EFL appeal

[NottsRam77]

12 minutes ago, JfR said:

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?

Another year in the championship ?

not a clue mate I was trying my best to read through that and make sense of it ... but it’s beat me ... not a clue I can’t even pretend I know to try and save face lol

[nottingram]

13 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.

Oh no, my article this morning was utter bobbins. How do I row back from that but still save face?

Of course, Derby won’t hand their accounts over! Even though the EFL would need to see their accounts to determine they’ll get the punishment I told everyone they’d get this morning!

[dcfcollie]

'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?' 

In a way yes. However the argument the EFL are then making is that if we had submitted the reports in what the EFL deem the proper way we would have been over the limit(without seeing the proper finances nobody really knows this for a fact though) which is what they will look to punish us for I guess

[desirelines]

 

[Ibby]

Alan Nixon

@reluctantnicko

Derby County. Hear EFL will reveal findings of their appeal in next 24 hours. Then it goes to charges and any appeal. Any points penalties will next season. As was case with Sheffield Wednesday. Interesting to see details ... key to all this and how hard they will be hit.

[Rammy03]

8 minutes ago, desirelines said:

 

Looking at the replies to that everyone wants us down. 

[wixman1884]

1 minute ago, Rammy03 said:

Looking at the replies to that everyone wants us down. 

how far the reputation of the club has fallen in the last 8 years

[Kernow]

2 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Looking at the replies to that everyone wants us down. 

Can you blame them? Especially if what is read by supporters of other clubs are just the endless negative articles written about us by various papers.

It wasn't so long ago that everyone was rooting for us in a play-off final over a "cheating" QPR. Now the tables have turned. There's always the animosity towards the clubs that have splashed the cash to get up but failed, rather than those who were successful as they stuck two fingers up to the rules on the way up.

Lots of praise for teams like Leicester, Villa, Wolves etc in recent seasons for how they've done in the Premier League, with very little mention that they bent the same, or similar rules as we have apparently broken to get there. They were successful with it, we weren't. We're the ones who are vilified.

[Abu Derby]

24 hours. Half of the usual period then. 

[Barney1991]

7 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

24 hours. Half of the usual period then. 

Can’t believe he has let us down and didn’t say in the next 48 hours. Does he not know we love a 48 hours the bell

[EdinRam]

11 minutes ago, Kernow said:

Can you blame them? Especially if what is read by supporters of other clubs are just the endless negative articles written about us by various papers.

It wasn't so long ago that everyone was rooting for us in a play-off final over a "cheating" QPR. Now the tables have turned. There's always the animosity towards the clubs that have splashed the cash to get up but failed, rather than those who were successful as they stuck two fingers up to the rules on the way up.

Lots of praise for teams like Leicester, Villa, Wolves etc in recent seasons for how they've done in the Premier League, with very little mention that they bent the same, or similar rules as we have apparently broken to get there. They were successful with it, we weren't. We're the ones who are vilified.

We have become a laughing stock and everyone's most hated team in the last couple of years. We've cheated is the bottom line of it.

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

Looking at other team’s forums and the heart warming responses on Twitter and the like makes you realise how people blindly lap up anything printed in the Daily Mail. No wonder we are stuck with Boris Johnson for the next 200 years. I had a read to check the number of modal verbs used in that badly written article and subsequently found another article that said our survival was ‘one of the most dismal sights of the weekend’.

I love the unbiased tone of that article. I am going to presume that Mel Morris has become friends with Jeremy Corbyn. I think it is the most likely explanation for this love affair they have developed with us, whilst conveniently ignoring all other transgressions, as pointed out elsewhere.

Personally I draw comfort from knowing that no matter how much that awful rag hates us, it will never be as much as I despise it and it’s bigoted, badly written divisive poo.

 

 

[Wolfie20]

1 minute ago, EdinRam said:

We have become a laughing stock and everyone's most hated team in the last couple of years. We've cheated is the bottom line of it.

Everyone's most hated team? Are you really being serious? Most fans of most clubs don't care a fig about us one way or another.

[EdinRam]

1 minute ago, Wolfie20 said:

Everyone's most hated team? Are you really being serious? Most fans of most clubs don't care a fig about us one way or another.

You'd be surprised, just go on twitter and read people's comments.

[NottsRam77]

14 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

Can’t believe he has let us down and didn’t say in the next 48 hours. Does he not know we love a 48 hours the bell

Or anything that’s “imminent” 

[B4ev6is]

Well I say we repail it and fight it thoot and nail we did nrothing wrong and efl signed it off and worse thing it is gibson behind it.

[G STAR RAM]

19 minutes ago, EdinRam said:

We have become a laughing stock and everyone's most hated team in the last couple of years. We've cheated is the bottom line of it.

Not in the eyes of the independent panel who had access to all of the relevant information though. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not in the eyes of the first independent panel who had access to all of the relevant information though. 

We have to see what the second one did............

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

We have to see what the second one did............

Lets be honest, its irrelevant.

Why would the second independent panel reach a different conclusion to the first. 

The first one wasn't even slightly close to finding DCFC and were completely damning of the EFL.

Why should the findings of the second one take precedence over the first one?

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Lets be honest, its irrelevant.

Why would the second independent panel reach a different conclusion to the first. 

The first one wasn't even slightly close to finding DCFC and were completely damning of the EFL.

Why should the findings of the second one take precedence over the first one?

beacuse the EFL appealed and have been breifing newspapers that they won.........................be interesting to see the actual verdict and what they concluded dufferently, if anything.