EFL appeal

[therams69]

19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

One of our players getting pissed up, injuring himself and rendering himself useless is bad management? How?

I never said that was bad management did I? Clearly he needed to be dealt with...

I said it was bad management sacking him. This needed to be watertight and clearly wasn't, however, clearly we took the risk and we are now paying for it. This isn't your standard workplace mistake of perhaps a few thousand, we are talking 2.3m. A huge oversight. 

Hardly surprising though considering we had already got it wrong with Sam and paid him off. God knows how much that was. Mel was intent from day 1 in sacking Keogh and as I have eluded to before, he always gets his way because he has no one around him to challenge him. Unless of course you think this would be coming out his personal pocket, in which case I have no issue. But if this is coming out the clubs coffers then yes its bad management. Obviously.

[therams69]

6 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Question is, is getting in to a car when drunk, but not driving, a sackable offence? Seems like it is not. I always thought the punishments were the wrong way around right from the start. Mason and Tom are the ones who should have been sacked and Keogh suspended....

Other mitigating circumstances surround this night. It was a club night out for one not just a player piss up. I dont know how much responsibility is laid on the team captain. You would expect some though as you would in any other industry.

Let's be honest if he had sacked Tom he would have wiped off 5 / 10 m or whatever we value him at and this in turn would have made further problems with this accounting policy. Clear to see why he was never sacked. Mason on the other hand......

[Ken Tram]

7 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

It annoys me Kieran Maguire gets so much air time from Derby media sources.

He was the one who complained to the EFL about our accounting practices. Why? What was it to him?

We are in this mess partly, if not largely, down to him.

I was about to ask who is Keiran McGuire, and I Googled him. He seems to be a journalist, and his Wikipedia page shows him on the BBC.

Please don't tell me this is all about the EFL submitting the appeal to pander to the media - coming on top of lots of posts not understanding why the EFL have done what they have done.

(Anyway back to page 62, while I try to catch up!)

[duncanjwitham]

32 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

A value (ERV) is assigned to a player for the start of the final season. It is then a straight line from when they sign to that ERV. the remaining amount is amortised in the final season. Contract extensions mean setting a new ERV and adjust the straight line to suit (current period in time to ERV)

I understood it to be the opposite.  We assess the ERV of every player every 6 months, up until the point we decide they have no resale value, they then amortize down to zero in a straight-line over the rest of their contract.  So for some players, that would be from day 1 because we never intend selling them (Curtis Davies and Huddlestone, for example), others it would be when they hit a certain age (Waghorn maybe) or when they got injured (George Thorne's second injury maybe).  When a player hits the final year of their contract, they will be added to the no-resale-value list if they aren't on it already, because they can leave on a free.

 

31 minutes ago, Spanish said:

More specifically, the panel determined that the Club’s policy was not in accordance with accounting standard FRS102 because it failed to accurately reflect the manner in which the Club takes the benefit of player registrations over the lifetime of a player’s contract.

If one was being facetious, you could easily read that as the EFL saying "you keep saying you intend on selling players, but then sign a bunch of 30 year olds, play them out of position, sack the manager that signed them and then pay them to go away"...

[Tamworthram]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Ive not read it like that.

Surely the DC will have to revisit the situation but this time taking Professor Popes evidence into account?

If we are then found guilty of the original charge there will be punishment?

Unless I am completely misinterpreting things?

I read it that is only being referred back to the DC in order to determine what, if any punishment there should be. Not to decide if we’re guilty or not:

The Club and the EFL have agreed that the matter shall now be remitted back to the original DC who can determine what, if any, consequences arise from the partial success of the EFL’s Amortisation charge, and the Club is therefore currently unable to comment further.

[Ken Tram]

5 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

 

And of course, the EFL are probably giving embargoed judgements to the media - maybe.

With the media joining in with farce, saying, "It is suspected that ...," - because the EFL want to manage their communication, and the impression that they make - even though the media will misuse the information.

If not, why was information being leaked?

[cool_as_custard]

Quite succinct summary of the EFL ruling:-

The arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of UK accountancy law. And that is being referred back to the original commission (including the accountant), who went into a fair amount of detail about why UK accountancy law had not been broken, to decide on a punishment for the club. Makes no sense.

[Apologies to Paul Ludditt who I nicked this off on Twitter]

[bimmerman]

I don't understand it...

 

 

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, cool_as_custard said:

Quite succinct summary of the EFL ruling:-

The arbitration panel (with no accountancy expertise) rules that the commission (which includes an accountant) was wrong on a point of UK accountancy law. And that is being referred back to the original commission (including the accountant), who went into a fair amount of detail about why UK accountancy law had not been broken, to decide on a punishment for the club. Makes no sense.

[Apologies to Paul Ludditt who I nicked this off on Twitter]

Absolutely ridiculous.

The appeal panel had no accounting expert so it has to go back to the panel that did originally who found us not guilty.

 

All this  furor caused by that is incredible if not brainless .

To be honest I find it incredulous.

 

 

[Ken Tram]

5 hours ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Probably been posted before but the below quote is from the original decision document. It makes sense that we haven’t filed any accounts since the ones under scrutiny because their claim was that we breached the rules just by filing the accounts with the ERV method of amortisation, as opposed to straight line amortisation. Had we submitted accounts for 2018/19 and 2019/20 and continued to use that method, and they won their appeal, as appears to be the case, we would likely also be in further trouble for that.

It also doesn’t mention breaching spending limits as a part of this charge, it was part of the first charge which we won and they didn’t appeal, so I’d have thought that would have to be a new charge, if we have breached the £39m limit on submission of restated accounts, a new decision panel, and surely therefore the ability to appeal any decision?

@Ghost of Clough has already mentioned, when you alter the amortisation, it may also alter the profit made on certain players. Off the top of my head this might affect the transfers of Ince, Vydra and Weimann, the first 2 could be quite a significant profit difference if their ERV at time of sale was high in the accounts submitted. I don’t know if Kieran Maguire has factored this into his figures.

The original forecast losses mentioned for the accounts not yet submitted in the decision document would also change. Partly because if players weren’t able to be sold for their ERV, then the difference between the ERV and zero was to be amortised in the final year, where with the straight line method this would be much smaller in that final year. Partly because it depends whether we were carrying on with the ERV method of amortisation for the players acquired after 2017/18, if yes, then their amortisation would have been low in the early years, if not, then it would be higher anyway.

Another thing, if we have gone over for any of the years between 2015/16 and 2017/18, once punishment is handed out, those years should be reset to the maximum for each year over the limit shouldn’t they? So £13m max for each one, I think that’s what happened before with Birmingham, so you’re not punished for that same year being over the limit twice, as it is included in every set of 3 years (now 4 with covid counting 2019/20 and 2020/21 as one) whether it is year 1, 2 or 3.

I have Googled "ERV", and the only reference is this thread. So, although I am tempted to ask what it is ... 

... for threads like this - we cannot expect people to explain the same things again and again, every two or three pages.

Duty for trusting myself ... but we almost need a thread manager who can keep track of key posts, and keep a summary up to date that quotes key posts, perhaps enabling a summary page - or even enabling the initial original post to be amended, with quotes from the key posts underneath it. Or something. That way, people could always go to the first post for all of the summary. Or something.

I don't have the will to search for "ERV", or to go through 60+ pages.

I'm still on page 65 of 76.

[SecretDave]

I just hope that whilst we've got this back and forth going on before a final decision is made that we're not under more transfer embargos. We need to act quickly this summer to get some good players in - we can't leave things until the last minute this time.

[DCFC27]

51 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

But that is not what you said.

Out of interest how were they going to pay off the £15m mortgage when it fell due?

And who was going to fund the annual losses?

People seem to have a very hazy memory about this period but the voices against these being the kind of custodians we wanted for our club were growing louder by the day.

Would GSE have kept the 2013/14 squad together? I have my doubts.

So my understanding is that GSE sold the club Debt free to Mel. But even if I concede that, mortgages aren’t just due at some point in time you generally pay in instalments and you even refinance them if you wish as you go along. 
I have just taken a look at some of the losses and generally as a football club your not looking to make a profit and generally this looks like clever accounting rather than the type of losses were making now on massive wages and transfer fees. Let’s put it this way, we didn’t look like we might not pay the wages.
 

To be honest I don’t see that as a bad thing, we should have been selling our players at peak value and replacing with new players. 

At their peak what were these players worth vs what we sold them for, we only got peak value for Hendrick.

Hughes 

Hendrick 

Bryson

Martin 

Keogh 

Fozzy 

We got 2 fees for these players, collectively worth maybe £40million at their peak. 
 

We have to learn to sell and buy at the right time Burnley, Brentford, Norwich all sell their best players when a good offer comes in and replace with quality. 
We just focused on ins without a thought for outs. 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

Just now, SecretDave said:

I just hope that whilst we've got this back and forth going on before a final decision is made that we're not under more transfer embargos. We need to act quickly this summer to get some good players in - we can't leave things until the last minute this time.

Agreed. That problem has a number of contributing factors, one of which is the outcome of this and the other is the fact that we need new owners.

It's a reet mess.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Agreed. That problem has a number of contributing factors, one of which is the outcome of this and the other is the fact that we need new owners.

It's a reet mess.

We don’t need new owners we have good existing owners who are being pilloried for no reason. 
 

 

 

[strawhillram]

10 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Absolutely ridiculous.

The appeal panel had no accounting expert so it has to go back to the panel that did originally who found us not guilty.

 

All this  furor caused by that is incredible if not brainless .

To be honest I find it incredulous.

 

 

The prolonged delay might have helped and actually saved us a points deduction and relegation this season

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

That would be my assumption. Otherwise it would mean a panel with accountancy expertise, adjudicating on accounts that have been cleared by auditors, would give priority over their own expertise and that of auditors, to a new panel with zero accountancy expertise. That’s why I think this makes no sense. To levy a large punishment (or any punishment really) would mean accepting that their original ruling was incorrect as determined by non-experts. 

Reading the official website again, our take seems to be that we were found guilty on a “error in law” by the DC rejecting the evidence of Professor Pope.

The LAP (lawyers) concluded that the DC panel was wrong to dismiss the League’s expert accountancy evidence. 

So it could be that the DC panel now consider Pope’s evidence and still say ‘no problem here’. Both sides will be able to put representations to the original panel about what the sanction should be.

Edited May 11, 2021 by RoyMac5

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, StrawHillRam said:

The prolonged delay might have helped and actually saved us a points deduction and relegation this season

They have no grounds for a points deduction we are not guilty of anything .
 

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

The weird thing is the certainty from the EFL and seemingly everyone else in the game is that we are wrong and must be seen to be wrong.

Oh well, never mind, what will be will be. I expect Derby will fight their corner again.

[kevinhectoring]

23 minutes ago, bimmerman said:

I don't understand it...

 

 

You’re not supposed to. Too much spin 

[G STAR RAM]

52 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Question is, is getting in to a car when drunk, but not driving, a sackable offence? Seems like it is not. I always thought the punishments were the wrong way around right from the start. Mason and Tom are the ones who should have been sacked and Keogh suspended....

With him being on a works night out and having refused the offer of a taxi home I would say it was gross misconduct and brought the club into disrepute.

Just my opinion though and by no means a comment on employment law.