Jump to content

EFL charge Derby over ffp


alexxxxx

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
28 minutes 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.

If the EFL claim the ground is worth less than £50m then I'm going to sue them for de-valuing my season ticket seat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RamNut said:

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.

 

 

 

You've got it spot on about the management of player values.  In addition we uniquely do not adjust carrying values, which is not against the rules it just means if you get the purchase wrong you get hit with the full cost in the final year.  So Anya and currently Lawrence, Marriott, Bielic, Waggy all look like future losses.  Our recruitment has been incredibly poor.

when you consider the club trading loss and how much Mel spends on top of this, to make no significant improvement on the pitch is horrid.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 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.

you need an independent valuation to support the transfer price.  The EFL are effectively saying that the valuer is not competent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Where's your 12 point deduction and transfer ban come from?

Birmingham reported losses of £48.8m during the same reporting period (£9.8m above the limit). As a result they were docked 9 points, with no fine, and no transfer ban. That means:
- 1 point deducted for every full £1m over the limit
- 1 point deducted for every part million over the limit (but reduced by 1 point for accepting the charge)

It’s not that straightforward regarding points deductions. On top of the points deductions Brum were not allowed to “buy” any players for two windows and were limited to 5 players either free transfers or loans. None of these could get more than £10k per week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

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.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

It’s not that straightforward regarding points deductions. On top of the points deductions Brum were not allowed to “buy” any players for two windows and were limited to 5 players either free transfers or loans. None of these could get more than £10k per week.

You've got yourself a bit muddled up. For failing P&S (FFP), Birmingham were deducted 9 points last season.
They previously had a soft transfer embargo in early summer 2018. Birmingham took no notice of this and the soft embargo became a real embargo during that summer.

One of these punishments was for failing P&S, the other wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

Nobody has talked about the timing of this being right in the middle of the January transfer window. Assuming we are proved in the end to be correct in what we have done the fact we have been charged COULD affect investment as well as player recruitment. That in itself will/could penalise us. 

Bet a red dog was behind it lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

Nobody has talked about the timing of this being right in the middle of the January transfer window. Assuming we are proved in the end to be correct in what we have done the fact we have been charged COULD affect investment as well as player recruitment. That in itself will/could penalise us. 

It is being discussed where I work.  Even if we get away scott free, the EFL have clearly had a good go at derailing our investment plans, recruitment plans and therefore the season.

Also worth noting the time of day they chose to make their statement, late in the day, which gave our club no time to speak to legal teams, prepare and release a statement, thus giving the national media and all rival fans a chance to come up with their own stories.  It shows that the EFL show no care to the most important component in football, the fans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

It is being discussed where I work.  Even if we get away scott free, the EFL have clearly had a good go at derailing our investment plans, recruitment plans and therefore the season.

Also worth noting the time of day they chose to make their statement, late in the day, which gave our club no time to speak to legal teams, prepare and release a statement, thus giving the national media and all rival fans a chance to come up with their own stories.  It shows that the EFL show no care to the most important component in football, the fans!

In the court of public opinion, even if this is thrown out by the panel, we'll have been seen as having gig away with it, not having done nothing wrong.

I also think if our statement was a simple restating our position or a "process ongoing" it'd be out first thing this morning. So I'm hoping a bit more is going to come out in our statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

The idea was generally a good one, stop clubs going bust.

but then the reality of what emerged was hopeless and only serves to keep rich clubs untouchable.

Isn’t Stephen Pearce on the EFL in some capacity or am I wrong. 

Everyone having a laugh at our expense about FFP now when Mel was religious in adhering to it despite all the lunacy of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...