Tribunal Update

[RamNut]

Maybe by threatening to sue the EFL, they felt compelled to further defend their position.
 

before the judgement, it was widely predicted that whoever won, there would be an appeal.

[Abu Derby]

This has got Gibson’s paw prints all over it. 

[Sparkle]

Well the EFL are entitled to appeal - but why? 

If they want us to change the way we do our accounts then introduce a rule that stops it whilst having a fair period to change it.

is this so they can say that they won something and half the legal bill they have forced on all clubs not to mention our huge costs incurred.

being a member of an organisation that constantly disappoints you is a very sad state of affairs.

[StaffsRam]

Next they’ll appeal because we filled in the forms with blue biro when it should have been black....?

Can someone suggest to Mel that we look into selling the stadium naming rights again? I’ll happily lay down some £££ for the “Gibson’sac*nt Arena”. I’m not precious about Arena though. Could be Arena, Park, Ground, whatever...??

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

3 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Well the EFL are entitled to appeal - but why? 

If they want us to change the way we do our accounts then introduce a rule that stops it whilst having a fair period to change it.

is this so they can say that they won something and half the legal bill they have forced on all clubs not to mention our huge costs incurred.

being a member of an organisation that constantly disappoints you is a very sad state of affairs.

The only logical reason to appeal is that they think we should have been punished more than the soft embargo. Very very strange especially as we have done nothing wrong. 

 

[Sparkle]

1 minute ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

The only logical reason to appeal is that they think we should have been punished more than the soft embargo. Very very strange. 

I thought within an appeal no new information can be brought in and they can only say that the decision was unjust in essence 

[SamUltraRam]

Didn't Birmingham lose a verdict, appeal it and won & then there was a FURTHER appeal where the two parties cancelled each other out.

 

[SamUltraRam]

Although I would like to see a PL2, as far as the TV deal goes, I doubt that Sky would be keen on paying out more until the existing contract ends - whenever that is ?

It would however offer the possibility of overseas TV deals which is very, very lucrative to the Premier League

[IslandExile]

Apologies if this has been answered but who do they appeal to? To a different independent panel? To an EFL committee? To a bystander? The FA? To an impartial football insider, let's say the chairman and owner of Middlesbrough football club?

Who?

[Comrade 86]

4 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Great. Spurious FFP charge dismissed. Appeal window closed. EFL fully exposed as not fit for purpose.

An outcome literally nobody saw coming ?

 

Well this aged well...

 

[Malty]

Ok, so at the end of the day the efl are  just trying to defend their own rules.

 

They failed on the first accusation. The stadium sale. I suspect on the basis of the communication between the two parties before the financial results were out and/or decisions were taken. I suspect a few pre-dated and signed documents were put together to help justify all this by the DCFC management, but Derby were cleared and the EFL have to accept it (and have, which is great news).
 

On the second accusation, which appeared to me out of the blue by the way, the EFL are questioning our amortisation policy. This accusation seems to be borne from a somewhat questionable spreadsheet (which had errors in it in prior years) married with an undisclosed change in accounting policy. (Which perhaps the auditors should have flagged up in the financial statements?). So the EFL probably do have grounds to appeal (sadly) and to defend their rules. They could win, but I’d imagine it would be tough for them as they are fighting registered auditors who will fight tooth and nail for their integrity.

So what of this new amortisation policy? Does a player have residual value after four years? 

Take a player like Lawrence? And for ease of maths he was bought for 4 million and has a four year contract. What is his value after 3 years?

Straight line, it’s £1 million. Right? But what does the club do after 3 years? Well if you’re in your right mind you sell, with any luck for more than 1 million and in reality you will probably get more than that considering inflation and the fact that Derby try and buy young. Alternatively you offer a new contract. So now the 1 million you have left is spread over a further, say two years. Meaning your fourth year “residual value” is £666k.

Worst case, you let the contract run.

To calculate the true “Residual value”, you’d have to work out the likelihood of each of the above happening and multiply it through.

so

1. sell for, say 2 mill. Residual value = £1 mill (remember You still have 1 mill to amortise)
2. Renegotiate giving residual Value 666k (above).
3. let the contract run it’s course. Residual value nil.

If the likelihood of each was equal then I’d argue the residual value of my theoretical Tom Lawrence was £555k.

This is all of course based on a whole load of assumptions that I’m sure you could drive a bus through, but it does demonstrate that there is some logic to residual values as it would absolutely stupid to assume that clubs don’t take action towards the end of a contract.

I recall we even extended Bradley Johnsons contract as an example last year.

In summary I think we can fight the case on residual values, albeit if we do it could set a dangerous precedent for other clubs and for the EFL.

I would also suggest that the EFL have  a real fight against a set of auditors on the accounting policy side of things.

I’d be very surprised and disappointed if Derby lost, but if I’m honest if I were the EFL I would want to have the fight.

Very sadly for all concerned this will be a costly and damaging set of proceedings.

[Ramarena]

[Woodley Ram]

7 hours ago, Malty said:

Ok, so at the end of the day the efl are  just trying to defend their own rules.

 

They failed on the first accusation. The stadium sale. I suspect on the basis of the communication between the two parties before the financial results were out and/or decisions were taken. I suspect a few pre-dated and signed documents were put together to help justify all this by the DCFC management, but Derby were cleared and the EFL have to accept it (and have, which is great news).
 

On the second accusation, which appeared to me out of the blue by the way, the EFL are questioning our amortisation policy. This accusation seems to be borne from a somewhat questionable spreadsheet (which had errors in it in prior years) married with an undisclosed change in accounting policy. (Which perhaps the auditors should have flagged up in the financial statements?). So the EFL probably do have grounds to appeal (sadly) and to defend their rules. They could win, but I’d imagine it would be tough for them as they are fighting registered auditors who will fight tooth and nail for their integrity.

So what of this new amortisation policy? Does a player have residual value after four years? 

Take a player like Lawrence? And for ease of maths he was bought for 4 million and has a four year contract. What is his value after 3 years?

Straight line, it’s £1 million. Right? But what does the club do after 3 years? Well if you’re in your right mind you sell, with any luck for more than 1 million and in reality you will probably get more than that considering inflation and the fact that Derby try and buy young. Alternatively you offer a new contract. So now the 1 million you have left is spread over a further, say two years. Meaning your fourth year “residual value” is £666k.

Worst case, you let the contract run.

To calculate the true “Residual value”, you’d have to work out the likelihood of each of the above happening and multiply it through.

so

1. sell for, say 2 mill. Residual value = £1 mill (remember You still have 1 mill to amortise)
2. Renegotiate giving residual Value 666k (above).
3. let the contract run it’s course. Residual value nil.

If the likelihood of each was equal then I’d argue the residual value of my theoretical Tom Lawrence was £555k.

This is all of course based on a whole load of assumptions that I’m sure you could drive a bus through, but it does demonstrate that there is some logic to residual values as it would absolutely stupid to assume that clubs don’t take action towards the end of a contract.

I recall we even extended Bradley Johnsons contract as an example last year.

In summary I think we can fight the case on residual values, albeit if we do it could set a dangerous precedent for other clubs and for the EFL.

I would also suggest that the EFL have  a real fight against a set of auditors on the accounting policy side of things.

I’d be very surprised and disappointed if Derby lost, but if I’m honest if I were the EFL I would want to have the fight.

Very sadly for all concerned this will be a costly and damaging set of proceedings.

Re the stadium, it was shown that the price was in acceptable limits, they did a price per seat. With the amortisation we were found guilty of part of that charge and that is to do with the clarity of our amortisation policy, apparently it was not as clear as it should be. The tribunal said that was outside of FFP. They accepted the policy itself was within financial accounting practice.

the EFL had a really poor witness for the amortisation, I think they will have a better one this time, but I guess the fact they won one part has given them hope. They will have learnt from the original tribunal so this could be harder to defend, saying that it dosnt mean they will win it. 
 

if the EFL win this then I doubt ( I hope) that we will get a 12 point deduction. If we win then it questions the competency of the EFL. The WBA guy said this week that things need to change in the EFL including the governing body  

[JustOneBiblicalKazim]

18 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

Re the stadium, it was shown that the price was in acceptable limits, they did a price per seat. With the amortisation we were found guilty of part of that charge and that is to do with the clarity of our amortisation policy, apparently it was not as clear as it should be. The tribunal said that was outside of FFP. They accepted the policy itself was within financial accounting practice.

the EFL had a really poor witness for the amortisation, I think they will have a better one this time, but I guess the fact they won one part has given them hope. They will have learnt from the original tribunal so this could be harder to defend, saying that it dosnt mean they will win it. 
 

if the EFL win this then I doubt ( I hope) that we will get a 12 point deduction. If we win then it questions the competency of the EFL. The WBA guy said this week that things need to change in the EFL including the governing body  

We weren’t found guilty they just said it needed to be clearer 

[S8TY]

What also irks me is....why has it taken so long after the decision for the EFL to appeal ?? 

If they are so sure we have done wrong why has it taken nearly all of the 14 days they were allowed ??

Surely if they were confident they would've appealed straight away which makes me think they've dug up something or someone else is driving this ....eg Gibson!!!.....

I just like watching football and todays game is just as much about off the pitch matters which saddens me ......we are in a pandemic...people are being furloughed....clubs are struggling financially and some can see no light at the end of the tunnel and yet the EFL appeal the decision.....just let it go!!!!!!! and lets get back to what its all about....enjoying the actual game!!!.....EFL are a total joke!!

[Reggie Greenwood]

7 minutes ago, S8TY said:

What also irks me is....why has it taken so long after the decision for the EFL to appeal ?? 

If they are so sure we have done wrong why has it taken nearly all of the 14 days they were allowed ??

Surely if they were confident they would've appealed straight away which makes me think they've dug up something or someone else is driving this ....eg Gibson!!!.....

I just like watching football and todays game is just as much about off the pitch matters which saddens me ......we are in a pandemic...people are being furloughed....clubs are struggling financially and some can see no light at the end of the tunnel and yet the EFL appeal the decision.....just let it go!!!!!!! and lets get back to what its all about....enjoying the actual game!!!.....EFL are a total joke!!

They can’t “dig “ something up has to be the same evidence as before as I understand 

[Tamworthram]

8 hours ago, Sparkle said:

I thought within an appeal no new information can be brought in and they can only say that the decision was unjust in essence 

@The Scarlet Pimpernel isn’t suggesting new evidence though. Just the punishment we received for the one element not found in our favour wasn’t severe enough. That’s how I read the post anyway.

[rynny]

30 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

Re the stadium, it was shown that the price was in acceptable limits, they did a price per seat. With the amortisation we were found guilty of part of that charge and that is to do with the clarity of our amortisation policy, apparently it was not as clear as it should be. The tribunal said that was outside of FFP. They accepted the policy itself was within financial accounting practice.

the EFL had a really poor witness for the amortisation, I think they will have a better one this time, but I guess the fact they won one part has given them hope. They will have learnt from the original tribunal so this could be harder to defend, saying that it dosnt mean they will win it. 
 

if the EFL win this then I doubt ( I hope) that we will get a 12 point deduction. If we win then it questions the competency of the EFL. The WBA guy said this week that things need to change in the EFL including the governing body  

At the same time we didn't have a witness and claimed that we didn't have enough time to prepare a defence against the amortisation claim, as the EFL had not previously mentioned it. I am sure now we will go full out and get an expert witness, and a better defence. 

[Brammie Steve]

8 hours ago, IslandExile said:

Apologies if this has been answered but who do they appeal to? To a different independent panel? To an EFL committee? To a bystander? The FA? To an impartial football insider, let's say the chairman and owner of Middlesbrough football club?

Who?

When I was working the only recourse at this stage was to the High Court on a point of law. All costs borne by the appelant regardless of the outcome.

(It just did not happen!)

It smacks of an own goal AET in ET!

[GB SPORTS]

36 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

Re the stadium, it was shown that the price was in acceptable limits, they did a price per seat. With the amortisation we were found guilty of part of that charge and that is to do with the clarity of our amortisation policy, apparently it was not as clear as it should be. The tribunal said that was outside of FFP. They accepted the policy itself was within financial accounting practice.

the EFL had a really poor witness for the amortisation, I think they will have a better one this time, but I guess the fact they won one part has given them hope. They will have learnt from the original tribunal so this could be harder to defend, saying that it dosnt mean they will win it. 
 

if the EFL win this then I doubt ( I hope) that we will get a 12 point deduction. If we win then it questions the competency of the EFL. The WBA guy said this week that things need to change in the EFL including the governing body  

Not guilty on both charges the second point was just an clarity opportunity and they can't present any new evidence so no new witness either.