EFL appeal

[Curtains]

Just now, BramcoteRam84 said:

I’m seeing talk of points deductions and the EFL wanting to implement them this season. From chatter On here yesterday we seem pretty confident that despite having to change our amortisation policy we would still be within the £39m limit and if that’s the case we won’t get any deduction. Am I missing something? 

You are missing the fact that the EFL want to scapegoat Derby County .

 

[BramcoteRam84]

2 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Trevor Birch was apparently the CEO of our club in 2007 for a very short period. I genuinely can't remember him, or what happened, but perhaps he's got an axe to grind against Mel and/or the club. He came in the summer of 2007 (after our promotion) and left in October 2007 (when it was apparent we were poo). I'd imagine he left when Adam Pearson became chairman? I'm not sure, but Mel would've been on the board when he was appointed CEO. 

Someone on here said he fell out with the poisonous odious extremely short Scottish manager we had around that time.

[BramcoteRam84]

2 minutes ago, Curtains said:

You are missing the fact that the EFL want to scapegoat Derby County .

 

True, but if we’ve not actually committed any breach worthy of a points deduction how can they deduct points, unless they pursue the deliberately misleading them line - but even the latest panel said we acted truthfully and honestly

[Indy]

40 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I mean the rules of the trial process.  We seemingly didn't realise that we *had* to have an expert argue our corner or we were basically guaranteed to lose on this aspect.

Like I said, if we didn't know that we needed an expert witness at the time, then we didn't understand the rules of the game we were playing.

I've just checked back on the report from the original decision. We were offered the chance to seek an adjournment for the second charge, to prepare our case better, and chose not to.  Lack of preparation is entirely on us.

We also didn’t know that their witness would try and make a case that the accounts were not compliant. Given that the accounts had been audited and cleared, and the witness’s evidence including saying things like the disposal of assets shouldn’t be included (when the regulations clearly state they can), then I’m not sure why we would think we needed to prepare to counter claims that are obviously wrong. 
 

The original commission, with accountancy expertise, thought the same thing which is why they dismissed his evidence. 

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Someone on here said he fell out with the poisonous odious extremely short Scottish manager we had around that time.

Birch may yet be our saving grace .

Heard he is a good guy 

[RandomAccessMemory]

Just now, BramcoteRam84 said:

I’m seeing talk of points deductions and the EFL wanting to implement them this season. From chatter On here yesterday we seem pretty confident that despite having to change our amortisation policy we would still be within the £39m limit and if that’s the case we won’t get any deduction. Am I missing something? 

I don’t think so.

It seems to be up to the original IDC to decide what happens next, what ‘punishment’ there should be for the second and fifth particulars of the second charge.

From https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/ this could be pretty much anything.

Quote

92 Decisions 

92.1  The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined. 

92.2  A decision may:

92.2.1  order a party to do or refrain from doing anything; 

92.2.2  order a specific performance; 

92.2.3  make a declaration on any matter to be determined; 

92.2.4  issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party; 

92.2.5  order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person; 

92.2.6  order a suspension of membership of The League; 

92.2.7  order a deduction of points; 

92.2.8  impose a financial penalty payable to The League; 

92.2.9  recommend expulsion from membership of The League; 

92.2.10  order a withdrawal or loss of benefit otherwise available to members of The League e.g. basic award or ladder payment; 

92.2.11  impose an embargo on registration of Players; 

92.2.12  order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit; and 

92.2.13  order that interest be payable on any sums awarded under this Regulation for such period and at such rates as the Disciplinary Commission thinks fit. 

92.3  These sanctions may be imposed immediately or may be deferred or suspended for such period and on such terms as the Disciplinary Commission shall decide. 

92.4  At any time a Disciplinary Commission may determine (either of its own accord or as a result of representations from a person, Club or club and in any event in its sole discretion) that if the complaint is upheld, it may wish to exercise the power under Regulation 92.2.5 to award compensation. If the Disciplinary Commission so determines, it shall notify the parties to the proceedings and the potential recipient(s) of this fact. The Disciplinary Commission may then make appropriate directions as to the receipt of evidence of loss from the relevant recipient(s) as well as directions on the receipt of evidence in response from the parties to the proceedings.

92.5  The Disciplinary Commission shall have the power to abridge the time period set out in Regulation 94.3 (time limits for appeal) if there is a compelling reason why the appeal (if any) needs to be concluded expeditiously. 

92.6  Any financial sanction and any order for costs shall be paid to The League within 14 days of the date on which the sanction or costs were imposed. Any compensation shall be paid in accordance with the order of the Disciplinary Commission.

 

[Curtains]

16 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

True, but if we’ve not actually committed any breach worthy of a points deduction how can they deduct points, unless they pursue the deliberately misleading them line - but even the latest panel said we acted truthfully and honestly

I don’t think the DC will recommended a points deduction myself. 
 

The Derby lawyers will see to that as the appeal verdict is far too ambiguous and the EFL never had an accountant  at the appeal.

Thats my opinion and view for what it’s worth 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Curtains
Altered

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I don’t think so.

It seems to be up to the original IDC to decide what happens next, what ‘punishment’ there should be for the second and fifth particulars of the second charge.

From https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/ this could be pretty much anything.

 

You mean they didn’t need to refer it back to DC they could have arbitrarily imposed a deduction straight off 

[kevinhectoring]

On 11/05/2021 at 17:04, Indy said:

I think that’s harsh. The club statement puts a lot in context about the original ruling and who has been involved in this one. If the media (and the public) relied on the EFL statement they’d think we broke the law, and have no knowledge of the discrepancy in accountancy expertise, or Boro’s determination to insert themselves into another club’s proceedings. I think the EFL statement is pretty misleading with omissions and implied wrongdoing. 

you were responding to my gripe that the club statement contained too much spin.

The club statement says:  the Club’s witnesses were found to have given truthful evidence about the amortisation policy, and their judgments were made in light of carefully researched and objectively justifiable information. The LAP did not interfere with that important finding.  

Don't think that overall this reflects the LAP judgement at all - it's a shame 

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

We also didn’t know that their witness would try and make a case that the accounts were not compliant. Given that the accounts had been audited and cleared, and the witness’s evidence including saying things like the disposal of assets shouldn’t be included (when the regulations clearly state they can), then I’m not sure why we would think we needed to prepare to counter claims that are obviously wrong. 
 

The original commission, with accountancy expertise, thought the same thing which is why they dismissed his evidence. 

That's literally what the second charge was - that our accounts did not comply with FRS102. What changed late on was the exact particulars of how we weren't compliant, once it became clear exactly what amortisation policy we were using.  We knew all along that we would have to defend the accounts compliance. Once the charges changed slightly, we were given the choice of an adjournment or to introduce additional evidence, and we chose neither.

[Curtains]

This is so annoying and it’s just another go at Derby .

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/Derby-countys-bizarre-strategy-of-determining-player-values-revealed-as-efl-saga-rumbles-on/

PS The author regularly covers Nottingham Forest. 

————-—————-

Edited May 13, 2021 by Curtains

[Spanish]

30 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

But if that's ultimately what's led to us losing, we'd have been better off taking the extra time and doing it properly.

It's actually irrelevant though - reading down the original report further, the issue of consumption of economic benefits through disposal was in the original charge letter, so it wasn't sprung on us at the last minute.  We had ample time to prepare and provide an expert witness, and chose not to.

yep it was the second charge second particular so we won 3 out of the five.  DC found us guilty of 2e and decided no penalty.  The LAP have said 2e is out of their jurisdiction.   They also said they had the power to sanction 2b but decided that would be unfair as neither party could appeal it.  Contrary to what some posters have said it is indicative that both sides could appeal  the DC penalty.  Not sure how they could relegate us for the season just gone if it was still being appealed after the start of the next season (someone said final promotions and relegations are decided before then at the EFL AGM???).

We have considered whether our jurisdiction extends to ordering a sanction. The EFL submit it does, the Club submits this is outside our powers. We recognise that, if the EFL are right, neither party has any right of appeal against an overly lenient or stringent sanction. But that is the effect of the Regulations

the second particular

b) Second Particular of the Second Charge - i) the fact that the Club’s amortisation policy during the relevant financial years did not amortise on straight line basis is not contrary to FRS 102 ii) the amortisation schedule does reflect the Club’s expected pattern of consumption of future economic benefits from players’ registrations

 

[DCFC27]

12 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

Everything you say sounds sensible, especially about spending matching income. And the commitment by Mel - you said that in a way that was a good reminder.

If the Premier League believe that it is in their interests to have a wider variety of teams making it up, even if many don't stay up for long - and having fans from more clubs thinking that their club has a chance of promotion - then restructuring the parachute payment seems sensible, especially if it is these that drives unsustainable spending in the Championship.

For example, the parachute payment could be used to encourage premier League clubs to buy talented players, making the premier League more exciting, while protecting clubs that get relegated for having paid out on good players.

The parachute payments should ensure that the club if not out of pocket for having tried to be competitive. But, that doesn't mean a fixed amount need be paid either! And maybe there should be an expectation that a certain number of players will be sold, with various protections, but without having s fixed amount.

Having praised your response ... I might sound a note if caution. If the system is changed, and less money is pushed into the Championship by clubs aiming to reap the rewards of promotion to the Premier League; either player costs will fall, or the quality of players in the Championship will fall.

Maybe there is an adequate supply of people willing to risk their money? Or, it may be that some of the people who take such risks bring considerable dangers to clubs.

And reducing the £13m per year acceptable loss over the years brings problems when single players can have such a value, and when eager bills can exceed that amount. Lower limits could have unintended consequences.

It's a very complex situation, and I don't think their will ever be a perfect system. I do think think their needs to be a much more flexible model whereby it allows clubs to invest if they can, but with sensible guarantee's in place to stop clubs going into administration and further more punishing them if they do. 

I just feel for clubs like Wigan, why should the club and more importantly their fans be punished for an owner abandoning them? Its owners that need to be held to account, and this isn't some witch hunt on owners I love to see a club taken over and money invested. Wolves is a great example of an owner coming in to a championship with the right intentions and revolutionising a club.

No amount of background checks can prevent an owner coming in, making a mess and leaving. However steps can be put in place to ensure that they can't just leave. 

[Ghost of Clough]

10 minutes ago, Curtains said:

This is so annoying and it’s just another go at Derby .

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/Derby-countys-bizarre-strategy-of-determining-player-values-revealed-as-efl-saga-rumbles-on/

PS The author regularly covers Nottingham Forest. 

————-—————-

Transfermarkt is by no means a reliable source when it comes to determining player’s values, especially regarding younger players who have just come through the ranks at Pride Park.

Well academy graduates don't exactly come in to amortisation (the numbers would be very small)

 

Edit: I may compare the club's amortisation with the change in Transfermarkt values

Edited May 13, 2021 by Ghost of Clough

[rsmini]

I’ve not read the latest Athletic article but reading through this thread on Twitter the situation sounds bizarre

 

 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

This was the previous panel.  The EFL put up Professor Pope who apparently knows nothing about day-to-day accounting. We put up nobody.  The only thing the appeals panel could do was basically say if the previous panel had made a technical mistake (i.e. got the law  or procedure wrong).  They decided that the previous panel hade made a mistake in ignoring Professor Pope because he was the only expert in the room and so accepted his word as gospel.  It basically came down to a matter of accounting expertise and we had no experts to argue our corner at all.  The only explanations I can think of are we either didn't understand the rules of the game we were playing, we couldn't be bothered to do it properly, or we tried to cheap out and get by without an expert. And I don't know which of those is worst.

Definition of an Expert 

An Ex is a has been and a Spert is a Drip under pressure 

[Curtains]

Just now, Sparkle said:

Definition of an Expert 

An Ex is a has been and a Spert is a Drip under pressure 

I thought it was all Ex and no Spert lol 

[Sparkle]

Would they have been in such an apparent rush if we were 17 points clear of the drop zone 

[Curtains]

 

[Ramarena]

Meanwhile in the EFL ivory tower