EFL appeal

[BaaLocks]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

it does frustrate me that here important facts that are getting lost

The EFL made 2 charges against us the first was dismissed an not appealed.  The second, the first particular was dropped by the EFL and we were found guilty of the fifth and not the others

They appealed 4 out of the five particulars, the fifth was dropped as it was outside jurisdiction and it is only the second particular which the LAP upheld the appeal.  I say only but you know what I mean.  So out of a considerable number of accusations the EFL have made a complete balls up.  Surely this is a story in itself.  it just looks like they have being throwing mud at a wall and a bit has stuck

I think it's more that they were constrinaed by the powers of the appeal - which is kind of the point me and @duncanjwitham are not agreeing on. The EFL were clear to state in their response that they were somewhat forced to drop many of the claims, not because they didn't think they were valid but because they didn't have the power within the appeal to pursue them. It doesn't mean the EFL, or Derby, were right but it does mean they held a view that is not represented in the final decision, and not because it was proven wrong.

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

And this tells you everything you need to know about how little the EFL care about protecting football clubs:

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I've not read every page as been a bit snowed under this week but the obvious questions seem to be 

 

1) Is there precedent for the EFL deducting points once a season has finished? (yes) 

2) Did the points deduction have a significant effect such as relegation? (yes) 

Not in a case where there was no points deduction and then there was. Macclesfield had a suspended deduction pending the appeal

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

3) were the circumstances of the point deduction similar to ours or was the egregiousness of the rule breaking comparable to our own? (from what I can gather ours appear worse over a longer period of time)

Are you still talking about Macclesfield here? They were deducted points on three separate occasions due to on-payment of salaries and failing to fulfil fixtures. That's a bit different to what we have

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

4) Does the jeopardy  the EFL have in this case match others i.e., reputational damage, potential court costs, and media scandal? (This appears to be our get out tbh) 

Huh?

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

It all just reads like the club's been run by a bunch of jokers who've seriously screwed us over and put is in jeopardy. Combined with the Alonso takeover bid it just makes me want to weep. 

It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.

 

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I think it's more that they were constrinaed by the powers of the appeal - which is kind of the point me and @duncanjwitham are not agreeing on. The EFL were clear to state in their response that they were somewhat forced to drop many of the claims, not because they didn't think they were valid but because they didn't have the power within the appeal to pursue them. It doesn't mean the EFL, or Derby, were right but it does mean they held a view that is not represented in the final decision, and not because it was proven wrong.

rules is rules though.

I haven't read anywhere that they would have like to appeal charge 1 and couldn't due to the powers of the appeal?

[BramcoteRam84]

Matt Slater’s piece on this is the best most accurate reporting I’ve seen so far on the matter. Club have tried to be clever, it’s backfired, EFL saying we’ve deceived everyone throw the book at us, deduct points now and relegate us, Derby saying not deliberately misled, what we’ve done isn’t illegal it’s a technical infringement no more, a fine more suitable. 

It now all boils down to did we get an advantage doing what we did. The only way we did is if we re-state the figures we fail the £39m limit. If we did then it’s a points deduction based on how far did we breach the limit by, if we didn’t then it’s really difficult to see how the EFL can justify a points deduction.

As for retrospectively penalising us and relegating us, again this can’t be justified because if it wasn’t for Boro then we would’ve been penalised last season as the appeal would’ve been heard sooner. 
 

Edited May 13, 2021 by BramcoteRam84

[RandomAccessMemory]

Can I just point out the factual error from the article that was posted, it said one point would send us down, it would not as our goal difference is better than Wycombe’s.

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

It still doesn't stop the fact we asked the EFL for guidance on the matter before changing the policy, and then the EFL approving our submissions for three years in a row.

 

What was the quality of that request though?  I can't recall whether that was used extensively in a defence in the DC.  You would think that that would be estoppel territory

[nottingram]

Find it utterly ridiculous that the EFL are hoping for a retrospective deduction.

You would imagine this would not only aggrieve Derby but also that Rotherham and to a lesser extent Sheffield Wednesday would be a bit peeved. Their end of season strategy would be based around Derby being X points ahead. The end to the season would play out so much differently if Derby were already down, for example. Wycombe had almost a completely free hit to their last few games (and to their credit, did well) because they were basically down. 

I would imagine the counter to that is that every team should always be playing to win anyway but in practice I don’t know how well that holds true.

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Can I just point out the factual error from the article that was posted, it said one point would send us down, it would not as our goal difference is better than Wycombe’s.

quite right, also the examples of retrospective action are not wholly correct or comparative are they?

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, nottingram said:

Find it utterly ridiculous that the EFL are hoping for a retrospective deduction.

You would imagine this would not only aggrieve Derby but also that Rotherham and to a lesser extent Sheffield Wednesday would be a bit peeved. Their end of season strategy would be based around Derby being X points ahead. The end to the season would play out so much differently if Derby were already down, for example. Wycombe had almost a completely free hit to their last few games (and to their credit, did well) because they were basically down. 

I would imagine the counter to that is that every team should always be playing to win anyway but in practice I don’t know how well that holds true.

oh god don't mention free hit?

[S8TY]

Don't know about anyone else but wouldn't it just be great to be talking about football again ......after all thats why we're here really

All of this off field stuff seems never ending....sad times .....:-(

[RandomAccessMemory]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

What was the quality of that request though?  I can't recall whether that was used extensively in a defence in the DC.  You would think that that would be estoppel territory

That was the club’s argument for not wanting the LAP to rule on it, which we cannot appeal, because our procedural defences were rejected in the IDC, but ultimately we didn’t need them as they dismissed the charges anyway (bar the fifth particular).

Allowing the LAP to rule on the appeal, means that we are found ‘guilty’ of something we can’t appeal as it’s not like we could appeal the original decision to get the rejection of our procedural defences overturned, because we won without them.

[duncanjwitham]

20 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I think it's more that they were constrinaed by the powers of the appeal - which is kind of the point me and @duncanjwitham are not agreeing on. The EFL were clear to state in their response that they were somewhat forced to drop many of the claims, not because they didn't think they were valid but because they didn't have the power within the appeal to pursue them. It doesn't mean the EFL, or Derby, were right but it does mean they held a view that is not represented in the final decision, and not because it was proven wrong.

It's clear why they don't have those powers though. The point is that the original panel had a qualified accountant on it and actually sat with the experts and witnesses and talked through the case in great detail. The appeal panel had none of that, so they're just constrained to ruling on technical matters of law and procedure etc.  It's deliberately designed to work that way.

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, DCFC27 said:

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

Wolves are nothing but a great example of breaking the spirit of the competition (arguably far more than we're accused of) and gaining a competitive advantage through creative means.

This is a perfect example of something I mentioned the other day - people praise clubs who bend rules to their will & succeed, but paradoxically damn those who bend rules and fail. You're doing exactly that.

They created a closed market to purchase players well above the standard that were available to any other Championship club & to hire a manager who wouldn't have touched anyone else (hence going against the spirit of competition).

Sure they used some of their own youth players too, did things well on the pitch but you only need to look as far back as us under Lampard to see how 2-3 players well above the league average can drag the standard of others up with them - the difference is we paid fair value to loan these players, and their availability was not closed off to anyone but DCFC.

They signed these players for fees below market value, paid them a weekly wage also below market value and instead tied up any financial payments that would see them overstep the spending limits in promotion bonuses. After these bonuses were they handed out they would have broken the spending rules - ie 'cheated'.

Had they not been promoted they would just defer payments until such a time that they were, carry on bringing in players of a standard unavailable to anyone else and in essence pretty much guaranteed their promotion at some point.

None of the above are 'the right intentions', they're the complete opposite, but again... as long as they're successful with it people will turn a blind eye.

People really should have been up in arms about what they did, but seem too scared to complain about it lest they get labelled 'jealous' or 'bitter' that their club didn't think of it. It's ridiculous.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Coconut

[Bob The Badger]

30 minutes ago, Amberram said:

Mildred

Wow, George is still alive. I thought he dies decades ago like Mildred.

That was a useful 15 minutes of my life, watching G & M clips on YouTube.

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

That was the club’s argument for not wanting the LAP to rule on it, which we cannot appeal, because our procedural defences were rejected in the IDC, but ultimately we didn’t need them as they dismissed the charges anyway (bar the fifth particular).

Allowing the LAP to rule on the appeal, means that we are found ‘guilty’ of something we can’t appeal as it’s not like we could appeal the original decision to get the rejection of our procedural defences overturned, because we won without them.

Oh dear, one of our strongest lines of defence was never used but I imagine we could use it at sentencing as part of our mitigation on penalty but not on guilt

[kevinhectoring]

29 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Ultimately irrelevant as the only thing the LAP did was substitute their decision for the IDC’s on the second particular only.

Spot on. But conduct will be relevant to sanction. And there are countless folk on here saying we’re purer than the driven snow. IMo fans should be angered by the club’s statement because it treats fans like fools and because it reflects a culture that has damaged the club.  

[mike93rh]

wooops

Edited May 13, 2021 by mike93rh

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

Spot on. But conduct will be relevant to sanction. And there are countless folk on here saying we’re purer than the driven snow. IMo fans should be angered by the club’s statement because it treats fans like fools and because it reflects a culture that has damaged the club.  

it had more spin than a Government press briefing

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, mike93rh said:

Could someone with a subscription copy and paste the athletic article here please? 

watch out for the ban hammer

[BramcoteRam84]

10 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

That was the club’s argument for not wanting the LAP to rule on it, which we cannot appeal, because our procedural defences were rejected in the IDC, but ultimately we didn’t need them as they dismissed the charges anyway (bar the fifth particular).

Allowing the LAP to rule on the appeal, means that we are found ‘guilty’ of something we can’t appeal as it’s not like we could appeal the original decision to get the rejection of our procedural defences overturned, because we won without them.

Good spot.