Maguire (Price of Football twitter) has the loss at £53m, which is why I pieced it together as needing a stadium sale of £55m compared to your £50m.

Can you think of a reason why he has the loss £5m higher than you?

My first instinct was he included academy expenditure in his calculation as someone mentioned £2m per year. But, looking at the accounts academy spend is actually £6m per year, with two years worth not included in my £48m figure, so I doubt it's that.

Was one accounting period only 10 months? Maybe that's where he's got his extra from.

[cannable]

When you’re trying to avoid football, and specifically Derby County, for a bit and…

[gccrowdpleaser]

4 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

In that case, why didn't we sell it to Mel for £200 million? I know duck all about FFP, but you can't use that argument when the buyer is also effectively the seller.

That's the whole point. You absolutely can use that arguement because it is the only argument. Asset value is a mixture of subjective and objective criteria.

The rules absolutely allow for that.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

9 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Can't read any more of this garbage. Derby fans turning on each other yet again and for what. Because some permed banker and the EFL have an axe to grind?

Duck Stevie PermaPerm Gibbo, duck the EFL and their trumped up, after-the-event charges and double-duck Leeds and their scarf twirling bankfest of gloating fans.

Let's remember who we are ffs. If any of us have forgotten, there's always this to remind us...

WE ARE Derby

 

Thank you for posting that. I was finished on here. I could have made a list of those who would immediately criticise the club before anything was proved and quite frankly I'd rather not associate with them. Any road, that has cheered me up no end. Thanks again. (By the way did you notice Keoghs part in the fourth...that's what we are missing at centre back)

[Anon]

14 minutes ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

There was every interesting narrative from Mel at the time about investment in a retractable roof and pitch covering that was being developed to allow 100 events a year to be staged at PP which would increase turn over by 10/12 million per year. That was the basis for the increased valuation. It's a business proposal.

It's no more far fetched than Scott Malone being worth £2m on the balance sheet as an asset.

If we've valued Malone at that we should say fair cop and accept the 21 points deduction.

[cannable]

Just now, The Orange Pimpernel said:

(By the way did you notice Keoghs part in the fourth...that's what we are missing at centre back)

That’s what he did for seven years and people still thought he was crap!

[AndyinLiverpool]

4 minutes ago, cannable said:

When you’re trying to avoid football, and specifically Derby County, for a bit and…

Ah Bexley Ram is in the right place. All is well with the world.

[admira]

41 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

And the 21 points ? 

Sure that’s nonsense. Some hack is just numerically dyslexic and can’t write ‘12’ 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

9 minutes ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

That's the whole point. You absolutely can use that arguement because it is the only argument. Asset value is a mixture of subjective and objective criteria.

The rules absolutely allow for that.

Do they? I can't be arsed to look at the specific regulations set by the EFL, but I'd be very surprised if they allowed you to value it at whatever price you wanted.

Anyway, I think our argument is that we couldn't do that anyway because we'd get done by HMRC.