rammieib Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 If we lose, which I don't think we will, we will appeal it. Ultimately - we'll probably go up to the court of arbitration for sport - so this will take ages to resolve! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 hours ago, StarterForTen said: If this matter rumbles on beyond the end of this season (which could be next Wednesday or, arguably, after the Play-Off Final on August 2nd) then any points penalty would be bound to be applied next season I reckon. It is not punishing an event that directly affected the current season so need not be applied this campaign for 'fairness' to other teams. The punishment would actually be for a historical breach in effect. Whether this whole episode can be wrapped up before early August I very much doubt, given the likely need to allow for an appeal. It has taken the parties months to get together for a hearing (has it actually started?) so a conclusion in a fortnight seems very optimistic. If we are found to have breached the rules and a points penalty is applied then we can look forward to seeing Derby at the bottom of the Championship table, for a few weeks at least, come September/October time. For what it is worth (which is very little as I do not know the facts), I think the Club will be found to have breached the rules, even if it is a technical breach in that the EFL's own advice to the Derby executive was wrong or flawed. I suspect that will not save us, though may well mitigate the punishment. It's a bit like an athlete found to have forbidden substances in his/her body, even if they were administered by an event doctor - they still get banned! Nope I'm afraid your comparison is flawed. The true comparison would be the EFL saying it was ok to take a substance, the athlete taking it and then at a later date the EFL saying it was a banned substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 hours ago, StarterForTen said: As I mentioned, I do not know the facts as they will be laid out - as none of us do - so it is just as much a supposition as anyone else's! The picture that we have all been painting has been led largely from what the Club have put into the public domain and I sincerely hope that is the matter in full. But the fact that the EFL have brought the charge might suggest there is at least another side to consider. Few parties, however bullish or foolish, tend to pursue an obvious lost cause. The rules were there in black and white. Re the ground sale the rules had been specifically changed to allow profits from sale of fixed assets. The ground was sold to a 3rd party and had an independent valuation carried out. The amortisation of players is a different issue but given that the EFL had signed off our figures using this method for the 2 previous years (from memory) I am sure you can see that a reasonable conclusion would be that they had no problem with it. I'm also not sure that changing this would push us over FFP limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandExile Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 5 hours ago, Eatonram said: TBH i almost think being relegated and starting the season with a level playing field is preferable to starting the season with a 12-21 point deduction, writing off that season and possibly then being relegated at the end of that one. It's the ridiculous way that the EFL operates. Kick a club while it's down. OK, so they need to punish clubs that transgress the rules. But in scenarios like this, a club is poorly run, breaks FFP, goes into Administration or whatever. Gets relegated anyway - then a points deduction to begin the following season in a negative points position. By which time, new owners have probably come in to rescue the club. The people that suffer are the supporters and the staff. The EFL risks putting the club in question out of business altogether. There has to be a punishment for transgressing clubs but not at the risk of losing the clubs. The whole of football finances needs to be reviewed. Starting with parachute payments and the greed of the Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 30 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: The rules were there in black and white. Re the ground sale the rules had been specifically changed to allow profits from sale of fixed assets. The ground was sold to a 3rd party and had an independent valuation carried out. The amortisation of players is a different issue but given that the EFL had signed off our figures using this method for the 2 previous years (from memory) I am sure you can see that a reasonable conclusion would be that they had no problem with it. I'm also not sure that changing this would push us over FFP limits. My very rough estimates suggest we'd be just under £17m worse off if using another amortisation method (3 years to 2018), resulting in an overspend of just under £9m. £3.5m under the limit in the 3 years to 2019. Edit: I think we started using our amortisation method in the 15/16 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 In terms of the value of the ground also, what is the difference between Derby selling their stadium at an over inflated price and a football club selling a player at an over inflated price? If a 3rd party company, regardless of who owns it, wanted to buy the stadium for 200 million, why wouldn't Derby accept it? Yes it is is morally wrong, but not breaking the rules is it? If the money received for a player helps towards FFP, I see no difference. Again, using Forest as an example, if Olympiakos purchase a forest player for 20 million this summer, will someone within the EFL provide their own valuation of the player to make sure it is legit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 38 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: In terms of the value of the ground also, what is the difference between Derby selling their stadium at an over inflated price and a football club selling a player at an over inflated price? If a 3rd party company, regardless of who owns it, wanted to buy the stadium for 200 million, why wouldn't Derby accept it? Yes it is is morally wrong, but not breaking the rules is it? If the money received for a player helps towards FFP, I see no difference. Again, using Forest as an example, if Olympiakos purchase a forest player for 20 million this summer, will someone within the EFL provide their own valuation of the player to make sure it is legit? I don't see that there should be any difference at all, financially players are classed as assets, so they should also be subject to the Fair Market Value clause when transferred between Related Parties, which a club owned by the same owner would surely be. Quote 1.1.8 Fair Market Value means the amount for which an asset could be sold, licensed or exchanged, a liability settled, or a service provided, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said: The rules were there in black and white. Re the ground sale the rules had been specifically changed to allow profits from sale of fixed assets. The ground was sold to a 3rd party and had an independent valuation carried out. The amortisation of players is a different issue but given that the EFL had signed off our figures using this method for the 2 previous years (from memory) I am sure you can see that a reasonable conclusion would be that they had no problem with it. I'm also not sure that changing this would push us over FFP limits. 45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: My very rough estimates suggest we'd be just under £17m worse off if using another amortisation method (3 years to 2018), resulting in an overspend of just under £9m. £3.5m under the limit in the 3 years to 2019. Edit: I think we started using our amortisation method in the 15/16 season. Correction to the bold bit... (i was using an old spreadsheet and forgot what the numbers actually meant?♂️) Making historical corrections to the amortisation would still be the £17m swing I mentioned, but will still result in us being within limits byt £14m. I don't think we'll get deducted any points unless we're guilty of selling the stadium for an over inflated fee as well. Restated amortisation and £60m stadium sale price looks like we'd get just a 5 point deduction for the 3 years to 2018. Combined losses = £8m (£14.7m loss, £7.9m loss, £14.6m profit) Amortisation correction = £16.7m Stadium profit correction = £20m Overall loss for 3 years to 2018 = £44.7m Overspend = £5.7m Points deducted = 5 (losses between £4m and £6m) To fail the 3 years to 2019 we'd also have to be guilty of both, resulting in an overspend of £8.1m and 7 points deducted. I think by the current period, amortisation starts to even itself out and in this case actually being a slight improvement by£0.6m. However, we could face a penalty if found guilty of just the stadium sale. Resulting in an 8 point deduction (£10.6m overspend). If guilty of both, this is actually reduced to 7 points thanks to dropping the other side of the £10m range (£9.98m). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, IslandExile said: It's the ridiculous way that the EFL operates. Kick a club while it's down. OK, so they need to punish clubs that transgress the rules. But in scenarios like this, a club is poorly run, breaks FFP, goes into Administration or whatever. Gets relegated anyway - then a points deduction to begin the following season in a negative points position. By which time, new owners have probably come in to rescue the club. The people that suffer are the supporters and the staff. The EFL risks putting the club in question out of business altogether. There has to be a punishment for transgressing clubs but not at the risk of losing the clubs. The whole of football finances needs to be reviewed. Starting with parachute payments and the greed of the Premier League. Hard to disagree with you but, on the other hand, there does have to be some consistency in terms of the punishment tariff. I'm not sure if the EFL can start making guesses as to what level of punishment is likely to put a club out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said: Correction to the bold bit... (i was using an old spreadsheet and forgot what the numbers actually meant?♂️) Making historical corrections to the amortisation would still be the £17m swing I mentioned, but will still result in us being within limits byt £14m. I don't think we'll get deducted any points unless we're guilty of selling the stadium for an over inflated fee as well. Restated amortisation and £60m stadium sale price looks like we'd get just a 5 point deduction for the 3 years to 2018. Combined losses = £8m (£14.7m loss, £7.9m loss, £14.6m profit) Amortisation correction = £16.7m Stadium profit correction = £20m Overall loss for 3 years to 2018 = £44.7m Overspend = £5.7m Points deducted = 5 (losses between £4m and £6m) To fail the 3 years to 2019 we'd also have to be guilty of both, resulting in an overspend of £8.1m and 7 points deducted. I think by the current period, amortisation starts to even itself out and in this case actually being a slight improvement by£0.6m. However, we could face a penalty if found guilty of just the stadium sale. Resulting in an 8 point deduction (£10.6m overspend). If guilty of both, this is actually reduced to 7 points thanks to dropping the other side of the £10m range (£9.98m). Just out of interest, how are you converting accounting profit/losses to FFP spend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Just out of interest, how are you converting accounting profit/losses to FFP spend? Pretty much just using the club accounts.The academy makes up the majority of the exceptions and these are already separated out for you. The 15/16 accounts (which included academy spend) saw a loss of £14.7m equate to a £9m FFP loss. 16/17 academy accounts revealed a loss of £5.9m, roughly equal to the £5.7m except from the previous year's FFP results. Other clubs are a bit more difficult and I usually use an expected figure based on academy category status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: Pretty much just using the club accounts.The academy makes up the majority of the exceptions and these are already separated out for you. The 15/16 accounts (which included academy spend) saw a loss of £14.7m equate to a £9m FFP loss. 16/17 academy accounts revealed a loss of £5.9m, roughly equal to the £5.7m except from the previous year's FFP results. Other clubs are a bit more difficult and I usually use an expected figure based on academy category status That is what I have always assumed too, not sure if there is any more exempt expenditure in club accounts or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 According to the article I've been reading Sheff Weds supposed crime is seen as far more serious by the other EFL teams. One chief executive reckons it will be a travesty if they get less than 21 pts. Either way, with appeals, either by the 'guilty' parties, or the other clubs who feel the punishment is too lenient and push the EFL into an appeal, means both the Championship and League 2 are likely to kick off next season with the possibility of teams being relegated/promoted into a different division once the season has started! If I read one more comment from a parmo eating whining ex steel worker about selling Bamford to meet FFP, for a whole £900k more than they signed him, I'm never listening to Athletico Mince again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: In terms of the value of the ground also, what is the difference between Derby selling their stadium at an over inflated price and a football club selling a player at an over inflated price? If a 3rd party company, regardless of who owns it, wanted to buy the stadium for 200 million, why wouldn't Derby accept it? Yes it is is morally wrong, but not breaking the rules is it? If the money received for a player helps towards FFP, I see no difference. Again, using Forest as an example, if Olympiakos purchase a forest player for 20 million this summer, will someone within the EFL provide their own valuation of the player to make sure it is legit? We helped Watford avoid FFP by buying Anya at a vastly inflated fee and then selling them Hughes at a vastly deflated fee. Two obviously fraudulent transactions and the football authorities never batted an eyelid. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Derby Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Can’t see Phil staying around if we start next season on -12 points or worse. Or Rooney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 hours ago, RandomAccessMemory said: I don't see that there should be any difference at all, financially players are classed as assets, so they should also be subject to the Fair Market Value clause when transferred between Related Parties, which a club owned by the same owner would surely be. Insert ANYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, Abu Derby said: Can’t see Phil staying around if we start next season on -12 points or worse. Or Rooney. I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsRam77 Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 4 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: In terms of the value of the ground also, what is the difference between Derby selling their stadium at an over inflated price and a football club selling a player at an over inflated price? If a 3rd party company, regardless of who owns it, wanted to buy the stadium for 200 million, why wouldn't Derby accept it? Yes it is is morally wrong, but not breaking the rules is it? If the money received for a player helps towards FFP, I see no difference. Again, using Forest as an example, if Olympiakos purchase a forest player for 20 million this summer, will someone within the EFL provide their own valuation of the player to make sure it is legit? 150% this ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbob Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 12 hours ago, jono said: But don’t they decide when any deduction is applied .. so that it is damaging as a punishment ? i.e. if it’s at a point where it has no effect - end of season table position would be outside the relegation zone - then they move the deduction to the next season ? I don’t think we will get a deduction. There is too much of an indication that the EFL were on board with what we were doing Yep. We won't be relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Neither Derby, nor sheff we’d, nor Birmingham have been profligate in the transfer market. What we are really being punished for is for buying badly. For buying players we couldn’t sell on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.