Tribunal Update

[Donny Ram]

If you read the full tribunal decision report then clearly we have not broken any accounting rules and any ammortalisation policy is the remit of HMRC and not the EFL, the EFL do not have any legal remit over accounting policy. This is just turning in to a classic comedy sketch with the EFL throwing good money after bad to try and save face.

I don’t think Mel will be losing any sleep as clearly the club have advised the EFL and given them every opportunity to oppose or advise against the practice used by the club.

You have to ask how a governing body can be so totally and utterly inept and clueless though. 

[Woodley Ram]

13 minutes ago, Donny Ram said:

If you read the full tribunal decision report then clearly we have not broken any accounting rules and any ammortalisation policy is the remit of HMRC and not the EFL, the EFL do not have any legal remit over accounting policy. This is just turning in to a classic comedy sketch with the EFL throwing good money after bad to try and save face.

I don’t think Mel will be losing any sleep as clearly the club have advised the EFL and given them every opportunity to oppose or advise against the practice used by the club.

You have to ask how a governing body can be so totally and utterly inept and clueless though. 

wouldn't surprise me if they asked us to foot part of the bill as one of the 24 Championship clubs

[Mostyn6]

I think what annoys me most is that the independent panel, I believe, is instructed by the EFL. The EFL should not be able to appeal it’s own representation view! 
 

By appealing a decision, the EFL are basically saying that the independent panel is not fit for purpose and decision is not correct, therefore undermining any decision, past or future, made by an independent panel. 

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

This is only going to force Mel and DCFC to pursue his/our claims against the EFL. Brace yourself ELF as Mel is gonna completely hammer you now. Should’ve let sleeping dogs lie instead of persistently trying to save face at the expense of your members. 

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

This is only going to force Mel and DCFC to pursue his/our claims against the EFL. Brace yourself ELF as Mel is gonna completely hammer you now. Should’ve let sleeping dogs lie instead of persistently trying to save face at the expense of your members. 

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

22 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Typo ???

[ilkleyram]

It seems to me that @Spanish and @duncanjwitham make some interesting points a few pages ago but, again, context is all important.

We need, I would suggest, a governing body of some kind. One that garners, reflects, adjudicates upon and leads its members. That leadership should reflect the current context in which the members operate. The EFL is failing on a number of accounts. Its ownership tests, for example, its response to Bury and Wigan's problems, its negotiation of TV deals, its relationship with the PL and the problem of parachute payments skewing its top league, are all examples. Covid has created the greatest threat to 72 clubs and therefore the EFL itself (bar those, mainly, in receipt of parachute payments) in my lifetime. Bigger even than the establishment of the Premier League. And where is the leadership from the EFL? Missing in relative inaction other than to extend its P &S rules by a year. Pathetic.

And then there is the mess that is P&S itself. Tribunals should be seen for what they are - failures of the system, not opportunities to correct the system and/or punish.  If the rules were clear and understood and accepted by the members the EFL supposedly represent then there would be little reason for the Tribunal system; if the Tribunal system worked properly - and it’s too easy for the EFL to say that they are not responsible for the timescales involved, they set up the system - then clubs would be punished in the season in which transgressions took place, not seasons later. The P&S system is neither one thing or another - it doesn’t equalise competition nor does it reign in spending. It’s a mess.

And then there’s our case. People have said that Mel was unwise to raise in the Tribunal his views about the EFL state. Probably rightly without any non-emotional evidence. Equally though the EFL should be asking themselves a whole series of questions, starting with: why does one of our largest, best supported clubs, of significant importance to our TV sponsors feel the way they do about their governing body?  Why do other members vote the CEO of this club as their representative if they are so ill thought of? What can we do to repair relations with one of our key members? They might also ask themselves what they can do to repair relationships between two of their senior members (us and Gibson) on the basis that continuing tension will not be helpful and that to do so might demonstrate good leadership on the EFL's part.

And then there’s the appeal. If the EFL was properly run it should have taken the result of the Tribunal as a 10-0 thrashing and then said to itself, right, what can we do? We need to form a view upon and ask our members to vote/decide upon a series of issues: 1) do we accept that clubs can sell their grounds and include the proceeds for P&S calculations? If so, what is the acceptable system of valuation and how are the proceeds paid and dealt with?  2) Form a view around amortisation and put the alternatives to the membership. Can there be two different ways of amortising players? What are the rules and procedures that are acceptable to the EFL and its members and what are the punishments for transgressions? In finding answers to both questions they could show leadership, build bridges with Derby and Mel and clarify the rules for all clubs. They might even speed up the process of dealing with cases that are dubious. 
Instead they are doing what all feeble governing bodies with feeble leaders do, they are letting their disciplinary body decide how they should operate and run. The chances of change are probably remote, sadly.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

"Surprised and disappointed" is professional email language for "dukin raging about this'

I would suggest that "disappointed but not particularly surprised" would have been more appropriate.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said:

By appealing a decision, the EFL are basically saying that the independent panel is not fit for purpose and decision is not correct, therefore undermining any decision, past or future, made by an independent panel. 

How do you think proper legal cases get to the Supreme Court?

[Mostyn6]

1 minute ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

How do you think proper legal cases get to the Supreme Court?

Usually the accused drives that. Not the state. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

22 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Usually the accused drives that. Not the state. 

Try telling that to this government!

[Carl Sagan]

I could understand,reluctantly, us letting it lie after all the chargs were dismissed and the club totally exonerated. But I think the time has now come for the club to sue the EFL for vindictive prosecution. In times of unparallelled financial difficulty for all clubs in the 72, they are wasting everyone's money in the crazed and wrongful pursuit of some "big scalp". @David has his thread about the EFL not being fit for purpose and harming the game and questioning what we can do as fans, but this move by the club would be the biggest thing. DCFC can make a case that this vindictive pursuit may have cost us promotion and hundreds of millions of pounds. The threat of getting a proportion of that will rouse the other clubs to step in and reform the ruling body.

[Rev]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

I could understand,reluctantly, us letting it lie after all the chargs were dismissed and the club totally exonerated. But I think the time has now come for the club to sue the EFL for vindictive prosecution. In times of unparallelled financial difficulty for all clubs in the 72, they are wasting everyone's money in the crazed and wrongful pursuit of some "big scalp". @David has his thread about the EFL not being fit for purpose and harming the game and questioning what we can do as fans, but this move by the club would be the biggest thing. DCFC can make a case that this vindictive pursuit may have cost us promotion and hundreds of millions of pounds. The threat of getting a proportion of that will rouse the other clubs to step in and reform the ruling body.

I'm pretty sure it's a condition of membership that you won't pursue legal claims against the EFL itself, outside of the framework that exists for such action.

[Ghost of Clough]

14 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I'm pretty sure it's a condition of membership that you won't pursue legal claims against the EFL itself, outside of the framework that exists for such action.

And the basis for Gibson threatening the EFL with legal action was...?

[Rev]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

And the basis for Gibson threatening the EFL with legal action was...?

Wasn't his threat that he'd take legal action directly against the club, rather than the league as an organisation?

[Ghost of Clough]

27 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Wasn't his threat that he'd take legal action directly against the club, rather than the league as an organisation?

“On 30 July 2019 MFC’s solicitors confirmed that they had been instructed to prepare proceedings against the EFL and the Club, and would continue to do so unless MFC received confirmation (i) that the EFL had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Club, or (ii) of the date by which the EFL’s investigation into the Club would be completed”

[MikeS]

5 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

I think what annoys me most is that the independent panel, I believe, is instructed by the EFL. The EFL should not be able to appeal it’s own representation view! 
 

By appealing a decision, the EFL are basically saying that the independent panel is not fit for purpose and decision is not correct, therefore undermining any decision, past or future, made by an independent panel. 

Not sure that the EFL is saying that the independent panel is not fit for purpose. They are taking to appeal one of the points in the minor second charge regarding amortisation.

The panel is independent and its members (senior lawyers and accountants) had to be agreed by both parties.

[cheron85]

What I find amazing is how many news organisations are allowed to report on this when they clearly don't understand the accounting behind it - This lack of understanding is what I think is causing all this fuss - The panel seemed to have indicated this as well, that the EFL were appealing based on not really understanding what it was we'd done

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54076563

"What Derby do within their accounting, and amortisation - essentially the value of the players within the squad - is add a residual value to a player when they come to the end of their contract - an anticipated transfer fee - thus lowering amortisation costs."

This is just simply untrue - We aren't lowering amortisation costs and the 'residual value' is simply a theoretical number assigned mathematically to calculate their value in earlier years - Not at the point when their contract ends

Yes, our approach makes a player's amortisation drop slower across the first few years of the contract but it then hammers us if that player reaches the end of their contract and leaves for free (Johnson, Butters, Huddlestone etc) - But the reporting of it is simply erroneous and if I were the club I'd be writing to every news source and asking them to correct that

[RadioactiveWaste]

38 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

What I find amazing is how many news organisations are allowed to report on this when they clearly don't understand the accounting behind it - This lack of understanding is what I think is causing all this fuss - The panel seemed to have indicated this as well, that the EFL were appealing based on not really understanding what it was we'd done

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54076563

"What Derby do within their accounting, and amortisation - essentially the value of the players within the squad - is add a residual value to a player when they come to the end of their contract - an anticipated transfer fee - thus lowering amortisation costs."

This is just simply untrue - We aren't lowering amortisation costs and the 'residual value' is simply a theoretical number assigned mathematically to calculate their value in earlier years - Not at the point when their contract ends

Yes, our approach makes a player's amortisation drop slower across the first few years of the contract but it then hammers us if that player reaches the end of their contract and leaves for free (Johnson, Butters, Huddlestone etc) - But the reporting of it is simply erroneous and if I were the club I'd be writing to every news source and asking them to correct that

Yup, it's incorrect and borderline slanderous.

[BathRam72]

Forgive me if this has been said as I have not had the time to read it all.

It appears to me that the EFL have lost and what they are doing now is clearly damage limitation, while still trying to impart some sort of punishment on Derby by putting doubt in the minds of potential signings.

Can't punish directly, so will disrupt as much as possible.

 

They really are unfit for purpose.