Mucker1884 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, Rambalin said: The problem with this is going to be ongoing for sometime and throw the league into turmoil. If there is any sort of points punishment then Derby will take it too court and say the deducted points cause us to be relegated.The court rules the deduction is illegal and this results in another club is then relegated in our place.Then surely they will appeal it and threaten court action. With the speed of the legal system next season would not be able to begin till all cases are heard and ruled upon. And it will all be The EFL's fault! I can't bloody wait! This would be fantastic! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Arguing the EFL representative acted ultra vires in this instance is a nonsense Ramnut. This must have been referred to the EFLs financial approval team and not just the cleaner! Can you seriously see Mel just ringing anyone and saying, “oh, that’s alright then”. Totally agree that it could be a face saving process but Derby have taken fair and reasonable steps to ensure compliance with EFL rules and more importantly financial accounting process that have been audited and signed off. The EFL cannot argue that an employee, if it was someone in their financial or audit team, acted beyond their powers nor can they retrospectively change their rules and apply sanction — but I bet they try.... this is going to be a long drawn out process that won’t be resolved this season me thinks. In the meantime, let’s all get behind the team, management and owner... COYR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuffLuff Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I other areas of life the regulator position is usually "It's not our job to tell you how to comply with the rules, it's our job to enforce them" but then I've never heard of a situation where a regulator told a party "ok, do that.....oh wait, no you can't do that, here's the enforcement against you" This is the big part I don’t get, that if we were in contact with the EFL about the sale before then surely they had the ability to lay down the groundwork for what they needed for it to comply. They had all the cards to play. So at that stage why didn’t they ask for three valuations and make sure the £80 million was a sensible figure. If Derby have complied with everything the EFL have asked from them then they only have themselves to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 10 hours ago, Will Hughes Hair said: Apparently the valuation was carried out by someone with extensive football and property knowledge... Isn’t the disciplinary panel made up of former football people including players ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 One major thing to note is that the football league is turning round and saying and the entire football league clubs should be noticing is that it doesn’t matter what we the EFL have said, it doesn’t matter what we have agreed, it doesn’t matter what we signed off, we will change our minds and we will go back into everybody’s financial history and accepted financial facts and change them and charge them as they want to. That’s every football club in the football league and every club needs to know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 I used to deal with the Financial Ombudsman Service, and basically, any time a member of staff advised a customer they could do something, any subsequent change was dealt with harshly, unless it was a clear and obvious error. I don't think anything about FFP is clear and obvious. That is why the first thing taught in any financial company is 'could not would' and 'may not will' and it takes a qualification to be a financial advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruud Aralliss Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Been like this since Friday night, is it safe to come out and read something yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 14 hours ago, Cool As Custard said: Suggest our compensation when we win the case against the EFL.......... 21 points addition PLUS £15 million pounds for defamation of Mel’s character which we are then allowed to spend on new players outside the transfer window Just wait for Gibson to explode ?? These things are never simple but what if scandal results in us winning in court and as we have been hindered from signing players because of the EFL failed action, you’d think there would be grounds for a counter claim. Vexatious legal action and consequent damage.? anyway. This won’t be quick so let’s get on a play footy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester40 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 50 minutes ago, TigerTedd said: I like a relatable analogy. This looks like your in a car park, you see a space that isn’t really a space, but looks like you could park there without causing any problems, but you wonder why no one else has thought of parking there. Luckily, there’s a parking attendant right there, so you pull over and ask, ‘am I alright to park there mate?’ he says he can’t se a problem with that. So you park, go about your business, and come back to a parking ticket. I’d be ducking livid. Mind you, it turns out that parking attendant was the new guy, who didn’t really know what he was talking about. turns out it wasn’t just an unused verge, it was emergency access, with plenty of signage, and while I was away a fire engine couldn’t get in. Should I have noticed that before I parked, should the parking attendant? Can I fall back on saying the parking attendant said it was okay, when there are clear signs all over the place? 30 minutes ago, papa_lazarou said: Not really an accurate representation of events though is it. You'd need to state you'd been parking in the same spot for a number of years and nothing had been indicated as an issue, the attendant had said it was ok, again and again and again (he isn't the new boy, more likely the old fart who's been around awhile and likes to sleep in his booth). Nor has the car being parked causing any obstruction to an emergency vehicle, more likely it's blocked the bloke in with the flash mercedes who has also parked in a similar spot and doesn't like the the fact someone has had a similar idea. All a bit of fun I get it.... But it's not a fair analogy. OK.. I love getting so far away from the point it can no longer be seen.. So here goes! The carpark on some waste land seemed fine for years with some old fart keeping an eye on it and directing cars where to park when needed... until lots of local expansion and some flash guys starting turning up and just parking wherever they wanted. Car park management get all the users in and say the rules are changing and lines are being clearly marked and need to be used - showing exactly the only places where you can park. This is due to other cars being severely damaged as people are trying to navigate the recklessly deposited cars of others. As the original suggestion goes, said driver of flash car spies a small spot on a verge and notices as its on grass, it can't actually be expressly be marked with any double yellow lines to say not to park there. They ask the old fart who scratches his head and says he supposes its OK and driver smugly parks there all week. Other flash drivers get irked and one in particular goes to the car park management and points to camera footage of what has been happening and demands action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Much though I like the strength of the statement from Mel unfortunately we have only really got a good flavour of one side of the case. We have largely presumed what the EFL's case is. Experience tells me that it is most often best to wait and see what both arguments are. There are question marks about our use of residual values, for example and how appropriate they are. If we do have letters from the EFL that agree both our valuation and the way we have treated residual values then I hope that they are clear and under lock and key, because they will be the difference between our winning and losing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted McMinn Football Genius Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 29 minutes ago, Sparkle said: Isn’t the disciplinary panel made up of former football people including players ? Wondered what Ainsley Harriott was doing these days ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herdwick Ram Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Just caught up with this, so apologies if this has been covered before but there's a few important things to mention ... PPS was actually valued in 2007 at £55m, which makes an increase of £25m over the next 11 years seem more "modest" shall we say ( NB : no-one has ever questioned this valuation over the last 12 years ! ). All company accounts now have to be prepared under FRS102 - which is disclosed in the notes to the audited accounts ( pg 6 ) - so DCFC don't do anything different to anyone else. Amortisation is a little trickier, as each company has to decide it's own method of applying it ( pg 17 ) - but, this will have been audited by Smith Cooper ( pg 10 ) to ensure it was true and fair. Finally, PPS had to be sold at the exact valuation amount - not a penny more, or less - otherwise HMRC wouldn't have been very happy. I suspect the EFL have bottled it under pressure from other clubs ( & chairman ? ) and have passed the buck, to try and cover their bottoms - and if DCFC are found innocent can then say well we've followed the processes and wash their hands of it. Great statement from the club BTW ! Quite looking forward to this afternoon , and hopefully 3 points ..... COYR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted McMinn Football Genius Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 6 minutes ago, ilkleyram said: Much though I like the strength of the statement from Mel unfortunately we have only really got a good flavour of one side of the case. We have largely presumed what the EFL's case is. Experience tells me that it is most often best to wait and see what both arguments are. There are question marks about our use of residual values, for example and how appropriate they are. If we do have letters from the EFL that agree both our valuation and the way we have treated residual values then I hope that they are clear and under lock and key, because they will be the difference between our winning and losing Get what your suggesting, but the clubs statement clearly announces that we have written confirmation of our compliance from the EFL. Surely the statement that was made and published for the world to see must have been done so by a member of Mels legal team to ensure there are only facts reported. With that in mind an official response of written approval and confirmation is in our possession as reported, therefore the EFL are going to have to retract this Steve Gibson driven none sense. There is no way DCFC would have published such a strongly worded statement as we did last night. I don’t see how we do not get a written public apology from the EFL once this has all been dealt with, I would expect Mel to insist on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Herdwick Ram said: Just caught up with this, so apologies if this has been covered before but there's a few important things to mention ... PPS was actually valued in 2007 at £55m, which makes an increase of £25m over the next 11 years seem more "modest" shall we say ( NB : no-one has ever questioned this valuation over the last 12 years ! ). All company accounts now have to be prepared under FRS102 - which is disclosed in the notes to the audited accounts ( pg 6 ) - so DCFC don't do anything different to anyone else. Amortisation is a little trickier, as each company has to decide it's own method of applying it ( pg 17 ) - but, this will have been audited by Smith Cooper ( pg 10 ) to ensure it was true and fair. Finally, PPS had to be sold at the exact valuation amount - not a penny more, or less - otherwise HMRC wouldn't have been very happy. I suspect the EFL have bottled it under pressure from other clubs ( & chairman ? ) and have passed the buck, to try and cover their bottoms - and if DCFC are found innocent can then say well we've followed the processes and wash their hands of it. Great statement from the club BTW ! Quite looking forward to this afternoon , and hopefully 3 points ..... COYR DCFC Statement suggests, unless i have read wrong, that a 'modest' adjustment was made at the request of the EFL. So I am assuming, maybe incorrectly that Mel paid slightly less than the valuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted McMinn Football Genius Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 11 hours ago, Will Hughes Hair said: Apparently the valuation was carried out by someone with extensive football and property knowledge.. what Ainsley Harriott was doing these days ???? whoops attached to the wrong post!??♂️? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 If the league are right, we get a points deduction. If the club are right, the league is in big trouble. this could be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said: Wondered what Ainsley Harriott was doing these days ???? Something, something, cooking the books, something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 4 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: If the league are right, we get a points deduction. If the club are right, the league is in big trouble. this could be fun. Indeed. If, as the statement suggests and i have no reason to doubt it, we have written evidence of the EFL accepting and signing off the items now in dispute you would think we cant lose. It just depends on the independent body . I can see something along the lines of 'We recognise the due diligence taken by Derby County however the rules are the rules and a penalty of X is applied, however in light of the due diligence taken this will be suspended/reduced etc etc, we have also reminded the EFL of their responsibilities and they have assured us they are instigating a thorough review of procedures'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said: I don’t see how we do not get a written public apology from the EFL once this has all been dealt with, I would expect Mel to insist on it. An apology with enough to fund next seasons promotion push in a golden envelope playing Nirvanas All Appologies and a pint for every single RAM personally poured by his high bamfordness Steve 'I'm gonna sue you' Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: If the league are right, we get a points deduction. If the club are right, the league is in big trouble. this could be fun. Surely we should get points added on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.