Tribunal Update

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

That was a long read!! I actually think the EFL will be slightly encouraged that our legal arguments failed, this mean if they have approved decisions and signed off accounts they are still within their rights to go back and re-evaluate as long as it’s within the 3 year period.  - I agree, I think that is the most useful win for the EFL in these two cases.
 

 

As for the amortisation, the ambiguity around this seemed to actually hinder our case as no one grasped that despite flattening out the amortisation we still take the hit at the end of a players contract if he leaves for nothing. Must have been the steep amortisation in the final year of some contracts that contributed to the eye watering 18/19 loss of £38.8m. We really don’t have much wriggle room. - seems a bit weird anyone could argue it wasn't £0 at the end of the contract, as logic dictates it must be if the player isn't under contract to the club any more, and DCFC weren't trying to do anything to suggest different.
 

Can’t rule out the EFL trying to come back at us again on something else but as for these charges, I’d be amazed if they appeal especially with pressure mounting from clubs over legal costs. - I think the report hands it to the EFL pretty comprehensively and they will probably give this one up. I would think the EFL will keep a very close eye on us if there is anything they can go after, they will.
 

Will Steve Gibson launch his own legal challenge against the “Enemy of the EFL State” ?? still can’t believe Mel said that in the proceedings!! - If he wasn't before, he is now

?

[Grimbeard]

3 hours ago, Gisby said:

If this whole debacle wasn’t such a sad indictment as to the state of our beloved game it would be hilarious!!!

It's still hilarious.

[OohMartWright]

36 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

As somone who sometimes uses expert witnesses I can say he would be heading for the do not use again list. The professor doesn't sound to clever either

Secondly, while we have no doubt that Professor Pope was at all times giving his genuinely-held opinion on the issues that he was asked to address, it became clear in his cross-examination that he was unfamiliar with the role and duties of an individual in his position tasked with giving expert to a Disciplinary Commission or other tribunal.

Your first sentence I absolutely agree with, but I think you are being a bit hard on the Professor. As @RoyMac5 pointed out earlier, he was simply being used to demonstrate that the word “systematic” was not defined or enshrined in any accounting, legal or football regulations. It is pretty hard to explain a technical definition that doesn’t exist.

[Rev]

Ryan Conway at the Athletic needs to get his head around our amortisation policy too.

Seems to be under the impression that it's been found wanting, and we've since moved to a straight line policy in line with the majority, which isn't the case at all.

 

[Mckram]

Enjoyed reading that more than the Harry Potter books.

I think the EFL’s choice of ‘experts’ basically ruined any chance of them winning this.

I really felt the panels hate and disgust for Mr Messenger and it was fantastic.

You can be the best valuer or accountant in the world but if you don’t understand the area you’re talking about then it’s worthless. 

My favourite bits were Messenger not actually going to value it in person, the Morcambe comparison and the bit where the panel disagree with him on something and don’t just give one reason why, but something like 8 reasons why! ?

Middlesbrough not covered themselves in glory either. Basically just threatened the EFL if they didn’t charge us, and the EFL being so clueless just did whatever they asked in fear.

How that’s back fired now. 

[SamUltraRam]

HOT OFF THE PRESS

A 'number of Championship Clubs' have formerly asked for a further investigation as

they believe that the hiring of Mr Messenger being funded by DCFC breaks impartiality rules

 

In other news the EFL have advertised 2 new vacancies for

1) Head of valuations

2) Legal adviser

whilst a 3rd role for 'Head of Comedy' has been appointed internally

[plymouthram]

37 minutes ago, Mckram said:

Enjoyed reading that more than the Harry Potter books.

I think the EFL’s choice of ‘experts’ basically ruined any chance of them winning this.

I really felt the panels hate and disgust for Mr Messenger and it was fantastic.

You can be the best valuer or accountant in the world but if you don’t understand the area you’re talking about then it’s worthless. 

My favourite bits were Messenger not actually going to value it in person, the Morcambe comparison and the bit where the panel disagree with him on something and don’t just give one reason why, but something like 8 reasons why! ?

Middlesbrough not covered themselves in glory either. Basically just threatened the EFL if they didn’t charge us, and the EFL being so clueless just did whatever they asked in fear.

How that’s back fired now. 

I do think now that, the EFL will not be very willing, kind, helpful, etc to Middlesboro. Having been pushed into raising a charge by Gibson(I've thrown my dolly out the pram). The cost of this Charge/hearing will be money wasted that EFL clubs could have done with, especially in the current situation with no fans in grounds. The likes of League 1 and 2 clubs must be fuming over this utter waste of funds. Would'nt it be great now if Mel sued the EFL, won the case and divided the money up to all members of the EFL, with the exception of Middlesboro.

[JABBA]

5 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Seems from the extracts, Mr. Messanger was in the business of trying to get the panel to accept that Pride Park was worth significantly less than the sale price. He attempted to do just that. In doing so he lost his credibility in the eyes of the panel as an actual valuer. 

 

You giving him far too much credibility there, he’s an incompetent buffoon whose tiny firm (19 staff) deal with rates valuations for the council on a day to day basis and has tried to cobble together a mess of a report on a subject he has little expertise.

we used an industry leader who did a competent job consistent with prior estimates.

 

it begs the question did the EFL choose this firm to demonstrate their utter contempt for us or is it their own incompetence that allowed this to happen.

 

[Ramslaar]

1 hour ago, Needlesh said:

You'd think the EFL brand would only be enhanced by the presence of Wayne actual Rooney with an EFL badge on his shirt. 

You'd think the EFL would recognise that and be supportive of the move.

It would be like MLS griping about Beckham signing for the LA Galaxy.

Oh well.

 

https://the72.co.uk/154602/preston-furious-at-Derby-rooney-transfer-star-player-clause-detail-mentioned/

 

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, plymouthram said:

I do think now that, the EFL will not be very willing, kind, helpful, etc to Middlesboro. Having been pushed into raising a charge by Gibson(I've thrown my dolly out the pram). The cost of this Charge/hearing will be money wasted that EFL clubs could have done with, especially in the current situation with no fans in grounds. The likes of League 1 and 2 clubs must be fuming over this utter waste of funds. Would'nt it be great now if Mel sued the EFL, won the case and divided the money up to all members of the EFL, with the exception of Middlesboro.

Having lost every single legal argument that the EFL were acting inappropriately, vexatiously, or ultra fires, I think we would be well advised, to drop the idea of sueing them. 

[G STAR RAM]

Re the amortisation policy it would have been interesting to see some named examples.

Surprised that nobody has mentioned the huge hit we had to take in the 19/20 on amortisation (£25.1m).

To me, the huge variation in amortisation charges would say our policy is either not very reliable or the ERV being used are incorrect.

Also not sure how extending the contracts of Butterfield and Johnson would have made much difference to our financial results.

[JABBA]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Re the amortisation policy it would have been interesting to see some named examples.

Surprised that nobody has mentioned the huge hit we had to take in the 19/20 on amortisation (£25.1m).

To me, the huge variation in amortisation charges would say our policy is either not very reliable or the ERV being used are incorrect.

Also not sure how extending the contracts of Butterfield and Johnson would have made much difference to our financial results.

Extending the contracts allows us using our method to take the write off of the residual value a year later than it would otherwise of hit.

 

we knew we would fail ffp so it bought us 12 months to find a solution either promotion or sale of the stadium.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, JABBA said:

Extending the contracts allows us using our method to take the write off of the residual value a year later than it would otherwise of hit.

we knew we would fail ffp so it bought us 12 months to find a solution either promotion or sale of the stadium.

That's not how I read it.

The policy said the residual value was set to £0 as they entered the final year of their contract and then amortised on a straight line basis over the last year.

Did Butterfield and Johnson have their contracts extended before they entered the final year?

It would be interesting to know what ERV they used for either and surely by time the accounts were signed off it would actually be known what their pre-sale value (if any) was?

[angieram]

6 hours ago, JABBA said:

You giving him far too much credibility there, he’s an incompetent buffoon whose tiny firm (19 staff) deal with rates valuations for the council on a day to day basis and has tried to cobble together a mess of a report on a subject he has little expertise.

we used an industry leader who did a competent job consistent with prior estimates.

 

it begs the question did the EFL choose this firm to demonstrate their utter contempt for us or is it their own incompetence that allowed this to happen.

 

I think the lack of quality in the EFL experts suggests that they were unsuccessful with their first choices of experts. Any competent expert would decline the case, knowing there was no case to answer.

[G STAR RAM]

In summary of the document (for those who arent bothered about reading it) the EFL contended that 2 sets of professional advisers that Derby used, in its auditors and professional valuers, were not doing their job properly.

The EFL then appointed it's own professional advisers to prove the point and they both got ripped to pieces by the Independent Panel.

Appears to me that had the EFL actually spoken to our professional advisers to get an understanding of the transactions the whole process would have been avoided.

 

[angieram]

I know that the Disciplinary Commission did not find any evidence that Middlesbrough's threat to sue us and then the EFL was what prompted the charges by the EFL. Legally they couldn't prove that it did.

However, they have laid the details out so carefully in their reporting timeline that they lead anyone reading to make that inference and draw their own conclusions.

I am utterly convinced that is what happened and I expect a lot of other clubs will be too.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, angieram said:

I think the lack of quality in the EFL experts suggests that they were unsuccessful with their first choices of experts. Any competent expert would decline the case, knowing there was no case to answer.

You would have thought they would have used Steve Gibson if he had evidence that the fair value of Pride Park was only £23m.

 

[BondJovi]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

In summary of the document (for those who arent bothered about reading it) the EFL contended that 2 sets of professional advisers that Derby used, in its auditors and professional valuers, were not doing their job properly.

The EFL then appointed it's own professional advisers to prove the point and they both got ripped to pieces by the Independent Panel.

Appears to me that had the EFL actually spoken to our professional advisers to get an understanding of the transactions the whole process would have been avoided.

 

Doesn't that sort of prove that either they were so determined to get us they ignored reason or they are just truly incompetent? Or even they felt we showed them a lack of respect so they did the same. 

If you had the interests of your members at heart, you would hear all sides of the story.

Overall the kind of appalling organisation you only really see the government get away with.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, BondJovi said:

Doesn't that sort of prove that either they were so determined to get us they ignored reason or they are just truly incompetent? Or even they felt we showed them a lack of respect so they did the same. 

If you had the interests of your members at heart, you would hear all sides of the story.

Overall the kind of appalling organisation you only really see the government get away with.

Could be that they even knew they would not win their argument so got the 2 cheapest options available to represent them.

 

[Indy]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

You would have thought they would have used Steve Gibson if he had evidence that the fair value of Pride Park was only £23m.

 

I would love to see the reasoning behind that figure. To be so confident to threaten a law suit off the back of figures that are incorrect to the tune of being four times too small is incredible. 
 

Mind you - that hair already told us there was a fair amount of misplaced confidence going on.