EFL appeal

[MrPlinkett]

1 minute ago, Pearl Ram said:

Right, have we been slippery or not ? Don’t want any “ well technically no as the EFL have moved the goalposts after the initial inquiry” type answers, just a straight yes or no please. 

Thank you.

 

You want a straight yes or no? while at it can you find out what happened to lord lucan and shergar.

[Pearl Ram]

7 minutes ago, MrPlinkett said:

You want a straight yes or no? while at it can you find out what happened to lord lucan and shergar.

You’re a funny guy. ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

6 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Right, have we been slippery or not ? Don’t want any “ well technically no as the EFL have moved the goalposts after the initial inquiry” type answers, just a straight yes or no please. 

Thank you.

 

In short, we have been slippery "a bit" and are getting pinned for "a bit" of that.

The DCFC side will probably go to their grave believing "I've done nothin wrang!!!!!" the Steve Gibson/EFL/general football public (who got fed the Gibson/EFL side of the argument) will forever believe "Derby County are the worst cheaters ever and got away with it" despite us having a. not got away with it and b. not been nearly as bad as some of the shills would have you believe.

One thing to bare in mind, the stadium sale charge was in our favor and not appealed - so we can count that and that does significantly reduce the maximum of potential poo we might be in.

[Ken Tram]

5 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

So as far as I can tell, it seems to be related to this:

Pope basically argued that since we couldn't *guarantee* we could sell a player, we had to assume (for accounting purposes) that the player would potentially never be sold.  The question then is, does that completely undermine our ERV model (since if there's no guarantee of a sale at some point, you have to do a straight-line amortization)?  And if it does, are they going to force us to recalculate (and potentially fail) P&S for the years in question? 

 

Thank you for pasting that paragraph.

Maybe it means ... that we have evidence of a particular player (or players) having refused to agree genuine terms ... preventing a sale.

Rather than maybe ... Derby trying to apply this thinking to all players ... which, to me, would seem like a flagrant abuse of the rules, undermining the whole system - and bound to be covered by some catchall rule! (Although I read somewhere that we do things like the Premier League clubs, in the main, but maybe not in this instance.)

I also read into that section that the EFL argued (but not very robustly) that it is having a player (consumption?) that requires them to be accounted for properly - and not whether or not the player can actually be sold (disposal?).

And the quote mentioned sections 2.17, 18.22 and 18.26 of FRS 102 -whatever that is! What do people think these sections say about "consumption" and "disposal"?

Edited May 11, 2021 by Ken Tram

[Spanish]

12 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Right, have we been slippery or not ? Don’t want any “ well technically no as the EFL have moved the goalposts after the initial inquiry” type answers, just a straight yes or no please. 

Thank you.

 

We pushed the envelope because we overspent and couldn’t afford the straight line amortisation.  The weak EFL rules allowed us to do it.  However it was obvious that we were in trouble and this is a dog eat dog world particularly in football and we were never going to get away with it.  Spending big on butterfield and BJ and getting nothing back will have undermined our methodology.  

[Jimbo Ram]

16 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Right, have we been slippery or not ? Don’t want any “ well technically no as the EFL have moved the goalposts after the initial inquiry” type answers, just a straight yes or no please. 

Thank you.

 

Er...well technically....

[Ken Tram]

5 hours ago, DanS1992 said:

...

Ignore this quote

4 hours ago, MrPlinkett said:

Also so we cant appeal the decision to find us guilty but we can appeal any sanction, which i assume we will do if we receive any.

Now I need to go back and check the statements.

Were we found guilty at appeal ... or was it that the EFL successfully argued that particular rules should have been applied ... and were those rules actually applied to the original charge during the appeal ... or is it now going back to the original panel to reconsider the previously ignored evidence ... or has the appeal panel done that ... meaning that all the original panel has to do now is determine any sanction, relying upon the appeal panel's assessment of the evidence ... or is it going to a completely different panel altogether, Which had the function of setting any such sanctions?

Edited May 11, 2021 by Ken Tram

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

21 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Right, have we been slippery or not ? Don’t want any “ well technically no as the EFL have moved the goalposts after the initial inquiry” type answers, just a straight yes or no please. 

Thank you.

 

No. In the face of an uneven playing field in the form of grossly unfair parachute payments we have been creative in competing. 

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

No. In the face of an uneven playing field in the form of grossly unfair parachute payments we have been creative in competing. 

Not a great defence in all honesty

[Ramtastic ones]

All this talk about retrospective retribution going around, with penalties applied to this season is rubbish. If its retrospective it needs to be applied to the season when the transgression occurred, not when the efl got its act together. And if we're in to retrospective penalties less see them for the breaches of FFP by Wolves and Leeds in their promotion season. 

Personally, I'd take retrospective to the relevant season - we finished top 10 each year, failed to get promoted, so just as there were no real benefits there will be no real penalty. 

[Pearl Ram]

1 minute ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

No. In the face of an uneven playing field in the form of grossly unfair parachute payments we have been creative in competing. 

Well we are not a special case. 19 other clubs have to contend with those newly relegated teams as well and if they didn’t have to “get creative” then really, neither should we. 

I’m beginning to wonder why Roy Mac shook that Steven Pearce’s hand after the Wednesday game in a congratulatory manner when it looks to me like he ain’t as clever as he likes to think he is and is complicit in all this baalocks.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Well we are not a special case. 19 other clubs have to contend with those newly relegated teams as well and if they didn’t have to “get creative” then really, neither should we. 

I’m beginning to wonder why Roy Mac shook that Steven Pearce’s hand after the Wednesday game in a congratulatory manner when it looks to me like he ain’t as clever as he likes to think he is and is complicit in all this baalocks.

Yeah, Steve Pearce does not come out of any of this looking particually good either in his capacity for DCFC or being on the EFL board.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Well we are not a special case. 19 other clubs have to contend with those newly relegated teams as well and if they didn’t have to “get creative” then really, neither should we. 

I’m beginning to wonder why Roy Mac shook that Steven Pearce’s hand after the Wednesday game in a congratulatory manner when it looks to me like he ain’t as clever as he likes to think he is and is complicit in all this baalocks.

We did it to try and compete at the top where Derby County fans in the main expect us to be. The thought of midtable mediocrity doesn't excite me much. As such I'm not criticising Mel Morris with hindsight. 

[Ken Tram]

4 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

Assuming we ARE allowed to appeal the penalty imposed, then this I would guess is why any points reduction cannot be applied this season* as you could not be unrelegated with a successful appeal and then we are all back in the courts asking for huge compensation for being in the wrong division.

*Assuming usual glacial pace that EFL do anything. Personally can’t see why it could not all be done in a couple of weeks.

Could any sanction be appealed?

Are there different types of appeal?

Appealing matters of "law" and appealing sanctions?

Maybe, both sides gets one chance to identify a significant misinterpretation of the rules - and then get a last chance to argue their position.

And then, guilt or otherwise, has been determined.

But, then there is the sanction - and perhaps that can be challenged too if there are grounds that the reasoning for determining a sanction were flawed.

To take a crass example, if the panel said, "We are imposing the maximum sanction, because Derby have broken the rules three times in a row," we could challenge it because the breach was wrongly being seen to cover as the separate breeches. 

Presumably, because errors in sentencing can occur, the process would include the ability to correct errors.

Or maybe not!

[Ken Tram]

4 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

My reading of the 2 staements (EFL vs DCFC) based on zero knowledge of the actually facts:

The EFL needed a win for it's own credibility as much as anything else and are being pretty triumphalist about it.

DCFC also needed a win to get out of the poo.

The result is actually somewhere in between. It's a qualified win for the EFL, but given the orginal panel's pretty scathing verdict of the EFL's case, I don't think they will be inclined to go all guns blazing at us, especially as the part that the appeal overturned was one the original panel were detailed in why they found in our favor.

It's a win for the EFL, but not the big one they want everyone to believe. There's going to be some consiquences for DCFC, but yet to see what. Almost certainly won't be applied this season.

Maybe this is why they were leaking so much! People will remember the hype about Derby being guilty ... but not the birthing stories about a partial breach.

Thanks, EFL.

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Ken Tram said:

Maybe this is why they were leaking so much! People will remember the hype about Derby being guilty ... but not the birthing stories about a partial breach.

Thanks, EFL.

Yeah, that's how I see it. Just my view though.

[Ken Tram]

4 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

Sounds like sod all to me anyway having read carefully through that statement. I don't think anything will happen, it will certainly not be this season. Maybe a fine or just a slap on the wrist. 

Interestingly, if it was the EFL throwing teddies out of the pram because Mel annoyed them, and if he's gone by then, the sanction might even be less. 

[JfR]

38 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

He clearly likes the sound of his own voice and is clearly making a name for himself out of this.

The crazy thing is, he openly admitted he was the one who wrote to the EFL and flagged up our accounting practices. The EFL dismissed his concerns and Maguire wrote back again and insisted they looked into it.

Derby fans and the media should be blocking him out best they can, he is not on our side in the slightest.

It has to be said, though, that him ratting on us might ultimately be in our favour. He said he wrote to them in June 2018. The EFL didn't raise any concerns about this until they charged us in January 2020. The EFL accepted accounts using the unusual amortisation method between those dates. The EFL having knowledge of the amortisation method at such an early date but doing nothing about it may be an argument to reduce any potential punishment that the committee chooses to hand down.

[strawhillram]

9 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Could any sanction be appealed?

Are there different types of appeal?

Appealing matters of "law" and appealing sanctions?

Maybe, both sides gets one chance to identify a significant misinterpretation of the rules - and then get a last chance to argue their position.

And then, guilt or otherwise, has been determined.

But, then there is the sanction - and perhaps that can be challenged too if there are grounds that the reasoning for determining a sanction were flawed.

To take a crass example, if the panel said, "We are imposing the maximum sanction, because Derby have broken the rules three times in a row," we could challenge it because the breach was wrongly being seen to cover as the separate breeches. 

Presumably, because errors in sentencing can occur, the process would include the ability to correct errors.

Or maybe not!

Wendies appealed and got their reduction reduced from 12 to 6

[Ken Tram]

4 hours ago, DCFC27 said:

I personally feel there needs to be independent regulation over the transfers and how they are funded, clubs should put together a budget send to a league regulator that approves the budget, based on the individual club and its income. Derby should be able to spend more than Rotherham, because Derby generate more income via their turnstiles etc. The EFL should take a look at Derby’s projected income and say okay Derby you can spend £10million this season as that is what you can afford, even if your owner pulls out,  You’ll be okay. 
They’ll then do the same with Rotherham, and they’ll give them a budget. If Rotherham suddenly get a massive financial takeover, they might want to spend more and the League could look at ways to allow them to spend more but protect the club by putting in measures to ensure that the owner can’t just leave and put the club into admin. 
 

FFP just doesn’t work. It’s failed. It’s allowed clubs to go bust. 

How does that encourage the owners of football clubs to pump cash into the system?