Tribunal Update

[NottsRam77]

Question 

part of our charge is over the valuation of the stadium 

while that in itself is ludicrous being as it was independently valued, adjusted and approved at the discretion of the EFL does anyone know how much less it would have to have been valued at to make us fail FFP ?

did I read something about it giving us a 14m pre tax profit or something ?

so even if they shaved 10-14m off we’d still be compliant ?

i know this wouldn’t make the charge go away I’m just interested to know More than anything 

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

Question 

part of our charge is over the valuation of the stadium 

while that in itself is ludicrous being as it was independently valued, adjusted and approved at the discretion of the EFL does anyone know how much less it would have to have been valued at to make us fail FFP ?

did I read read something about it giving us a 14m pre tax profit or something ?

so even if they shaved 10-14m off we’d still be compliant ?

i know this wouldn’t make the charge go away I’m just interested to know More than anything 

From memory, and on the assumption that the accounting results are in line with the FFP results, I think we would have been about £12m over the limit of £39m across the 3 seasons.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

And just maybe we have evidence that 

(a) we haven't broken the rules

(b) this was clarified by the EFL

I'd say that the independent valuation of the ground, and the fact that the EFL signed off on our amortisation policy for the 2 years prior to 2018, are both good pieces of evidence.

I would hope so. But how can the EFL bring about a charge if they’ve signed off on it?  That doesn’t make sense. Anyway I hope we receive no punishment of course but I’m expecting the worst unfortunately. 

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said:

I would hope so. But how can the EFL bring about a charge if they’ve signed off on it?  That doesn’t make sense. Anyway I hope we receive no punishment of course but I’m expecting the worst unfortunately. 

Isnt that the point that most people are making here?

I'm not aware of any charges for 15/16 or 16/17 so the EFL have signed off on them accounts where the accounting policy is clearly stated.

[RadioactiveWaste]

30 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

Question 

part of our charge is over the valuation of the stadium 

while that in itself is ludicrous being as it was independently valued, adjusted and approved at the discretion of the EFL does anyone know how much less it would have to have been valued at to make us fail FFP ?

did I read something about it giving us a 14m pre tax profit or something ?

so even if they shaved 10-14m off we’d still be compliant ?

i know this wouldn’t make the charge go away I’m just interested to know More than anything 

I have a vague memory of the EFL investigation coming up with nearer £60m for Pride Park, which would be rosy as after adjustment I think the FFP figure ended up being £70-ish million, however I can't remember where I heard that so dont take my word for it.

25 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

From memory, and on the assumption that the accounting results are in line with the FFP results, I think we would have been about £12m over the limit of £39m across the 3 seasons.

This seems quite plausible to me, hence the need to sell PP and the scale of potential deductions being reported in the press at times (21 points, the max 12 for being over plus 9 for being shady about it - I doubt we'd ever have got that much but Derby face 21 point deduction! is a better headline).

[RandomAccessMemory]

19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Isnt that the point that most people are making here?

I'm not aware of any charges for 15/16 or 16/17 so the EFL have signed off on them accounts where the accounting policy is clearly stated.

Exactly this.

Whilst the rules did change between 2015/16 and 2016/17 they didn't change between 2016/17 and 2017/18, so it really doesn't make sense that a policy which was signed off as ok for 2016/17 suddenly isn't ok once they get the accounts for 2017/18.

I can only guess that the "mistake" the EFL made and apparently admitted to was something to do with this. But quite why they'd try to punish the club for a mistake they made themselves and that the club weren't even aware of until they were charged for it is completely beyond me.

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Exactly this.

Whilst the rules did change between 2015/16 and 2016/17 they didn't change between 2016/17 and 2017/18, so it really doesn't make sense that a policy which was signed off as ok for 2016/17 suddenly isn't ok once they get the accounts for 2017/18.

I can only guess that the "mistake" the EFL made and apparently admitted to was something to do with this. But quite why they'd try to punish the club for a mistake they made themselves and that the club weren't even aware of until they were charged for it is completely beyond me.

Because Gibson at Boro threatened to sue them, so it would appear that they felt there was no other way to avoid this but to shift the blame for this from themselves to us. It would seem its an excercise in placating his ilk.

[FindernRam]

15 hours ago, Rampage said:

Is it just me or is it looking more and more likely that next season will be a transition season

off topic, but it feels like every season since we came down is a transition season

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Isnt that the point that most people are making here?

I'm not aware of any charges for 15/16 or 16/17 so the EFL have signed off on them accounts where the accounting policy is clearly stated.

So maybe the Independence of the stadium valuation comes into question? I don’t know. I can’t believe the EFL would sign off on stuff then change their mind - there is no case in this instance so we we can’t be guilty; unless some new evidence has come to light which suggests we did something underhand. 
Hopefully we are not guilty then!

[DCFC1388]

38 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Because Gibson at Boro threatened to sue them, so it would appear that they felt there was no other way to avoid this but to shift the blame for this from themselves to us. It would seem its an excercise in placating his ilk.

This is why I feel the EFL bought the charge against us, because other teams moaned and threatened to sue if the EFL didnt take action. So this to me is the EFL taking action, even though they know they're in the wrong not us, but when an independant panel clears us of any wrong doing no club can then sue the EFL for not taking any action because they did but it got overturned.

[RandomAccessMemory]

There was a post from @Ramleicester not long after the charges were announced, in the relevant thread at the time

On 18/01/2020 at 14:27, 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.

Thinking about the potential of that, and I don't remember whether I replied to that post at the time so I apologise if I'm going over old ground here - the rules say the EFL Executive has the power to restate the value for a Related Party Transaction to Fair Market Value, but only after allowing the club to make their case for that value.

But - if the EFL Executive believed that the transaction was going to be with a 3rd party, ie. not Mel, why would they ask for an adjustment?

Even if it was only for FFP/P&S and not the sale price, any 3rd party transaction is already "between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction" which means the club would be able to use the full profits from the sale and not have an adjustment made. The rules make no mention of the Executive being able to do that, so if they did it would be outside of the allowed power.

So even if there was confusion on the EFL's part, the club would be entitled to think that there was no confusion, as the EFL Executive asked for the adjustment which they are only allowed to do for an RPT.

Although, as they had already asked for an adjustment it then seems wrong for them to be allowed to further restate to the EFL's valuation in November 2019, but that's another story...

[oldtimeram]

10 hours ago, David said:

Why not wait until the guilty verdict?...it’s ok, I know the answer.

Errrm?

 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 hour ago, FindernRam said:

off topic, but it feels like every season since we came down is a transition season

I don’t really know what a transition season is ? I presume it’s most seasons when a manager is changed. 

[David]

44 minutes ago, oldtimeram said:

Errrm?

 

I get the feeling you would love to see us get a points deduction so you can put the boot into the man who has pumped millions into this club in an attempt to get us up. 

Not seen anything like the EFL have questions to answer, it’s almost like you’ve found us guilty and sharpening the pitchfork.....again.

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

Because Gibson at Boro threatened to sue them, so it would appear that they felt there was no other way to avoid this but to shift the blame for this from themselves to us. It would seem its an excercise in placating his ilk.

Yes the same Gibson who uses a now closed loophole to sell some of Boro’s debts to one of his own companies.People in glass houses anyone ? Not against EFL rules at the time ( might be a prob for HMRC ) so ok I my book but don’t moan when other people use the “rules”

to their advantage as well 

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 hour ago, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said:

So maybe the Independence of the stadium valuation comes into question? I don’t know. I can’t believe the EFL would sign off on stuff then change their mind - there is no case in this instance so we we can’t be guilty; unless some new evidence has come to light which suggests we did something underhand. 
Hopefully we are not guilty then!

The valuation was done by an international firm of great reputation , the same company who did the previous valuation of PPS. Think the EFL will have a major legal battle on their hands if they are questioning that companies independence 

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

2 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Because Gibson at Boro threatened to sue them, so it would appear that they felt there was no other way to avoid this but to shift the blame for this from themselves to us. It would seem its an excercise in placating his ilk.

I suppose the EFL could be “playing the game” with Gibson. 
They bring charges against us knowing that they will probably fail due to their errors of which they’ve admitted to. By doing so they are subsequently ruling out the possibility/opportunity of any legal recourse from the Miserable Perm Headed Smoggie.  

I am hoping we will just get a slap on the wrists to help the EFL save face in the long run. 

[oldtimeram]

34 minutes ago, David said:

I get the feeling you would love to see us get a points deduction so you can put the boot into the man who has pumped millions into this club in an attempt to get us up. 

Not seen anything like the EFL have questions to answer, it’s almost like you’ve found us guilty and sharpening the pitchfork.....again.

That's a ridiculous comment to make.  Of course I do not want to see us get a points deduction, why would I, but if we do, someone is to blame and the buck stops at the owner surely?  

He may have pumped millions into the club but if we get a points deduction because of, allegedly, some form of creative accounting, he's got to take some blame.

 Just because he supposedly reads this forum and has met several of the forum members people should not view him through rose tinted glasses. 

I have no doubt his heart is with the club and he does what he thinks is best for the club, but it may not always be the right and proper thing to do.

I hope we do not get a points deduction, but I just hope in future, the club do not try to be too clever in trying to circumnavigate the financial fair play rules, if that proves to be the case.

If you think my heart is not with the club, as you have intimated, ban me if you feel that's the right thing to do too?

 

[David]

5 minutes ago, oldtimeram said:

If you think my heart is not with the club, as you have intimated, ban me if you feel that's the right thing to do too?

I don’t think that at all. 

Just get the impression you would love the opportunity to get the pitchfork back out again.

Why not wait until the independent tribunal have reached their verdict before starting all this questions need to be answered?

We might not have done anything wrong at all, but that doesn’t appear to be a possibility you are willing to consider.

[oldtimeram]

Just now, David said:

I don’t think that at all. 

Just get the impression you would love the opportunity to get the pitchfork back out again.

Why not wait until the independent tribunal have reached their verdict before starting all this questions need to be answered?

We might not have done anything wrong at all, but that doesn’t appear to be a possibility you are willing to consider.

I truly hope we are found not guilty.

However, I do believe we've been sailing very close to the wind and it should serve as a warning to us to be more careful in future