Comrade 86 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Hey @EssendonRam - thanks for your input. Seems we do have one or two legal beagles on the forum after all so wrong or right, it makes a pleasant change to read some professional opinions as opposed to the usual narrative-driven banalities. I do have a question as to the interesting point you make about the club being able to issue an injunction to prevent this even going to independent arbitration. That is, would it necessarily be common knowledge had they already done so and given only a few days have elapsed since the club's initial rebuttal, has there been sufficient time in your opinion for the club to prepare and submit said request for an injunction? Lacking even a rudimentary understanding of these legal processes, I have no reason nor urge to doubt your observations so your analysis is of some concern given how certain I felt about the outcome immediately after the club's statement. I'm most likely clutching at straws but given the release stated no further comment would be forthcoming from the club, I'm also wondering whether that might include details of any ongoing efforts to seek redress through the courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssendonRam Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said: Hey @EssendonRam - thanks for your input. Seems we do have one or two legal beagles on the forum after all so wrong or right, it makes a pleasant change to read some professional opinions as opposed to the usual narrative-driven banalities. I do have a question as to the interesting point you make about the club being able to issue an injunction to prevent this even going to independent arbitration. That is, would it necessarily be common knowledge had they already done so and given only a few days have elapsed since the club's initial rebuttal, has there been sufficient time in your opinion for the club to prepare and submit said request for an injunction? Lacking even a rudimentary understanding of these legal processes, I have no reason nor urge to doubt your observations so your analysis is of some concern given how certain I felt about the outcome immediately after the club's statement. I'm most likely clutching at straws but given the release stated no further comment would be forthcoming from the club, I'm also wondering whether that might include details of any ongoing efforts to seek redress through the courts? One quick point: the club could seek an injunction and, if the court agreed, it’d be the court that issued it. Would it be publicly known if it happened? Yes. The application for an injunction would be reported pretty quickly as would the result. I should add that, just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. No doubt there’s a lot of intense discussion going on between Derby’s legal team and the EFL’s legal team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Completely oblivious to the legal side of this matter but agree with Cheron that surely we will try and get this overturned by the independent panel or via appeal before thinking about any other avenues. Also do we know if there is anything in the EFL constitution that forbids legal injunctions being taken out? I certainly dont remember any club ever taking one out and I'm sure we are not the first club that has been confident in fighting our own corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindernRam Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 I may have missed it in the 70 pages of this thread, but do people think the timing of this charge is extremely malicious and deliberately designed to disrupt our transfer intentions and scupper any incoming investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Lokidoki said: @cheron85 please try and stand back a little. You have a difference of opinion with @EssendonRam but now we are verging on a slanging match. For those who have had to work with the legal profession this is an extremely good narrative by @EssendonRam and @Ramleicester . The legal profession put forward options along with there own judgement on which path to follow. Unfortunately we are all blind-sided by not knowing what dialogue is going on behind the scenes both at DCFC and the EFL and also between them; if there is one. It is not lack of comprehension but looking at issues in a more binary and legalistic manner. It should not be taken personally. Unless I've missed something, this is not a legal matter though? It's a matter between DCFC and EFL. I'm sure if it can be resolved without the need for lawyers then it's better for both parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, FindernRam said: I may have missed it in the 70 pages of this thread, but do people think the timing of this charge is extremely malicious and deliberately designed to disrupt our transfer intentions and scupper any incoming investment? And what would the EFL have to gain from that? Personal vendetta against Mel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raich Carter Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Some properly excellent posts on this thread for which I am grateful but we really do need to wind-down on the insults a little if the debate is to continue. I'm sure we're all bright enough to disagree with one another without shouting 'WRONG!' or blocking people. Just saying that aspect is spoiling some truly excellent analysis (and a bit of supposition...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 I think we'll get ducked. Just thats what I think will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 7 hours ago, RamNut said: We know ...... ? we don’t know anything except a second hand partial understanding of what the club alleges in response to the charge. the club don’t define what the charges are in detail. The only publicised charge relates to having made excessive losses. https://www.efl.com/news/2020/january/efl-statement-Derby-county-charged-with-excess-losses/ but the statement in response goes straight to the issue of the valuation and amortisation. there is a big gap in the info right there. Let’s wait and see what the EFL actually allege before we get over excited about what we supposedly know. Based on what we've been told we do know a fair bit... unless one or both sides have lied in their statements. I'll add my view in square brackets. We're being charged for failing P&S (EFL) The period in question end June 2018 (EFL) The charge relates to the valuation of PPS and amortisation (DCFC) We were notified of the issue regarding the valuation a while ago, hence the investigation (DCFC) The issue regarding player amortisation only popped up very recently. [Maybe as recently as the announcement of the charge[ (DCFC) The EFL have previously agreed to the stadium sale and never queried our player amortisation before (DCFC) We had written approval for all P&S submissions in the past with no allegations against this approval (DCFC) The EFL has admitted to making a mistake regarding this approval, and now wants to punish the club for the EFL's mistake (DCFC) The stadium was valued independently, by a "highly reputable and professional and independent firm with industry experience". They also valued the stadium in 2007 and 2013 (DCFC) The transaction and valuation were discussed with the EFL Executive, with the Executive asking for a modest price adjustment [probably P&S price as opposed to actual transaction price] (DCFC) The rationale of the stadium sale was discussed with the EFL Executive before the transaction took place. The valuation was supplied and discussed with the EFL Executive (DCFC) The club has written approval of the transaction (as long as that modest adjustment was made (DCFC) The club's player amortisation policy was approved in writing by the EFL Executive (DCFC) The club accepts the EFL's regulations can be interpreted in many ways, but feels written approval of methods should be safe to work from (DCFC) The club feels aggrieved the EFL has gone back on it's word (DCFC) The club would have reacted by changing the P&S value of the sale or the amortisation policy if the EFL had not approved to either (DCFC) The club feel the EFL can change things going forward (with the club reacting accordingly) should they wish, but should not be punished for the EFL's errors (DCFC) So which of these do you think are lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 22 minutes ago, FindernRam said: I may have missed it in the 70 pages of this thread, but do people think the timing of this charge is extremely malicious and deliberately designed to disrupt our transfer intentions and scupper any incoming investment? I found it oddly amusing how the charge was announced a year on from Bielsa's spygate presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokidoki Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Unless I've missed something, this is not a legal matter though? Unfortunately it is, and is contained in the wording of the DCFC statement "as a matter of law the EFL is not entitled to bring either of the charges...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindernRam Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: And what would the EFL have to gain from that? Personal vendetta against Mel? Probably. I don't think of EFL as some benevolent organisation. It is a political corporation and comprised of individuals with all sorts of agendas and is influenced by all sorts of outside forces. They (whoever the anonymous EFL officials below board level are) have had months to object to our accounts but choose to do it at the most difficult time for us. Life has taught me that coincidences are rare and suspicion where politics is concerned is justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loweman2 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unusual-accounting-may-have-cost-Derby-further-30-million-0gddnsdbt?shareToken=672c806dc9f4958307e0fa706fb37fab looks like we are always looking for loopholes. Derby County may have incurred losses of as much as almost double the permitted £39 million for a three-year period after introducing an “unusual” accountancy policy for players. Last week Derby were charged by the Football League with a breach of its rules that involves the valuation of their Pride Park Stadium. Derby responded on Friday night by declaring the EFL charges “unlawful”, with the matter likely to end in court. But The Times understands the club may have suffered a further £30 million in losses in the three seasons up to June 2018 because of an accounting policy said to be unique to the English game. Most clubs have a policy which recognises a player is worth nothing at the end of their contract, so his value decreases in proportion to the length of time left on his deal. It means if a £10 million player signs a four-year contract, the club calculates a loss of £2.5 million a year. But Derby introduced a policy at the start of the three-year period in question that involved applying “residual values” with an amortisation rate, sources say, nearer 10 per cent. If the EFL calculates Derby’s losses using the standard amortisation rate, it could potentially mean an even greater breach of its profit and sustainability rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, FindernRam said: Probably. I don't think of EFL as some benevolent organisation. It is a political corporation and comprised of individuals with all sorts of agendas and is influenced by all sorts of outside forces. They (whoever the anonymous EFL officials below board level are) have had months to object to our accounts but choose to do it at the most difficult time for us. Life has taught me that coincidences are rare and suspicion where politics is concerned is justified. I would agree I think there's politics going on. I'd also think Mel hasn't played the political game the powers within the EFL wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihangel Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, loweman2 said: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unusual-accounting-may-have-cost-Derby-further-30-million-0gddnsdbt?shareToken=672c806dc9f4958307e0fa706fb37fab looks like we are always looking for loopholes. Derby County may have incurred losses of as much as almost double the permitted £39 million for a three-year period after introducing an “unusual” accountancy policy for players. Last week Derby were charged by the Football League with a breach of its rules that involves the valuation of their Pride Park Stadium. Derby responded on Friday night by declaring the EFL charges “unlawful”, with the matter likely to end in court. But The Times understands the club may have suffered a further £30 million in losses in the three seasons up to June 2018 because of an accounting policy said to be unique to the English game. Most clubs have a policy which recognises a player is worth nothing at the end of their contract, so his value decreases in proportion to the length of time left on his deal. It means if a £10 million player signs a four-year contract, the club calculates a loss of £2.5 million a year. But Derby introduced a policy at the start of the three-year period in question that involved applying “residual values” with an amortisation rate, sources say, nearer 10 per cent. If the EFL calculates Derby’s losses using the standard amortisation rate, it could potentially mean an even greater breach of its profit and sustainability rules. Same old - If you sign off accounts for 3 years, you can't then turn round and say, actually we disagree with your accounting policies and will henceforth assume a different set of figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, loweman2 said: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unusual-accounting-may-have-cost-Derby-further-30-million-0gddnsdbt?shareToken=672c806dc9f4958307e0fa706fb37fab looks like we are always looking for loopholes. Derby County may have incurred losses of as much as almost double the permitted £39 million for a three-year period after introducing an “unusual” accountancy policy for players. Last week Derby were charged by the Football League with a breach of its rules that involves the valuation of their Pride Park Stadium. Derby responded on Friday night by declaring the EFL charges “unlawful”, with the matter likely to end in court. But The Times understands the club may have suffered a further £30 million in losses in the three seasons up to June 2018 because of an accounting policy said to be unique to the English game. Most clubs have a policy which recognises a player is worth nothing at the end of their contract, so his value decreases in proportion to the length of time left on his deal. It means if a £10 million player signs a four-year contract, the club calculates a loss of £2.5 million a year. But Derby introduced a policy at the start of the three-year period in question that involved applying “residual values” with an amortisation rate, sources say, nearer 10 per cent. If the EFL calculates Derby’s losses using the standard amortisation rate, it could potentially mean an even greater breach of its profit and sustainability rules. My estimations would put us £13m-£18m worse off with using the 'standard' amortisation method. I think the £30m quoted doesn't recognise the difference in player profit if another method was used. As was stated in the club statement, the EFL Executive approved of our method, which we continued to use over the period. If at any point issues were raised, we could have made adjustments. However, according to that article we're now into the 5th year of using our amortisation method. If the committee don't take all of this into consideration, the courts certainly will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokidoki Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Going back to my business days, scrap or residual value involves the receipt of some value when it ( the asset) is sold on, alternatively it could involve scrappage value. i cannot see how it can make a difference as it is a standard accounting practice although I never was an accountant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokidoki Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 26 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Life has taught me that coincidences are rare and suspicion where politics is concerned is justified. It is interesting that the political rag press now are getting involved, must've trod on some big toes...... sorry comments should be attributed to @FindernRam iPad trouble lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lokidoki said: It is interesting that the political rag press now are getting involved, must've trod on some big toes...... I'm not sure how much is just "sharks smell blood" from the press, but gambling is a political issue at the moment for sure. As for league politics, pretty sure Mel's attitude of "why are signing up to stupid deals?" has upset some powers that be, it may well be that those powers have friends and influence in other areas. I don't want to sound overly conspiracy theory on it, but I do think we're going to get ducked by the Bamfords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrisoner Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I'm not sure how much is just "sharks smell blood" from the press, but gambling is a political issue at the moment for sure. As for league politics, pretty sure Mel's attitude of "why are signing up to stupid deals?" has upset some powers that be, it may well be that those powers have friends and influence in other areas. I don't want to sound overly conspiracy theory on it, but I do think we're going to get ducked by the Bamfords. I just think Derby County and Wayne Rooney bring clicks to the advertisement filled articles at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.