EFL Verdict

[hintonsboots]

30 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.

Exactly. It’s analogous to carrying out an armed robbery and then fleeing to the Costa del Sol, so you are out of reach of the authorities and subsequent punishment. I feel there should be an extradition policy between Premier League/ EFL, so the promoted teams still suffer points deduction.

 

[chadlad]

What’s £100k between friends…

[Oldben]

The annoying thing with the efl is that they put clubs in the non competitive environment of the championship.

In my opinion, this has been created because of the very large and unfair parachute payments over the 3 year period.

How can clubs who don't get the parachute payments survive or attempt promotion in that non competitive environment.

How would Derby have signed the best players at the time of the amortisation, they were not considered the most likely team to be promoted at that time.

 

[hintonsboots]

7 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

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 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. 

Excellent post mate.

UTR

And I hope you are spot on.

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Excellent post mate.

UTR

And I hope you are spot on.

Me too buddy. The endless wailing and gnashing teeth on here aside, it'd be nice to just watch our team play football without all the off-pitch melodrama.

[hintonsboots]

1 minute ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Me too buddy. The endless wailing and gnashing teeth on here aside, it'd be nice to just watch our team play football without all the off-pitch melodrama.

Exactly. The takeover should herald a new era for the Rams, let’s hope it’s imminent.

[Ramslad1992]

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

can anyone remember when supporting Derby was just about watching football 

I’m only 29 and been a fan for 25 years so... no, no I can’t. ?‍♂️

[Gringo]

Looking at Readings financial results for their last 3 sets of accounts ending June 2020 they have a cumulative loss of £92 million, I wonder why they are not in the gun sights of the EFL. 

[Pearl Ram]

They haven’t pissed Gibson off. ?

[Arsene Titman]

15 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

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. 

I’ve already rightly applauded your post. Just a couple of questions though- once we submit 3 years revised accounts in accordance with EFL accounting rules, if we then exceed the £39m losses over that 3 year period, should we not expect a further charge with a possible points deduction for the forthcoming season ? Also, if you are right and the EFL don’t pursue an appeal against the current £100k sanction, is the soft transfer embargo lifted once we have paid up? If so, presumably it would be reimposed if the club exceed the £39m 3 year losses in the revised accounts and the EFL pursued the matter.

[Reggie Greenwood]

13 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

I’ve already rightly applauded your post. Just a couple of questions though- once we submit 3 years revised accounts in accordance with EFL accounting rules, if we then exceed the £39m losses over that 3 year period, should we not expect a further charge with a possible points deduction for the forthcoming season ? Also, if you are right and the EFL don’t pursue an appeal against the current £100k sanction, is the soft transfer embargo lifted once we have paid up? If so, presumably it would be reimposed if the club exceed the £39m 3 year losses in the revised accounts and the EFL pursued the matter.

All indications are from those who know accounts on here , Swiss ramble and even Maguire that DCFC will be within the limits of allowed losses 

[Comrade 86]

18 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

I’ve already rightly applauded your post. Just a couple of questions though- once we submit 3 years revised accounts in accordance with EFL accounting rules, if we then exceed the £39m losses over that 3 year period, should we not expect a further charge with a possible points deduction for the forthcoming season ?

The club has already stated that they had the alternative set of accounts pre-prepared. I suspect that they will not release them until the DC formally releases its report on the appeal. By my calculations and likewise others on here (even Kieran Maguire has u-turned) I believe we will be comfortably under the P & S thresholds.

20 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

Also, if you are right and the EFL don’t pursue an appeal against the current £100k sanction, is the soft transfer embargo lifted once we have paid up? If so, presumably it would be reimposed if the club exceed the £39m 3 year losses in the revised accounts and the EFL pursued the matter.

If the EFL is not going to pursue the matter further, then yes, they will be obliged to lift the embargo. The embargo was put in place pending the outcome of the appeal. Once the appeal process is formally ended, the embargo will be lifted too. If there are any further charges to address, then yes, unfortunately it will stay in place, but keep the faith brother as I think this is highly unlikely.

[Spanish]

45 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

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. 

Yes that is clear and I think by now everybody should know that.  You’ve missed the LAP out but that doesn’t have much bearing barring an appeal.  DCFC will/should not appeal.  I guess there is a good chance the EFL will want to take it back to LAP.  I said at the time of the LAP decision that the DC will be pissed about this and the fine I think we can all agree backs that up.

the other bit is the restatement of the accounts.  Not sure where that came from given it was only the published details that were found to be misleading.  I presume the club could refuse to do so, then it is off to the DC again when they charge us for either refusing or, if they show a breach, a demand for a points penalty in 21/2.

As for Mel’s actions being vindicated in spades can’t see it myself

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

The club has already stated that they had the alternative set of accounts pre-prepared. I suspect that they will not release them until the DC formally releases its report on the appeal. By my calculations and likewise others on here (even Kieran Maguire has u-turned) I believe we will be comfortably under the P & S thresholds.

If the EFL is not going to pursue the matter further, then yes, they will be obliged to lift the embargo. The embargo was put in place pending the outcome of the appeal. Once the appeal process is formally ended, the embargo will be lifted too. If there are any further charges to address, then yes, unfortunately it will stay in place, but keep the faith brother as I think this is highly unlikely.

Depends whether the P&S summaries and audited accounts have been presented otherwise surely the enpmatgo stays?

[24Charlie]

22 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

I’ve already rightly applauded your post. Just a couple of questions though- once we submit 3 years revised accounts in accordance with EFL accounting rules, if we then exceed the £39m losses over that 3 year period, should we not expect a further charge with a possible points deduction for the forthcoming season ? Also, if you are right and the EFL don’t pursue an appeal against the current £100k sanction, is the soft transfer embargo lifted once we have paid up? If so, presumably it would be reimposed if the club exceed the £39m 3 year losses in the revised accounts and the EFL pursued the matter.

If we are over the limit using the revised accounting process and the EFL charge us then this is the point that Nick de Marco argues that the EFL signed off on the original accounts and therefore we cannot be charged retrospectively as we were told by the body now trying to charge us that everything was tickety boo. 
I really have no idea how anyone can find for the EFL in this case.

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

The club has already stated that they had the alternative set of accounts pre-prepared. I suspect that they will not release them until the DC formally releases its report on the appeal. By my calculations and likewise others on here (even Kieran Maguire has u-turned) I believe we will be comfortably under the P & S thresholds.

If this is the case why didn’t we do the calculations in the standard method and avoid 2 years of crippling pain

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours 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 

We didn't originally plan to sell the stadium when changing policy

[jono]

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

The club has already stated that they had the alternative set of accounts pre-prepared. I suspect that they will not release them until the DC formally releases its report on the appeal. By my calculations and likewise others on here (even Kieran Maguire has u-turned) I believe we will be comfortably under the P & S thresholds.

If the EFL is not going to pursue the matter further, then yes, they will be obliged to lift the embargo. The embargo was put in place pending the outcome of the appeal. Once the appeal process is formally ended, the embargo will be lifted too. If there are any further charges to address, then yes, unfortunately it will stay in place, but keep the faith brother as I think this is highly unlikely.

I think you are 100% right and your earlier post was absolutely top drawer. It is what should happen, both morally and with the application of common sense.

I just have my reservations as there is clearly a grouping within the EFL that wants some sort of twisted revenge. I can see the no appeal but I can also see “further investigations following the re submitted accounts” leading to an umpteenth bite at the dogs hind leg that they are determined grind into powdered residue. It’s politics, not rules, fair play logic or rationality. 

[Yani P]

I think a good few thought we would only get a fine and even that seemed tenuous..main thing to remember is we didn't actually do anything underhand at any stage..the click bait rabble get far more attention and response than they should..they always talk utter drivel and are basically robbing a living..

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Depends whether the P&S summaries and audited accounts have been presented otherwise surely the enpmatgo stays?

Read my post again...

12 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

The club has already stated that they had the alternative set of accounts pre-prepared. I suspect that they will not release them until the DC formally releases its report on the appeal.

 

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

If this is the case why didn’t we do the calculations in the standard method and avoid 2 years of crippling pain

The amortisation policy we used allowed us to reposition depreciation hits. It was maintained because it was advantageous and had been approved by 4 independent bodies, including the EFL. Given the EFL approved the prior accounts, we would have needed a crystal ball to foresee that they would ultimately reverse their assessment. I would have thought that would have been pretty obvious as is the fact that had we had a crystal ball and been able to see the future, we would have used that hindsight to do things differently. 

I've covered all of this already in my previous posts and given I know where you stand and likewise you know where I stand, I'm not going to waste my time saying the same things over and over to folk steadfastly refuse to accept information that is all in the public domain.