Jump to content

EFL appeal

Sith Happens

By Sith Happens
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

G STAR RAM

G STAR RAM

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ramslad1992 said:

Everyone saying take the punishment and move on... basically saying let the Bully hit you and don’t fight back...

fight them for everything i say.

Spot on.

I wonder if any of the people saying take the fine are will to pay it on behalf of the club? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
MackworthRamIsGod

MackworthRamIsGod

Posted
Posted
Just now, Ramslad1992 said:

Everyone saying take the punishment and move on... basically saying let the Bully hit you and don’t fight back...

fight them for everything i say.

Part of me is thinking just give us the points deduction and move on.

Rick Parry is dishing out the most amazing punishment in his eyes, he is just dragging it along, disrupting takeovers, hindering our transfer windows and making things very difficult for Mel.

Hit us with the deduction already and next season let's annoy every single fan of every single club by staying up regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grumpy Git

Grumpy Git

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Hit us with the deduction already and next season let's annoy every single fan of every single club by staying up regardless.

Not a chance, fight the barstewards every inch of the way and then some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brammie Steve

Brammie Steve

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yeah really strange.

Advising someone just to take a fine and move on (despite us being found guilty of nothing) is what I would call strange.

Never give in to blackmail.

The baddy always comes back for more.

Not just in chesp fiction apparently!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jono

jono

Posted
Posted

It’s pointless arguing the toss over legal and financial matters .We simply don’t have the full story from either point of view but it is - to me at least - evidence that the EFL is a toxic organisation that allows itself to be swayed by loud voices rather than logical analysis. It does not serve its members, there are too many partisan camps. It doesn’t garner respect. It is contemptible.

They resoundingly lost the original argument but pursued, vindictively, (at who’s behest ? ) some sort of vengeance or face saving, based on a technicality, to justify their ineptitude and save face. Yuk ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheTinMan

TheTinMan

Posted
Posted

From reading some of the stuff on Kieran Maguire's (Price Of Football Podcast) Twitter it sounds like we've tried to be creative and move the losses on a couple of years from when they've occurred by the way we've done the accounts which may or may not be breaking the rules I don't understand that part.

Either way looks to me like Mel's taken a leaf out of Leicester and QPR's books and decided he'd spend whatever and get promoted and then we'd be pretty much exempt from any punishment much like Leicester and to a lesser extent QPR were. Is this pretty much what Reading have done this year as well and now they are fudged because they missed the playoffs? Seems as though so many owners are risking their clubs futures because the lure of the Premier League is financially so big. 

Forgive me if I've got any of this wrong I'm trying to understand it best I can from people's explanations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EdinRam

EdinRam

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, DCFCJim87 said:

From reading some of the stuff on Kieran Maguire's (Price Of Football Podcast) Twitter it sounds like we've tried to be creative and move the losses on a couple of years from when they've occurred by the way we've done the accounts which may or may not be breaking the rules I don't understand that part.

Either way looks to me like Mel's taken a leaf out of Leicester and QPR's books and decided he'd spend whatever and get promoted and then we'd be pretty much exempt from any punishment much like Leicester and to a lesser extent QPR were. Is this pretty much what Reading have done this year as well and now they are fudged because they missed the playoffs? Seems as though so many owners are risking their clubs futures because the lure of the Premier League is financially so big. 

Forgive me if I've got any of this wrong I'm trying to understand it best I can from people's explanations. 

That's pretty much what I have taken from it. Leicester, qpr and especially villa have gotten away with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MackworthRamIsGod

MackworthRamIsGod

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Charlie George said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9561583/amp/Derby-RELEGATED-Championship-EFL-won-appeal-against-FFP-rule-break.html?__twitter_impression=true

That article is terribly written.

The word COULD is over used.

According to sources Derby could get a points deduction and could get relegated. Also, according to sources Derby could just get a fine. Ridiculous article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JfR

JfR

Posted
Posted

I've been reading back over the original ruling to try and get my head around all this again, and I was wondering if it's even the case that the club have been charged with overspending or if the charge is purely about the submission of accounts.

The original ruling lays out the EFL's contention as follows:
"The Second Charge relates to the approach to amortisation of the capitalised costs of player registrations adopted by the Club in its financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018. In essence the EFL contends:
    a) That the approach to amortisation of capitalised costs of player registrations adopted by the Club in those financial statements did not comply with FRS 102;
    b) That as a result, the ‘Annual Accounts’ submitted by the Club for those years were not (as is required by the P&S Rules) ‘prepared … in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of [the Companies Act 2006]’, and
    c) That the consequent submission by the Club of non-compliant Annual Accounts for those years placed the Club in breach of the P&S Rules."

Reading through the P&S rules in full shows that the "overspending" rules only make up part of the P&S rules (sections 2.6-2.9). The P&S rules also contains rules relating to the submission of accounts, effectively stating that they should be accurate, conform to accounting standard, and should be submitted on time. Is it possible that the EFL's issue might not be that the club have overspent, but solely that they believe the accounts are inaccurate? 

I ask this, because I read through the procedural defences for the second charge, which I only skimmed through the first time I read the report, and noticed that they don't discuss the "overspending" section of the P&S rules.

For example, the fifth procedural defence suggests that the EFL are only pursuing a charge for breach of P&S rule 2.2, which relates solely to the submission of annual accounts:
"The Club also contends that a further legitimate expectation on its part arose out of the Sanctioning Guidelines issued as ‘a statement of the maximum sanction the EFL Executive will seek in cases of breach of the P&S Rules’. In essence the Club’s case is that
    a) The Sanctioning Guidelines provide only for the EFL Executive to seek sanctions where a club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax exceed the ULT, and make no provision for the EFL Executive to seek sanctions for an alleged breach of P&S Rule 2.2
    b) The Sanctioning Guidelines are thus a representation, meeting the MFK test, that the EFL will not seek sanctions otherwise than where a club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax exceed the ULT 105
    c) Fairness requires the EFL to be kept that representation."

This argument was dismissed, but the essence of this section is the club's suggestion that they shouldn't have been charged as the P&S rules only allow for disciplinary procedures against clubs that overspend, not for any other P&S rule breaches. The panel ruled that this wasn't the case. This would suggest, though, that the alleged P&S rule breaches do not relate to an overspend, but solely issues with the submission of annual accounts.

Furthermore, P&S Rule 2.9, the rule that relates to "overspending", is only mentioned once in the second charge section of the document, mentioned in the sixth procedural defence only as a charge that the EFL might hypothetically bring:
"To invite the Club to address it on such matters makes these proceedings an abuse of process. Such matters, it is said, demonstrate that the real purpose behind the Second Charge was as a fishing expedition, to investigate whether there might be grounds for:
    iv) Initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Club for a further breach of P&S Rule 2.9."

So, with this in mind, is it the case that the charge isn't related to the club overspending, but purely related to submitting allegedly inaccurate or unsuitable accounts? If so, does anyone know what this would mean in terms of punishments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoyMac5

RoyMac5

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

That article is terribly written.

The word COULD is over used.

According to sources Derby could get a points deduction and could get relegated. Also, according to sources Derby could just get a fine. Ridiculous article.

Quote

The timescale on this remains unclear and sources say it could be that they escape with a fine for the breach of accountancy practice.

Well really?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...