EFL appeal

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

So Alan Nixon who helped fan the flames of our demise and impending relegation with his reporting and vague tweets is now saying we were fine all along? 

he’s probably spent an hour or two reading the posts on here and worked out what the likely outcomes actually are. Don’t want to blow our own trumpet but seriously

[hintonsboots]

[Ghost of Clough]

On 14/05/2021 at 12:36, G STAR RAM said:

Our amortisation policy changed in 2015/16, so the period in question on the current charge is 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18.

Assume we can not be charged for the same thing twice. Dependent on the outcome, the EFL will probably request that we submit all accounts using the straight line method.

I would imagine it's a case of new P&S submissions for those three seasons rather than resubmitting the actual accounts.

In terms of amortisation, we were only charged with improper accounts. Presumably they know we wouldn't have failed P&S for the 3 years to 2018, otherwise they would have stated that in the charge like they did with the stadium.

[RadioactiveWaste]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I would imagine it's a case of new P&S submissions for those three seasons rather than resubmitting the actual accounts.

In terms of amortisation, we were only charged with improper accounts. Presumably they know we wouldn't have failed P&S for the 3 years to 2018, otherwise they would have stated that in the charge like they did with the stadium.

So presumably without selling pride park 18/19 would've been the reckoning, instead, Mel sold himself the stadium and bank roller lampard as one last great offensive before complete defeat.

 

[duncanjwitham]

46 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I would imagine it's a case of new P&S submissions for those three seasons rather than resubmitting the actual accounts.

In terms of amortisation, we were only charged with improper accounts. Presumably they know we wouldn't have failed P&S for the 3 years to 2018, otherwise they would have stated that in the charge like they did with the stadium.

 Or possibly they figured we’d fail anyway because of the stadium thing, and never actually checked the case where we win the first charge and lose (part of) the second?

[kevinhectoring]

On 15/05/2021 at 20:17, duncanjwitham said:

 Or possibly they figured we’d fail anyway because of the stadium thing, and never actually checked the case where we win the first charge and lose (part of) the second?

do you think the EFl would have tried to work out whether we'd fail if they won on charge 2? If I recall, 10 days before the first hearing  they hadn't even understood how we had actually done the amortisation. Not sure they would have the information they would need to run the numbers

[Ghost of Clough]

17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

do you think the EFl would have tried to work out whether we'd fail if they won on charge 2? If I recall, 10 days before the first hearing  they hadn't even understood how we had actually done the amortisation. Not sure they would have the information they would need to run the numbers

Iirc, they were provided with the numbers for each individual player. Any fool could have worked out a straight-line figure for each player with that information.

[Spanish]

On 15/05/2021 at 20:47, RadioactiveWaste said:

So presumably without selling pride park 18/19 would've been the reckoning, instead, Mel sold himself the stadium and bank roller lampard as one last great offensive before complete defeat.

 

well it wasn't to bank roll it it was to allow it to take place under P&S amongst other overdue amortizations

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

well it wasn't to bank roll it it was to allow it to take place under P&S amongst other overdue amortizations

The Lampard season was the last throw of the dice though. If Rowett had stayed we would have had something closer to Cocu's first season.

[Doubt it was anything to do with the stadium]

[Oldben]

I'm reading that the club could face a double points penalty next season.

That doesn't seem like something to worry about, the case precedent is Sheffield wednesday who received 12pts (not the only club to have received a 12pt penalty in the past), on appealing that it was reduced from 12pts to 6pts. 

Derby should have the opportunity to do similar.

Wycombe feel its unfair that Derby don't have that 12 point penalty applied immediately and they get to stay in the championship, while Derby are relegated.

Well Wycombe should look at Charlton who were relegated while Sheffield wednesday stayed up, that set precedent.

I think the efl appeal and any points deduction us not the clubs biggest concern, the strength of the team and the managers ability to win as many games as possible are the problem.

The need for an immediate take over of the club is a bigger issue.

 

[Taribo]

Irregardless of takeover money, aren't we still under embargo until this is all sorted out? how long do you reckon this'll drag on for??

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Taribo said:

Irregardless of takeover money, aren't we still under embargo until this is all sorted out? how long do you reckon this'll drag on for??

the accounts need to be filed as step 1

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

7 minutes ago, Oldben said:

I'm reading that the club could face a double points penalty next season.

That doesn't seem like something to worry about, the case precedent is Sheffield wednesday who received 12pts (not the only club to have received a 12pt penalty in the past), on appealing that it was reduced from 12pts to 6pts. 

Derby should have the opportunity to do similar.

Wycombe feel its unfair that Derby don't have that 12 point penalty applied immediately and they get to stay in the championship, while Derby are relegated.

Well Wycombe should look at Charlton who were relegated while Sheffield wednesday stayed up, that set precedent.

I think the efl appeal and any points deduction us not the clubs biggest concern, the strength of the team and the managers ability to win as many games as possible are the problem.

The need for an immediate take over of the club is a bigger issue.

 

Any points penalty is something to worry about and may ultimately lead to relegation.

[ram59]

9 minutes ago, Oldben said:

I'm reading that the club could face a double points penalty next season.

That doesn't seem like something to worry about, the case precedent is Sheffield wednesday who received 12pts (not the only club to have received a 12pt penalty in the past), on appealing that it was reduced from 12pts to 6pts. 

Derby should have the opportunity to do similar.

Wycombe feel its unfair that Derby don't have that 12 point penalty applied immediately and they get to stay in the championship, while Derby are relegated.

Well Wycombe should look at Charlton who were relegated while Sheffield wednesday stayed up, that set precedent.

I think the efl appeal and any points deduction us not the clubs biggest concern, the strength of the team and the managers ability to win as many games as possible are the problem.

The need for an immediate take over of the club is a bigger issue.

 

In all fairness to Wycombe, they have brought out a statement denying that they are considering any action regarding Derby getting a points deduction for 20/21 season. Good luck to them for next season.

[Gaspode]

18 minutes ago, Oldben said:

I'm reading that the club could face a double points penalty next season.

That doesn't seem like something to worry about, the case precedent is Sheffield wednesday who received 12pts (not the only club to have received a 12pt penalty in the past), on appealing that it was reduced from 12pts to 6pts. 

Derby should have the opportunity to do similar.

Wycombe feel its unfair that Derby don't have that 12 point penalty applied immediately and they get to stay in the championship, while Derby are relegated.

Well Wycombe should look at Charlton who were relegated while Sheffield wednesday stayed up, that set precedent.

I think the efl appeal and any points deduction us not the clubs biggest concern, the strength of the team and the managers ability to win as many games as possible are the problem.

The need for an immediate take over of the club is a bigger issue.

 

Where are you reading this?

[Ambitious]

I think the 'double points penalty' presumably relates to: FFP breach and possible administration. I can't imagine they would need to take more than 21 points off us, which is the maximum applicable for a club breaching FFP - if we have, actually, breached FFP. I guess we're under the assumption we have, but we're still non-the-wiser as some people have calculated we haven't. 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

29 minutes ago, Oldben said:

I'm reading that the club could face a double points penalty next season.

That doesn't seem like something to worry about, the case precedent is Sheffield wednesday who received 12pts (not the only club to have received a 12pt penalty in the past), on appealing that it was reduced from 12pts to 6pts. 

Derby should have the opportunity to do similar.

Wycombe feel its unfair that Derby don't have that 12 point penalty applied immediately and they get to stay in the championship, while Derby are relegated.

Well Wycombe should look at Charlton who were relegated while Sheffield wednesday stayed up, that set precedent.

I think the efl appeal and any points deduction us not the clubs biggest concern, the strength of the team and the managers ability to win as many games as possible are the problem.

The need for an immediate take over of the club is a bigger issue.

 

It all makes no bloody sense anyway.

If the EFL had raised concerns at the time people like Keiran Maguire and Steve Gibson were grassing us up all of this would have been sorted by now.

Derby would not have signed Bielik for 10 million had they known we were in trouble, wouldnt have signed Cocu onto a big contract etc etc.

The fact the EFL dismissed it all and then Rick Parry came in, opened up the historical book of claims and hand picked Derby and Sheff Weds for scrutiny just proves he wanted to shake the world of football by making examples of big clubs. Absolute 

 

 

[Woodley Ram]

2 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I think the 'double points penalty' presumably relates to: FFP breach and possible administration. I can't imagine they would need to take more than 21 points off us, which is the maximum applicable for a club breaching FFP - if we have, actually, breached FFP. I guess we're under the assumption we have, but we're still non-the-wiser as some people have calculated we haven't. 

You do wonder what the penalty is if we haven’t breached FFP monitory amounts. Also there is a difference between an illegal accounting practice and a bad one. I think we fall into the latter. I would have thought that an illegal practice would bring with it a big sanction and a bad one not much more than a slap on the wrist if it didn’t alter FFP

[RadioactiveWaste]

Could double points penalty mean 1 for the ammortisation policy (currently awaiting sentencing) then posible for the recalculated accounts being over limits?

Either way, we won on the stadium sale which was a pretty big part of it.

[Spanish]

16 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

It all makes no bloody sense anyway.

If the EFL had raised concerns at the time people like Keiran Maguire and Steve Gibson were grassing us up all of this would have been sorted by now.

Derby would not have signed Bielik for 10 million had they known we were in trouble, wouldnt have signed Cocu onto a big contract etc etc.

The fact the EFL dismissed it all and then Rick Parry came in, opened up the historical book of claims and hand picked Derby and Sheff Weds for scrutiny just proves he wanted to shake the world of football by making examples of big clubs. Absolute 

223) The Defence however fails on the facts: a) There was no representation by the EFL – express or implied, by words or conduct – that the Club’s Annual Accounts ‘were compliant with all the requirements of the P&S Rules’. Nor could the Club have possibly believed that the EFL was making a representation in such terms simply by acting as it did. The Club therefore fails to clear the first hurdle for establishing any legitimate expectation defence in respect of the Second Charge b) In any event, as the EFL contends, and as the Club accepts, its financial statements did not in reality accurately record or explain the Club’s amortisation policy. Even had we concluded that there had been clear and unequivocal representations to the effect alleged by the Club that were sufficient to give rise to a legitimate expectation, there would have been nothing unfair in the EFL departing from the same.

 

From the DC findings.