EFL appeal

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

Hi corny

not sure about whetehr thay signed off on the policy because if so it was ignored for the tribunal;

While the Club did purport to disclose the change in its approach to the amortisation of player registrations in the Notes to its Financial Statements for the years after the financial year ended 30 June 2015, the disclosures made were, as we have found, at the very least ambiguous and in reality incomplete and inaccurate; they did not reflect the realities or substance of what we have found to be the true nature and extent of the Club’s changed amortisation policy. The Club effectively accepted as much – Mr Delve accepted that, had he picked up the (accepted) ambiguity in the Notes, he would have required the Club to change the Notes to explicitly refer to the changes and the new approach. He thus accepted that the Notes in the financial statements for the years to which the Second Charge relates were inadequate

Yes. So the issue is about adequately disclosing the details of the amortisation policy in the accounts and to the EFL. The original hearing concluded that the policy (once detailed) was acceptable.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

42 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I thought this 'appeal' had nothing to do with the stadium but to do with the fact we had not been clear (they are trying to say misleading) about our amortisation policy. 

I have a feeling that if found guilty (and that wouldn't surprise me) then we get no more than a slap on the wrist and yellow card, I'm not sure what more they can do.

I don't know about you lot just want to get this and the ownership issue out of the way and crack on with building for next season. I think the transfer window will be exciting this year, lots of comings and goings

Immediately start burrowing through the next set of accounts. We'll probably get a point deduction at some time but realistically that means we might need to win 20 games from 46. On any given season that's more than our average.

My annoyance with this and always has been that a team with 10,000 through the gate on a good day like Bournemouth can have 60 million quid of players on the pitch and a wage bill that will probably run at 2-3 million per player but that's ok. 

Spend what you want as long as you are willing to service it.

[Spanish]

55 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yes. So the issue is about adequately disclosing the details of the amortisation policy in the accounts and to the EFL. The original hearing concluded that the policy (once detailed) was acceptable.

They are appealing the second charge but what isn’t clear is whether they are appealing the penalty for the guilty verdict on #5 or appealing the whole of the charge?  Do you have anything?

[CornwallRam]

49 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Nicholsons piece in the DET. - Direct from the sun. It' well known by the entire planet the charge regarding the ground sale HAS NOT been appealed.  And what has the size of debt got to do with this charge anyway.  If Morris used the ground sale to service debt or light a bonfire it has no relevance at all. The charge related to the value not what it was spent on.

It says the dispute centres on the size of Derby’s debts and using the sale of their Pride Park stadium to cover those losses, as well as anomalies in the ‘transfer values’ of players.

When the local journalist is reporting such nonsense I struggle to see the point of his job 

It does seem a bit odd. The appeal is strictly limited to the 2nd charge and no new evidence can be introduced. As far as the stadium sale goes, it is irrelevant to the appeal.

The slightly worrying thing is that the EFL reserve their right to revisit any previous decision. I believe that this means they can still bring fresh charges based on the stadium valuation, so the whole process could begin again -  but that's a different thing to the current appeal.

I suppose there exists the possibility that they have again charged us with the stadium thing, the verdict has been delivered and there is a fresh appeal - all without it becoming public knowledge, but that's about as likely as the Queen being a lizard. 

[Spanish]

Just now, CornwallRam said:

It does seem a bit odd. The appeal is strictly limited to the 2nd charge and no new evidence can be introduced. As far as the stadium sale goes, it is irrelevant to the appeal.

The slightly worrying thing is that the EFL reserve their right to revisit any previous decision. I believe that this means they can still bring fresh charges based on the stadium valuation, so the whole process could begin again -  but that's a different thing to the current appeal.

I suppose there exists the possibility that they have again charged us with the stadium thing, the verdict has been delivered and there is a fresh appeal - all without it becoming public knowledge, but that's about as likely as the Queen being a lizard. 

We have to be safe on the first charge, independent valuation, they would sue the a off them if they hinted at a lack of professionalism.

[CornwallRam]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

They are appealing the second charge but what isn’t clear is whether they are appealing the penalty for the guilty verdict on #5 or appealing the whole of the charge?  Do you have anything?

From the EFL site - 

The EFL Board has determined that the League will appeal against the outcome of an independent Disciplinary Commission in respect of misconduct charges brought against Derby County.

The appeal is specific to the second charge only, which considered the Club’s policy regarding the amortisation of intangible assets.

There will be no further comment at this time.

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/september/efl-statement-Derby-county/

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, CornwallRam said:

From the EFL site - 

The EFL Board has determined that the League will appeal against the outcome of an independent Disciplinary Commission in respect of misconduct charges brought against Derby County.

The appeal is specific to the second charge only, which considered the Club’s policy regarding the amortisation of intangible assets.

There will be no further comment at this time.

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/september/efl-statement-Derby-county/

I know that but I sense some feel he appeal is based on 2.5 when I am not so sure, it could be on the whole of 2.  This would be odd given the effort the tribunal took to assess it against accountancy standards

[MrPlinkett]

1 minute ago, CornwallRam said:

From the EFL site - 

The EFL Board has determined that the League will appeal against the outcome of an independent Disciplinary Commission in respect of misconduct charges brought against Derby County.

The appeal is specific to the second charge only, which considered the Club’s policy regarding the amortisation of intangible assets.

There will be no further comment at this time.

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/september/efl-statement-Derby-county/

I knew it was taking a long time but didnt realise it was September.

Criminal really, dont know if its down to the EFL or the Independent panel, either way surely its incompetence.  I actually wonder if the EFL have dragged their feet as they probably felt we were safe at the time the deadline was passed, thinking they were being clever and would dock us next season. Had we been closer to the bottom 3 then maybe the result would have been announced sooner, if indeed its a points deduction.

[CornwallRam]

11 minutes ago, Spanish said:

I know that but I sense some feel he appeal is based on 2.5 when I am not so sure, it could be on the whole of 2.  This would be odd given the effort the tribunal took to assess it against accountancy standards

Why would the EFL appeal 2.5? That's the bit were found 'guilty' of. We could have appealed that just to fully clear our name (although a pretty pointless distraction), but not the EFL. 

I've never heard of the prosecution appealing a guilty verdict.

[JfR]

1 minute ago, CornwallRam said:

Why would the EFL appeal 2.5? That's the bit were found 'guilty' of. We could have appealed that just to fully clear our name (although a pretty pointless distraction), but not the EFL. 

I've never heard of the prosecution appealing a guilty verdict.

They have appealed decisions previously where they thought that the punishment was too light. As we only really got a talking to for 2.5, it's possible that that's the case here, but I do think it's more likely that it's the entirety of the second charge.

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Why would the EFL appeal 2.5? That's the bit were found 'guilty' of. We could have appealed that just to fully clear our name (although a pretty pointless distraction), but not the EFL. 

I've never heard of the prosecution appealing a guilty verdict.

because it was too light

[hintonsboots]

What is the point of an independent disciplinary commission, if it’s decisions aren’t final and binding ?

[B4ev6is]

Well they lost twice this be third time and that gibson spitting his dummy out again.

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

What is the point of an independent disciplinary commission, if it’s decisions aren’t final and binding ?

depends which side of the decision you find yourself on i suppose.  Appeals are a basic legal right

[Indy]

I think it should be made public if the EFL’s appeal means we are under a soft transfer embargo. If so, then that risks torpedoing our preparations regardless of the outcome of the appeal anyway. 

[ck-]

49 minutes ago, Spanish said:

depends which side of the decision you find yourself on i suppose.  Appeals are a basic legal right

I’d suggest that in this case, the right of appeal should only be allowed for the charged party if found guilty. 
For the EFL, if their rules are so unclear that:

1) a club is able to misinterpret them

2) an independent tribunal is satisfied that the club acted reasonably 

then the correct action is for the EFL to show some humility, to admit they got it wrong, and to focus all their efforts on changing the rules/guidance to be clearer. 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yes. So the issue is about adequately disclosing the details of the amortisation policy in the accounts and to the EFL. The original hearing concluded that the policy (once detailed) was acceptable.

Sorry, said this before. Still worried about this despite all the posts saying the efl does not have a leg to stand on. EFL’s view may be: the disclosure of change in policy was inadequate. And we think it was inadequate because the club didn’t want us to focus on the change because the club didn’t want us to challenge it. The harsh interpretation is that the accounts were intentionally misleading because they underplayed the change in policy.  
 

Also, the suggestion in the Sun that the EFL has decided to delay publication of the judgement/sanction until after season’s end has a ring of truth about it. I think it’s what they did w Wendies last season 

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

because it was too light

I wouldn't put my life on it, but I don't think they settled on a punishment. That is the next stage.

[CornwallRam]

44 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think it should be made public if the EFL’s appeal means we are under a soft transfer embargo. If so, then that risks torpedoing our preparations regardless of the outcome of the appeal anyway. 

We're under an embargo for not submitting our accounts anyway, so it's pretty academic at this point.

[1967RAMS]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

We have to be safe on the first charge, independent valuation, they would sue the a off them if they hinted at a lack of professionalism.

Not true. They can easily appoint their own valuation team and act on their findings if they differ. The true value is the ground it sits on. Who would buy a 2 nd hand football ground???? It’s only worth for a potential buyer is to knock it down and construct retail/offices or flats. The first 2 have zero demand, so flats it is. Probably around 5-10 million quid tops