RadioactiveWaste Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: Yeah, it’s 1 point per £1m over spend (up to a max of 12), plus up to another 9 points if it’s deemed to be deliberate non-compliance (or something to that effect). Based on the numbers the press are chucking about, we’re down about £15m ignoring the stadium sale completely. So that’s where the 12 points comes from. If they decide to allow the sale, but at a lower value (in FFP terms), then the deduction could be a lot lower. Then there’s the additional point penalty. I find it hard to believe they’ll hit us with that, given we’ve been open about what we’re doing and they signed off in it, but it’s the EFL, so who knows. Dramatic points deductions are a better news story from the media than points deductions that won't really change to much. I still think we'll be ducked over by the EFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gccrowdpleaser Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 4 hours ago, Ramleicester said: Colleague who has more knowledge than I do and has a direct interest re getting paid for some legal work he has done for DCFC understands that the point of dispute on the stadium is to do with whether or not it was an 'arms length transaction'. If it was an arms length transaction then it does not matter what was paid for the stadium. If it was to interested parties (ie. Uncle Mel) then it has to be at a 'fair value'. The beef is apparently confusion over what was asked approval for and what actually happened. I am not giving an opinion as to who is right or wrong so dont shoot the messenger just passing on a bit of info from the same person who told me that investment was delayed pending an EFL statement which turned out to be correct. Doesn't make sense. A valuation is a valuation. What that would essentially imply is that two rich mates could take over a club and flip fixed assets between themselves at whatever they wanted.to pay in order to make a club more profitable. No way that stands up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 I dont think going to dare mess with Derby now we sent a message mess with Derby you mess with Derby fans you been warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaffyRam Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 5 hours ago, Ramleicester said: Colleague who has more knowledge than I do and has a direct interest re getting paid for some legal work he has done for DCFC understands that the point of dispute on the stadium is to do with whether or not it was an 'arms length transaction'. If it was an arms length transaction then it does not matter what was paid for the stadium. If it was to interested parties (ie. Uncle Mel) then it has to be at a 'fair value'. The beef is apparently confusion over what was asked approval for and what actually happened. I am not giving an opinion as to who is right or wrong so dont shoot the messenger just passing on a bit of info from the same person who told me that investment was delayed pending an EFL statement which turned out to be correct. That doesn’t make sense. If the EFL thought it was arms length and the value didn’t matter, why then did they ask us to reduce the value slightly, which we then did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 9 minutes ago, Saffy van der Ram said: That doesn’t make sense. If the EFL thought it was arms length and the value didn’t matter, why then did they ask us to reduce the value slightly, which we then did. Mel's got short arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 9 hours ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said: 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. All that might be true although we will never in a season of Sundays get a written apology should the independent tribunal find in our favour, but the fact is that we haven't seen or heard the EFL's case against us. It might be weak but it might also be strong. We simply don't know. We are presuming that it is weak. Our statement says we have letters covering our actions relating to residual values and the valuation. No one outside the club or the EFL and certainly not on here have seen what those letters actually say. My hope is that there is no room for interpretation. But there may be and our case may be weaker for that. It could simply be that the EFL have bowed to pressure from other members of the league and have decided that they will, despite the weakness of their case, make someone else make the decision. It's then someone elses fault. Even for the EFL that would be the most feckless of decisions (and potentially expensive) should that be so. It could also be that we have, deliberately or through error, misinterpreted the advice the letters give and that the EFL case is a strong one. We don't know. Personally I hope we and Mel wipe the floor with them and we win our case resoundingly. It won't do the governance of the game much good but that's another issue entirely. But I have seen too many cases/arguments that on the face of it look to be open and shut fall apart when both sides are heard, to be entirely confident at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said: Mel's got short arms? I hope he has got deep pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramtastic ones Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 8 hours ago, Mucker1884 said: call me... at 15:05... and I'll get the ball rolling. That tune is my ringtone! ? Tried to get it going in the East stand but my lad just kept saying "stop it dad you're embarrassing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfs1ram Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Even if the Club do eventually win this battle with the EFL the mere fact that the charges have been made at this time could already be very damaging for DCFC. The proposed new investment could be further delayed or indeed cancelled and the charge may put players off wanting to join the Club be it in this window or the future. If that proves to be the case then I hope DCFC sue the sh@t out of the EFL !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen87ITK Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 On 17/01/2020 at 19:27, Paul71 said: The EFL surely has to respond to the statement to retain any credibility. The likes of talksport should be pushing them for an interview to answer the points raised, in fact radio Derby should be doing the same and rams tv, comeon @OwenB87 lets have an interview with someone from the EFL, think we need to hear first hand why their apparent incompetence can lead to this. There’s no way the EFL are going to talk to us about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 I agree with others in that I think the EFL have been forced down this route by litigation from Boro and possibly others. To protect themselves they need to be seen, albeit farcically in my opinion, to be acting as they see it, responsibly. As such they can say to Boro they acted in the leagues best interests by charging Derby. The decision now is to be made by the independent body who I fully expect will find Derby not guilty. The result being that Boro can't sue the EFL and Derby won't face any sanctions. The only weak point for the EFL in all this nonsense is that Derby could well sue for damages if the investment or recruitment are compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TramRam Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 9 hours ago, Sparkle said: Sheffield United were relegated by the premier league in that situation but were able to sue West Ham United and received £5 million several years later which the owner stuck in a large pocket Just googled it, A few bob over £18 million over a 5 year period, Last payment 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 10 minutes ago, OwenB87 said: There’s no way the EFL are going to talk to us about it. You should ask though. My guess is that they will be open to a proposals discussion, will agree the arrangements for an interview, and will then confirm it in writing. Probably won’t turn up for the interview though. Blame it on some booking error, or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 52 minutes ago, I Bought the Tee Shirt said: Just googled it, A few bob over £18 million over a 5 year period, Last payment 2013. Fair does - I was going by memory ! - the owner still put it in his pocket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biley66 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Sue the EFL. UTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 I've seen a few comments in various places saying things such as we only have one side of the story and that the EFL wouldn't charge us if they didn't think they could make the charges stick. Well now we have the two charges specified this got me thinking about the facts regarding the second charge in particular, the one to do with the amortisation policy. Is it not the case that this policy has been in place since (at least) the 2015/16 accounts, when Butterfield and Johnson were purchased? Was it not common knowledge that our amortisation policy differed from that of other clubs? It had been mentioned many, many times by various people analysing the accounts. Have our accounts not previously been signed off in years 2015/16 (old rules) and 2016/17 (current rules)? Were our accounts not also originally signed off in 2017/18? If not, why, as I posted previously before knowing about the second charge, did the EFL statement re: Birmingham from March 2019 confidently state: https://www.efl.com/news/2019/march/efl-statement-birmingham-city/ Quote An EFL spokesman said: “The Profitability and Sustainability Rules, aligned with those in the Premier League, became effective in 2015/16. Season 2017/18 was the end of the first full reporting period with Birmingham City the only Club found to have breached those requirements, when it incurred adjusted losses of £48.787 million, £9.787 million in excess of the permitted losses. If this is worthy of an EFL charge, and one that they think they can make stick, how exactly can they explain the quote above if they do not accept our amortisation policy, which had been in place during all of the years included in that reporting period? This could fall quite neatly into the Quote Rather, the EFL now claims that it made a “mistake.” part of the club statement. Given the quotation marks around the word 'mistake' do you think we are to assume this was the word used directly by the EFL in the correspondence with the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 “Mistake” could refer to anything. It could equally refer to a misunderstanding over the nature of the company buying the stadium as @Ramleicester suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 What will happen is there will be talk of a 21 point deduction etc etc, then they will give us a 9 point deduction and everyone will be ok with it. We will hover around mid table no worries, nothing to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 hours ago, B4ev6is said: I dont think going to dare mess with Derby now we sent a message mess with Derby you mess with Derby fans you been warned. Yep, they will be terrified.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 4 minutes ago, MuespachRam said: What will happen is there will be talk of a 21 point deduction etc etc, then they will give us a 9 point deduction and everyone will be ok with it. We will hover around mid table no worries, nothing to worry about. Until next season.....and the season after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.