Tribunal Update

[RamNut]

14 minutes 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.

 

They tried to. They asked for direct responses from the the valuers but this was not facilitated.

[G STAR RAM]

A bit disappointed that twice we have been under a soft transfer embargo and we, as supporters, were not informed.

It feels over the last couple of seasons that MM has started to hide things from the fans.

I dont think there were any fans forums last season either.

Interesting to know his reasons for this.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, RamNut said:

They tried to. They asked for direct responses from the the valuers but this was not facilitated.

Wasnt this after the charges has already been made?

[RamNut]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Wasnt this after the charges has already been made?

No it was before. This is where the relationships started to break down.

[MACKWORTHRAM]

20 minutes ago, angieram said:

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.

I said that from the start. If Steve Gibson didn't threaten to sue we wouldn't even have been charged.

I can't put into words my utter hatred for him and his football club. 

I hope they fold. 

[alexxxxx]

14 minutes ago, angieram said:

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.

I think their point was that although it was a complaint by boro that prompted this (and potential legal action), its not necessarily improper to start an investigation after a complaint.

What you'll never be able to prove is whether the efl were incompetent in accepting the new valuation from their consultant or whether they were happy with the outcome (as it was split down the middle between Boros valuation and JLL/dcfc) and ignored the flawed methodogy. 

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, RamNut said:

No it was before. This is where the relationships started to break down.

Having just re-read, it appears that the club did respond to the queries raised by WHE but the EFL went back and said the queries should be answered directly by JLL.

JLL were engaged by DCFC and not the EFL so it is no surprise they would not respond directly to the EFL.

 

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I think their point was that although it was a complaint by boro that prompted this (and potential legal action), its not necessarily improper to start an investigation after a complaint.

What you'll never be able to prove is whether the efl were incompetent in accepting the new valuation from their consultant or whether they were happy with the outcome (as it was split down the middle between Boros valuation and JLL/dcfc) and ignored the flawed methodogy. 

To be fair it was probably written of a pack of Marlboro Light and may have been hard to understand.

[RamNut]

1 minute ago, alexxxxx said:

I think their point was that although it was a complaint by boro that prompted this (and potential legal action), its not necessarily improper to start an investigation after a complaint.

Correct

1 minute ago, alexxxxx said:

What you'll never be able to prove is whether the efl were incompetent in accepting the new valuation from their consultant or whether they were happy with the outcome (as it was split down the middle between Boros valuation and JLL/dcfc) and ignored the flawed methodogy. 

The appointment of mr messenger is where it all went wrong for the EFL. They could have gone to multiple valuers to see what sort of answers they got, but that’s with the benefit of hindsight. Having appointed a professional valuer who was clearly outspoken in stating his opinion that PP was significantly over-valued, they responded as they did and this whole sorry chain of events was set in motion. Unfortunately they hired a valuer who misrepresented his own experience and abilities. The IDC unpicked the whole process and found significant fault with his methodology. Result - Derby win.

[therealhantsram]

9 hours 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

If I was an EFL club I would be very concerned about that. It means that they can never operate with any certainty. The EFL at any point can go back and challenge their previous accounts. Sounds awful. 

 

9 hours ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

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!! 

Perhaps you missed it in the report, Gibson has an ongoing legal action against us already, 'stayed', presumably pending the result of this enquiry. Let's see what Gibson does next. 

 

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Unfortunately they hired a valuer who misrepresented his own experience and abilities. The IDC unpicked the whole process and found significant fault with his methodology. Result - Derby win.

Without seeing their rationale on appointing a valuer who (to use terminology used in residential valuing) basically just did a desk-based valuation but also based his comparisons on (deliberately?) poor examples (ie comparing your detached with a terrace) then the EFL got what they deserved - I might contend their choice was deliberate and they picked a valuer (estate agent) whose method of valuing was easy to check but they were only interested in the outcome not the process!

[RadioactiveWaste]

38 minutes ago, BondJovi said:

Or even they felt we showed them a lack of respect so they did the same. 

A smoke filled dimmly lit room, mournful jazz music playing in background, Italian suits and cravats....Don Party speaks:

"The problem with you, is that you do not show Don Gibson proper respect, Don Morris. The only reason Mason Bennett does not sleep with the fishes is that the Tees does not have any fish"

[duncanjwitham]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Without seeing their rationale on appointing a valuer who (to use terminology used in residential valuing) basically just did a desk-based valuation but also based his comparisons on (deliberately?) poor examples (ie comparing your detached with a terrace) then the EFL got what they deserved - I might contend their choice was deliberate and they picked a valuer (estate agent) whose method of valuing was easy to check but they were only interested in the outcome not the process!

If I was to wildly speculate, I'd suggest they went for a 'desk-based value' because it was significantly cheaper. Morris himself implied a full site-visit value would run into costing 7 figures.  And in the EFL's defence, they didn't need a precise value, they just needed to prove that our value was significantly wrong and a ballpark figure would have done that.

As to the choice of valuer, (again wildly speculating) they probably picked someone they knew, or someone they'd had experience of working with before, rather than try and get an expert who was properly qualified/experienced.  Again, that could come down to cost, or even just inexperience at this kind of stuff.  

[RadioactiveWaste]

35 minutes ago, RamNut said:

They tried to. They asked for direct responses from the the valuers but this was not facilitated.

That may have been a mistake on the clubs part. Although it's also possible that had the to seen the full workings the EFL may have prepared better to challenge them.

[therealhantsram]

1 hour 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.

I am still a bit concerned about this too, especially now that the panel have agreed with the EFL that they have the right to go back and reexamine previous sets of accounts. 

[RamNut]

8 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

That may have been a mistake on the clubs part. Although it's also possible that had the to seen the full workings the EFL may have prepared better to challenge them.

Which is within their remit. 
the outcome of the enquiry is a great result for us, but our legal challenges all failed, and our conduct contributed to the spiral of decline in deteriorating relationships. 
 

[RadioactiveWaste]

24 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

If I was an EFL club I would be very concerned about that. It means that they can never operate with any certainty. The EFL at any point can go back and challenge their previous accounts. Sounds awful. 

 

Perhaps you missed it in the report, Gibson has an ongoing legal action against us already, 'stayed', presumably pending the result of this enquiry. Let's see what Gibson does next. 

 

Either vindication by tribunal means he gives up (having hope to pursue us for money if we'd been guilty) or "my diabolical plan has failed, but I will launch another attack, and another until all hail the conqueror" if it's the second, we've got some pretty good ammo in that report that he can gtf.

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

If I was to wildly speculate, I'd suggest they went for a 'desk-based value' because it was significantly cheaper. Morris himself implied a full site-visit value would run into costing 7 figures.  And in the EFL's defence, they didn't need a precise value, they just needed to prove that our value was significantly wrong and a ballpark figure would have done that.

As to the choice of valuer, (again wildly speculating) they probably picked someone they knew, or someone they'd had experience of working with before, rather than try and get an expert who was properly qualified/experienced.  Again, that could come down to cost, or even just inexperience at this kind of stuff.  

That is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You pay peanuts you get monkeys! I would suggest that under-estimated the expertise required to reach a similar level of qualified detail. Plus they aren't the brightest apples in the barrel - well that's how they come across.

[BondJovi]

50 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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

 

This is in part what I suspect. Those two options then become the fall guys. An attempt to appease Gibson and protect themselves hanging others out to dry meanwhile we get screwed until it is sorted.

 

[SaintRam]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

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

 

A decision not to appeal (while obviously the right one) would add strength to this theory.