Jump to content

EFL charge Derby over ffp

alexxxxx

By alexxxxx
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ramslaar

Ramslaar

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

£4,293,410 on agent fees (intermediary fees) between Feb 2018 and Jan 2019! Only Stoke, Swansea and West Brom were higher.

The players involved were: Mount, Wilson, Tomori, Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Malone, Evans, Holmes, Cole, Keogh, Davies, Lowe, Bogle, Thomas, MacDonald, Rashid, Walker, Hanson, Eyoma, Ravas, Whittaker, and Jerome (sale).

Oct 15 - Feb 16 = £0.323m (8th)
Feb 16 - Jan 17 = £1.961m (6th)
Feb 17 - Jan 18 = £2.180m (8th)
Feb 18 - Jan 19 = £4.293m (4th)

This is one area we seriously need to improve on in future years if we are to maximise our P&S budget.

Thats an average of 182,000 per players agent.pretty disgusting really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G STAR RAM

G STAR RAM

Posted
Posted
On 21/01/2020 at 15:32, cheron85 said:

Just a thought exercise

What would happen if you extended a players contract for a single month into the new season? Players' contracts (as far as I know) end at the end of the season merely by convention not through any written rules of the game

If a players contract ended in August and instead of being released they went to another club over the summer for zero fee (like say Johnson and Butterfield) they'd have a residual value at the end of the previous season still right?

By time the accounts were signed off (usually within 9 months of the year end) the true 'residual value' of the player would be know because it would be what they were sold for after the year end.

So you couldn't say a player was worth £10m at 30th June, knowing that he was sold for 50p a month later, the auditors would have to state that your assets are not true and fairly stated at the balance sheet date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G STAR RAM

G STAR RAM

Posted
Posted
On 22/01/2020 at 12:56, Ghost of Clough said:

In the 17/18 set of accounts, Cardiff revalued their stadium, adding £26.951m profit to their accounts! Without this they would have failed the P&S period.
Forest wrote off more than £45m worth of loans during the same period, although I don't think this would have any bearing on P&S.
Reading wrote off just over £9m and made a £6.518m profit on the stadium.
As we all know, without the £38m profit of Wednesday's stadium, they would have failed P&S too. Same applies for us.

Bristol, Cardiff and Reading look to have been close to the limit in the period ending 2018. Bristol will be comfortably sage for the following period due to sales, whereas Cardiff have the benefit of a season in the Prem (larger losses permitted). Fulham look to have massively overspent in the period ending 2018 (almost double the losses of Birmingham at c£34m!), so it seems odd nothing has been said about them - that can't surely all be due to promotion bonuses?

As things stand, Wednesday and Reading look to be the closest to the P&S limit for the period ending in 2019. If Birmingham's losses were 'reset' along with their penalty last year then they'll just about be fine. If not they they're the furthest away from meeting the limit.

Are you taking figures straight from accounts?

If so, could be significantly different to FFP figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alph

Alph

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Leeds/Forest fans: "Derby are dirty cheats and should be relegated for failing FFP [P&S]"
Leeds in 2015: Transfer Embargo for failing FFP
Forest in 2015 and 2016: Transfer Embargo for failing FFP

You wouldn't catch Honest Forest selling their stadium for £80m. 

I don't understand why Leeds are so upset. What have we done to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sith Happens

Sith Happens

Posted
Posted
Just now, Alpha said:

You wouldn't catch Honest Forest selling their stadium for £80m. 

I don't understand why Leeds are so upset. What have we done to them?

You arent allowed to sell your council house ?

And Leeds did exactly that before already...sold their stadium for financial gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alph

Alph

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

You arent allowed to sell your council house ?

And Leeds did exactly that before already...sold their stadium for financial gain.

Hey!! We don't needs the reasons! They wouldn't sell their ground for £80m and that's that. Alright? 

Have you been spying on Leeds? Is that allowed? Because I remember years ago one club was so desperate to milk every advantage they had James Bond hanging out a tree at Moor Farm. No spying please mate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GenBr

GenBr

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rams-in-Spain said:

This is what happens when you have an inexperienced owner / chairman trying to run a football club I'm sorry to say! 

 

 

So what you are saying is that a more experienced chairman would have already known not to trust anything the EFL told them and that signed off accounts doesnt actually mean signed off accounts in EFL world? 

Experience has nothing to do with it - you could be the most experienced chairman in the footballing world and it wouldnt matter since you have no idea what rules you are supposed to be following. The EFl just picks rules out of a hat, but the hat only contains the rules for darts and the guy reading them is Stevie Wonder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MackworthRamIsGod

MackworthRamIsGod

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Welcome to the forum R-i-S. Controversial first post mind but if that’s what you think, this is the place to post it. 

Can’t agree mind.

To be fair he has a point.

We spent 51 million on players in the first couple of years of Mel being a chairman.

We literally threw a huge chunk of that money away. 

In fact, the only player left out of that 51 million we spent, that I can think of, is currently on safari at Man City.

An experienced chairman, or a wise man, would have come in and built something slowly, not Mel. He genuinely thought that he could buy his way to the Prem. Do I blame him? Hell no. I was buzzing when we signed Bent and followed it up with Ince, Shackell, Weimann etc etc.

Only in hindsight do I think, what COULD we have done with that money.

In reality, that approach during his first 2 seasons is the current downfall of our club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ossieram

ossieram

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I'd guess the EFL charge, given where he posted this message.

 

I thought that, it'd be nice people put a bit more reasoning into the post though! Surely if Mel has consulted the EFL every step of the way and they made a mistake, it is down to them and not him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
europia

europia

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, GenBr said:

So what you are saying is that a more experienced chairman would have already known not to trust anything the EFL told them and that signed off accounts doesnt actually mean signed off accounts in EFL world? 

Experience has nothing to do with it - you could be the most experienced chairman in the footballing world and it wouldnt matter since you have no idea what rules you are supposed to be following. The EFl just picks rules out of a hat, but the hat only contains the rules for darts and the guy reading them is Stevie Wonder.

 

If it's a case of the EFL giving a clear written declaration to DCFC that their finances are compliant, then there is nothing to worry about. It would however seem very odd for the EFL to feel they have sufficient grounds to proceed with a charge. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Not sure if any other club has succeeded in an appeal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...