Yankee Doodle Derby

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

8 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

That's still not an appropriate stance for a regulator to have, and effectively that's what the EFL are in terms of the football league. It implies that the relationship between the club and the EFL will change how the rules apply to you.

 

Would also set a precedent which could impact another club who’s chairman they actually like a bit.

(Suspect EFL Probably dislike Gibson almost as much as Mel as they both seem to be trouble for them)

[RandomAccessMemory]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The maximum punishment is still based on what was wrong - which from the appeal report suggests its accounting. Only if we resubmit and go over P&S can we be looking at points deduction.

Of course, but according to the first DC document, they are saying we broke the P&S rules just by filing non compliant accounts, not (yet) by going over the spending limit. So they may still ask for the maximum punishment for breaking P&S rules, even if we think it’s ridiculous to do that as it’s purely an accounting thing.

Like I’ve said though, just because they might ask for something, doesn’t mean the DC will think it’s at all justified.

[RandomAccessMemory]

7 minutes ago, angieram said:

I think maybe people are taking what Nixon is saying a bit too literally. I personally think that he is implying that the EFL will be more favourably disposed towards us generally once Mel is gone.

This might mean pressing less about the punishment, which could in turn influence the DC's decision; or just agreeing to the DC setting the punishment rather than the LAP (which I am not sure if they have done as yet?)

I don't think it's right that there is this issue between the EFL and Mel,  but people would be naive to think that it is not there, or that it hasn't influenced the EFL's recent behaviour.

The club statement said they have agreed to that

[StarterForTen]

Far too much weight being put behind the comments of a Fleet Street hack. I’m sure Alan Nixon has good contacts at the EFL, and he’ll know from them  that Mel is not a popular figure within the organisation following his very public attacks about recent broadcast deals. After that, he’s just putting two and two together and making whatever number he wants to. 

[angieram]

6 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

The club statement said they have agreed to that

Thanks, hadn't picked up on that. 

[RoyMac5]

10 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Of course, but according to the first DC document, they are saying we broke the P&S rules just by filing non compliant accounts, not (yet) by going over the spending limit. So they may still ask for the maximum punishment for breaking P&S rules, even if we think it’s ridiculous to do that as it’s purely an accounting thing.

I assume, as it's been talked about, that punishment for submitting non-compliant accounts isn't 'points deductible'? There will be punishments set out by the EFL. Think it was @Ghost of Clough saying such when he was working out the 'new' accounts submission figures based on straight line amortisation.

 

[angieram]

2 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Far too much weight being put behind the comments of a Fleet Street hack. I’m sure Alan Nixon has good contacts at the EFL, and he’ll know from them  that Mel is not a popular figure within the organisation following his very public attacks about recent broadcast deals. After that, he’s just putting two and two together and making whatever number he wants to. 

Isn't that what the Mail is doing too, though, and some posters seem to be hanging on their every word? 

If people are going to believe stuff they read, they can't just decide they'll only believe the negative stuff about Derby.

I posted the article, not because it is necessarily any less speculative than the Mail ones, but at least it is a bit more positive! 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, angieram said:

Isn't that what the Mail is doing too, though,

The Mail actually had some quotes from Mel. Who did Nixon quote I didn't read all the article?

Edited May 16, 2021 by RoyMac5

[The_Sheriff]

They are both unreliable if you ask me

[RandomAccessMemory]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I assume, as it's been talked about, that punishment for submitting non-compliant accounts isn't 'points deductible'? There will be punishments set out by the EFL. Think it was @Ghost of Clough saying such when he was working out the 'new' accounts submission figures based on straight line amortisation.

 

You’d like to think so wouldn’t you, especially if we’d have been under the limit anyway with the recalculated accounts, as during the 3 years in question it would have made zero difference, if that’s the case.

But we’re talking about the EFL, and they seem to like to ask for maximum punishment, that’s what I’m saying, I expect them to do that, I don’t expect the DC to agree with them though.

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

But we’re talking about the EFL, and they seem to like to ask for maximum punishment, that’s what I’m saying, I expect them to do that, I don’t expect the DC to agree with them though.

As I said 'maximum punishment' for the non-compliant accounts is a fine, not points. I do not believe even the EFL will step outside their own boundaries. They might keep pushing and examining all we do, but bottom line should be that they said we could use the accounting model that we did. They signed it off.

[Premier ram]

 

   This is all making my head hurt                                                                 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

I assume, as it's been talked about, that punishment for submitting non-compliant accounts isn't 'points deductible'? There will be punishments set out by the EFL. Think it was @Ghost of Clough saying such when he was working out the 'new' accounts submission figures based on straight line amortisation.

 

I don't think it's right to rule out a points deduction at this time due to no precedent. However, I believe it would be absolutely unreasonable to do so in the circumstances.

It should, and most likely will be, a fine.

[Topram]

Hopefully we get some news this week on investment or a new take over because we are desperate 

[RadioactiveWaste]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I don't think it's right to rule out a points deduction at this time due to no precedent. However, I believe it would be absolutely unreasonable to do so in the circumstances.

It should, and most likely will be, a fine.

The EFL, as I understand it, have proved their case in so far as the ammortisation policy wasn't acceptable (the LAP ruling) and the notification of the change in policy was inadiquet (in the orginal case). That is a breach of P&S rules in itself.

The EFL have not proved that DCFC intentiaonally decieved them, or that the figures were "being made up to suit the acoutnts".

Our mitigation will include the EFL previously being happy with the accounts, the acounts being properly audited, that the original DC found one way and the LAP the other way should suggest that although the poit of law has been decided in the EFL's favour, the adoption of a differing opinion isn't of itself damning, and this case setting the precedent.

The EFL will want maximum possible punishment precisly to be a warnign to others.

I think in context we'll get a fine, but it'll be a big enough one to not make clubs think it's a breeze.

The other element to consider is do we submit linier ammoritsation accounts as part of our submission to the hearing showing that we didn't lose over P&S limits either way - if we have that piece of evidence (it seems the EFL and a lot of commentators have assumed that without our ERV system we would breach, and, i have to say, it seem an obvious driver to make the accounting change) it puts the whole matter into a lot different context. Obviously, if we re-calculate and we're in the ? we probably won't be running that line....

And if we recalculate out P&S based on the standard system and have not breached P&S limits on allowable losses, I think we'll ask, why did we do this in the first place?

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

I assume, as it's been talked about, that punishment for submitting non-compliant accounts isn't 'points deductible'? There will be punishments set out by the EFL. Think it was @Ghost of Clough saying such when he was working out the 'new' accounts submission figures based on straight line amortisation.

 

I don't think you can assume anything. The rules seem to be very unspecific about what punishment may apply, they just confer very wide powers on the DC. 

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I don't think you can assume anything. The rules seem to be very unspecific about what punishment may apply, they just confer very wide powers on the DC. 

Could you quote the specific regulations?

[CornwallRam]

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Could you quote the specific regulations?

4.4 Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement). Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

[Nuwtfly]

Apologies if this has already been answered/discussed/dismissed, but:

Is the current manager (and his agent) trying to force Mel into selling the club to owners of their choosing? Specifically an American consortium? Or is this just an internet whisper?

I would seriously fear for any club who are allowing a manager to pick the owner. What are the implications to that? No fear of ever being sacked no matter how bad a job you do? Sounds about as rotten and corrupt as the modern game could get. Hopefully this is not true, anyway. Someone will know the truth. 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

4.4 Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement). Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

That does sound akin to the bit that you always found on the bottom of job descriptions - along the lines of 'and anything else we can think of'! In our favour surely then is the fact they said 'we could do it' when we submitted our accounts.