EFL charge Derby over ffp

[neil62uk]

17 minutes ago, I Bought the Tee Shirt said:

Weren't Sheff Utd awarded some loot after being relegated from the Prem?, Tevez scored for West Ham keeping them up when he shouldn't have played...this took an age to sort out if memory serves me right.

Rumour as it that Sheff Utd received 20 mill over the Tevez scinaro .....then to make matters worse Tevez joined Man U ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

16 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Very strong statement from the club there. Much as I still don’t like the fact that we’ve ended up in the situation where such “dodgy” loopholes have to be exploited, I don’t think the EFL have a leg to stand on if that statement is all there is to it. From a moral standpoint, you can question our actions - though we’re hardly the first club to exploit a loophole in the rules. But from a legal standpoint, the EFL have agreed to everything we’ve done. Now they probably quite rightly want to change the rules now, but they can’t issue retrospective punishment for something they’ve already signed off. Quite right that we’d Pursue a counter claim against the EFL because they can’t just go around covering their own incompetencies in setting regulations by punishing teams for actions they’ve already cleared. 

Theres still a part of me that thinks there’s more to the story otherwise the EFL wouldn’t have charged us in the first place, because on paper it looks like legal suicide on their part. Maybe something in this “Amorisation” thingy. But if that genuinely is everything, then I can’t see anything but us winning a legal battle and them having to pay us for damages to our investment deal, transfer plans etc etc. I hope that if we do win that the EFL are thoroughly investigated and brought down as not being fit for purpose. It’s been clear for a long time with the TV rights deal and so on that they’re not an organisation to be trusted with something as significant as the football league.

It all depends. I've had a career in financial services. I'm used to regulatory authorities who

A) write the rules

B decide what they mean

C retrospectively determine (and fine you) if practice that they haven't officially signed off in writing as being ok is decided to be "not compliant" with their current interpretation of the letter and intent of the rules.

It's a nightmare.....and if the EFL are going down that route then our best hope is that their power to do so is not written into statute. 

If they have the legal power to do so, then we're into the territory of mitigation and compromise, rather than refutation. 

COYR....hope the team rally round and don't allow this to distract them.

[Ramtastic ones]

Song for the day, Bob marley's don't worry.. 

 

Derby don't worry

'bout a thing

'cos Mel the king's

gonna make it alright! 

[Ghost of Clough]

Regarding the different methods of amortisation, in a simplified way I’ll show there’s little difference in the long-term.... Let’s say 2 teams choose to spend £10m on players every year. They are always given 4 year contracts and leave on a free at the end of that contract.

Team 1  - linear (£2.5m per year per player)
Y1 - £2.5m
Y2 - £5m
Y3 - £7.5m
Y4 - £10m
Y5 - £10m... 
Y(n-2) - £7.5m
Y(n-1) - £5m
Y(n) - £2.5m

Team 2 - Our way (a hypothetical £1m per year per player, with the rest written off at the end). 
Y1 - £1m
Y2 - £2m
Y3 - £3m
Y4 - £10m
Y5 - £10m
Y(n-2) - £9m
Y(n-1) - £8m 
Y(n) - £7m

Team 2 has an advantage to start with, but but Y4 onwards they are in the exact same position. Sooner or later, Team 2 will be at a disadvantage. 
If Team 2 changes the way it manages amortisation, they’ll be disadvantaged for the immediate 3 years following that change. If unprepared for that change, it can be very dangerous...

Y1 - £1m
Y2 - £2m
Y3 - £3m
Y4 - £10m
Y5 - £10m
***Change in method***
Y6 - £11.5m
Y7 - £13m
Y8 - £14.5m
Y9 - £10m
Y(n-2) - £9m
Y(n-1) - £8m 
Y(n) - £7m

I wouldn’t be surprised if the EFL force us to change to the linear method.

[Ambitious]

I'm interested to see how all this falls out - I'm confident the club has its ducks in order, but the EFL are a spiteful organisation and it's their league. I'd imagine that they will make life very difficult for Derby County going forward, with or without a point deduction. I'd like to think the club can severely punish the EFL to the point their governance is brought into question. 

We need heads to roll at their head office otherwise we're going to be targeted.  

[Raich Carter]

Shows how much of a joke the EFL are. Very amateurish and basically bringing the league into disrepute. 
 

Their intentions are good (I.e. fundamentally FFP is about not having the big clubs/cities dominate and protect clubs/fans from being exploited - arguably) but the way they’re going about it shows how ill equipped they are to actually administer the rules. 

[Pearl Ram]

53 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

Thinking about it from another angle...

This would be like driving at 38mph in a 40mph zone before Christmas and then receiving a speeding fine this morning because the speed limit for that area was reduced to 30mph yesterday. 
 

The EFL are p##sing in the wind with this one ??‍♂️??

I concur and like your analogy, to me, we’re only in bother if the independent panel isn’t as independent as we think/thought.

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Ambitious said:

I'm interested to see how all this falls out - I'm confident the club has its ducks in order, but the EFL are a spiteful organisation and it's their league. I'd imagine that they will make life very difficult for Derby County going forward, with or without a point deduction. I'd like to think the club can severely punish the EFL to the point their governance is brought into question. 

We need heads to roll at their head office otherwise we're going to be targeted.  

I strongly suspect the legal actions from Boro and DCFC (if we are sanctioned) will have that as their secondary objective.

Didn't Steve Gibson originally want to sue Derby before he was polity advised it was the EFL he needed to write to?

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

I concur and like your analogy, to me, we’re only in bother if the independent panel isn’t as independent as we think/thought.

I very much agree 
 

A big problem is that we could get found against and receive a penalty etc and in that case fighting it would be very retrospective 

[Abu Derby]

It appears that the elf is playing hardball these days look at Bolton, and even worse Bury. 
if this fails they are going to lose all credibility - but surely they’ve been through everything with a fine tooth comb. 

[Pearl Ram]

What credibility ?

[RandomAccessMemory]

It was a fantastic statement by the club.

I think the most pertinent part is the repeated mention of 'EFL Executive', if you read the FFP/P&S rules it makes 33 references to 'the Executive'.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

Important part from the rules:

Quote

2.3 The Executive shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Executive shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

2.4 The Executive shall not exercise its power set out in Rule 2.3 without first having given the Club  reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to:

2.4.1 whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or

2.4.2 what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

It sounds like thats exactly what happened here?

Quote

The Stadium was valued by professional valuers immediately prior to the transaction. The transaction and valuation were discussed extensively with the EFL Executive, which asked for a relatively modest price adjustment which was accepted. The valuation report was prepared by a highly reputable and professional and independent firm, with industry experience, who had valued the stadium on two prior occasions, one in 2007, and one in 2013.

The Club discussed the rationale for the stadium sale with the EFL Executive, ahead of the transaction, supplied and discussed the valuation, and bar a small adjustment in respect of its FFP/P&S submissions, the Club was given written approval.

 

[jono]

The striking point in the statement for me is that in the stadium valuation the eft suggested a minor variation which was accepted. These seems to indicate a sensible discussion took place between 2 parties and and agreements were reached. If this is accurate then it would be very difficult to see the EFL being able to deny their agreement or act retrospectively... very odd 

[Curtains]

The only problem is the EFL are the runners of the League and have ultimate power on this. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Dear EFL,

I am writing to you to offer my legal services regarding the administration of Financial Fair Play and Profit and Sustainability regulations. I have no formal training in these issues, no recognised professional competence or experience. On this basis I feel I will integrate seamlessly with your current team. I am quite pompous and frequently referred to as an arse. As these are seemingly key skill sets in your organisation I believe I will add substantial value to the core mission of the EFL.

My salary expectations are "ludicrous" and I will expect to spend most of my time doing other things anyway.

I await your confirmation of my employment,

Regards,

Radioactivewaste

 

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

The only problem is the EFL are the runners of the League and have ultimate power on this. 

The law is the ultimate power

[RadioactiveWaste]

The thought did just occur to me that maybe the EFL are trying to stick something onto us so that they can then tell Steve Gibson to drop his suit against the league and instead file against DCFC?

 

[ossieram]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

The only problem is the EFL are the runners of the League and have ultimate power on this. 

Not if the courts decide that they are bamfords that couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

The law is the ultimate power

That's why the statement included words like "unlawful" - if the EFL do apply a sanction I imagine some very serious damages will be sought through the courts.

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, ossieram said:

Not if the courts decide that they are bamfords that couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

I imagine Civil Court judges have a better understanding of the law than the EFL as well.