EFL Verdict

[Spanish]

4 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

I don't believe we breached the rules. We did what (good) accountants always do, we stretched them as far as we could. I hope we're still in P&S bounds after the sale of the stadium, that would be the cherry on the EFLs cake!

What is the point of stretching the rules if it makes no difference to the result?  If that is the case then we have ha years of pain for no reason 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

What is the point of stretching the rules if it makes no difference to the result?  If that is the case then we have ha years of pain for no reason 

Can you foretell the future? I imagine Mel didn't know we wouldn't get promoted when he tried for that 'little bit extra'.

[Spanish]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can you foretell the future? I imagine Mel didn't know we wouldn't get promoted when he tried for that 'little bit extra'.

Lost me completely.  we created a unique amortisation policy because we thought we would get promoted, we didn’t and now we can see the new method makes no difference?

[Indy]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Lost me completely.  we created a unique amortisation policy because we thought we would get promoted, we didn’t and now we can see the new method makes no difference?

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

[RoyMac5]

11 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Lost me completely.  we created a unique amortisation policy because we thought we would get promoted, we didn’t and now we can see the new method makes no difference?

It allowed us to stretch our budget at that time - we covered that by Mel selling the stadium. Maybe we'd still have the stadium on the books if it'd worked.

Edit: what Indy said.

Edited June 26, 2021 by RoyMac5

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

This has always been my fear in the way Mel manages the club, gambling with the near time future of our historic club.

[richinspain]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

That's how I see it. By moving the hit to later for each player we had a season or two more in which to achieve promotion. The problem is that those players weren't good enough. What it also means in my opinion, is that we gained an advantage because we didn't have to sell our sellable assets. Nothing illegal or against any League rules (at the time).

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

It allowed us to stretch our budget at that time - we covered that by Mel selling the stadium. Maybe we'd still have the stadium on the books if it'd worked.

Edit: what Indy said.

You think this is a good policy?

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Spanish said:

You think this is a good policy?

Too late now innit.

If we'd gone up - and we were close - then we'd have said yes. The rules didn't say we couldn't so we did. The poo from the EFL over it after they signed three years of it off is intensely infuriating to say the least!

[Pearl Ram]

It is infuriating when you consider rightly or wrongly, as I do, this all stems from Gibson throwing a tantrum because we nicked 6th place off them on the last day of the season when Lampard was in charge.

I suppose someone will put me right on that but that’s how I see it. ?‍♂️

[Indy]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

This has always been my fear in the way Mel manages the club, gambling with the near time future of our historic club.

But the problem is that we are competing with clubs with ludicrous parachute payments giving them an unfair advantage. Clubs have no choice but to gamble in some way in order to compete.

[Gringo]

26 minutes ago, Indy said:

But the problem is that we are competing with clubs with ludicrous parachute payments giving them an unfair advantage. Clubs have no choice but to gamble in some way in order to compete.

You could also mention apart from the parachute payments the blatant disregard for p&s rules by QPR and Villa.

[Reggie Greenwood]

13 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

You could also mention apart from the parachute payments the blatant disregard for p&s rules by QPR and Villa.

Add Bournemouth , Leicester etc to that list 

[chadlad]

54 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

Different or unique doesn’t make it wrong. In many ways yearly revaluations of the worth of player registrations make more sense in the unique market place of football transfers than the straight line method.

Unfortunately we failed to properly document our valuations with any evidence and so they were perceived as figures plucked out of thin air. This is I believe why the EFL won their appeal and is quite possibly the only thing we have done wrong, an oversight that will cost the club £100,000 and possibly more ?

 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, chadlad said:

Unfortunately we failed to properly document our valuations with any evidence and so they were perceived as figures plucked out of thin air. This is I believe why the EFL won their appeal and is quite possibly the only thing we have done wrong, an oversight that will cost the club £100,000 and possibly more ?

Yep. And for that technicality the EFL hint at the extreme punishment of after season end points deduction! I wonder if they can tell from our submitted P&S that we'll be within limits and that's pissing them off enough to try a pre-emptive strike?! 

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

I think we used a different amortisation policy (unique in football, but not non-compliant with accountancy practice according to the original views of the DC). This pushed losses to the end of player contracts, giving us a bigger hit in the fourth year of a contract - effectively gambling on being promoted within four years. Once it was clear that the losses would hit without premiership money to cover it, we legally sold our stadium to cover the cost. 

So this was the plan from the beginning, spunk lots of cash in Y1 with the knowledge that in Y4 we could sell PP in order to avoid punishment if the gamble failed?

[Ram-a-lama fa fa fa]

can anyone remember when supporting Derby was just about watching football 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

So this was the plan from the beginning, spunk lots of cash in Y1 with the knowledge that in Y4 we could sell PP in order to avoid punishment if the gamble failed?

No I don't imagine that was the plan, why would you think that?

[JfR]

2 minutes ago, Ram-a-lama fa fa fa said:

can anyone remember when supporting Derby was just about watching football 

Honestly, no. It always seems like some nonsense or other is rumbling on in the background at Derby.

[Comrade 86]

Why are some folk so unable, unwilling or both, to assimilate a few simple facts concerning these charges? It's no small wonder that fans from other clubs have a poor opinion of us now, when some of our own fans, who ought to be better informed, are themselves the first to jump on any sniff of perceived wrongdoing. What possible benefit is there in wilfully ignoring what we know to be true in favour presupposing guilt at every corner? We've even got folk using the fact that we've not submitted the new accounts inside 48 hours as the latest stick with which to thrash the club. It simply beggars belief.

For the umpteenth time, there were two charges; one related to the valuation of our stadium and was summarily dismissed by the DC; the other related to our amortisation policy which was signed off on and approved under legal accounting standards by independent auditors, the auditors regulatory body, the DC and the ducking EFL themselves, the latter several times over a period of years. The amortisation policy charge was also initially dismissed by the DC for the aforementioned reasons. This left the EFL so desperate to save face that they appealed the decision, the outcome of which was predicted by myself and numerous others on this very thread: a small fine in order to secure the token win they need to maintain any ducking credibility at all AND NO POINTS DEDUCTION. 

At this point, I very much doubt that even the EFL will be willing to risk further embarrassment. They can kid themselves this paltry fine vindicates two years of unwarranted charges and appeals and get back to their principal role as lapdogs to Sky and the Premiership whilst paying themselves inflated salaries for doing so. As for the DC, I strongly suspect that they only agreed to what is a nominal fine in order to save the EFL from falling into further disrepute and to allow us to finally emerge from under an endless series of unfair and damaging embargos and to prevent the EFL from continuing what has become a spiteful and unwarranted campaign against a club whose chairman quite rightly questioned their business acumen. In doing so, they have vindicated Mel's opinion in spades, though the crushing irony of this has unsurprisingly escaped the EFL's notice and who will doubtless be celebrating spending millions to secure a £100k fine for their members' coffers.

If, as I strongly suspect, the EFL do not appeal this sanction, I think we will 'be the bigger man' and simply take the £100k hit in order to allow us to return to football matters rather than spending every waking hour addressing the embittered ramblings and actions of a so-called professional body that seems more intent on undermining its membership than serving it. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by 86 Hair Islands