Jump to content

EFL Verdict


DCFC90
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

There at least half a dozen different forms of amortisation, so the 'precedent' you allude to only closes the loop on the single methodology we have employed.

ūüĎŹ

But does it close the loophole, or just demand that users explain their methodology better than we did when submitting our accounts ie no fag packet working out accepted!? ūüėĄ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Apologies RAW but I don't agree with this at all. Firstly, we are not debating jurisprudence here. The EFL is merely an independent governing body. Secondly, its not an either or equation. There at least half a dozen different forms of amortisation, so the 'precedent' you allude to only closes the loop on the single methodology we have employed.

The only manner in which the EFL can formally address this and prevent other clubs from continuously exploring other potential nuances, is very much by rewriting the rule to state unequivocally that straight line amortisation is the only method they will entertain. Their current stance makes as much sense as a farmer leaving a gate open, then blaming his sheep (sorry!) for leaving the field, so their only redress would be to ensure the gate remains closed save for when they choose to open it.

I'll agree to differ on this one. I'm probably wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

ūüĎŹ

But does it close the loophole, or just demand that users explain their methodology better than we did when submitting our accounts ie no fag packet working out accepted!? ūüėĄ

It's a fair question and to be honest, there's no finite answer I can offer as this is the EFL we're dealing with¬†ūüėÜ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, angieram said:

say most supporters because I am well aware that there are one or two who persistently want to believe the EFL version rather than the club's,  although why any right minded supporter would want to do this when there is no actual regulation to back this up is totally beyond me! 

Angie Ram Angie Ram

there are 2 versions of this, one comes from the DC, one from the LAP. One version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on with our accounts and that’s the fault of the EFl. That version was (sort of) supported by the DC. The other version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on and that was because they were misled by the club. That was where the LAP ended up. 

what is not in doubt is that the EFL did not understand what we were doing. They hadn‚Äôt even ‚Äėgot it‚Äô¬†days before the DC hearing. So the suggestion they approved what we were doing is cloud cuckoo land.¬†
 

unfortunately the evidence indicates we misled them. Our auditor basically admitted the notes explaining the changes were non-compliant. An accident? Perhaps. This led¬†to the DC finding us ‚Äėguilty‚Äô on a minor count.¬†More troubling is that when the club was asked to disclose documents relating to the accounting issue, they claimed to have none - this was clearly incorrect and the word mincing LAP did not mince their words on this. They called us liars.¬†
 

We are very far from squeaky clean. 
 

I am guessing that I love our club just as much as you do. But the blind loyalty shown on this forum is foolish, not least because the club’s decision makers keep an eye on what we all think about these things. And the fans’ support of the club’s foolish squabble with the EFL perpetuates it. We will do better next season if we stop this fighting with them and focus on the squad and the pitch. 
 

it all comes back to Mel. He has spent a lot of his money to find that the deck is stacked against him, that the system is unfair. So he has pushed the envelope. We should thank him for that. But it has not worked so we need to take our medicine and focus on next season (in the championship). 
 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Angie Ram Angie Ram

there are 2 versions of this, one comes from the DC, one from the LAP. One version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on with our accounts and that’s the fault of the EFl. That version was (sort of) supported by the DC. The other version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on and that was because they were misled by the club. That was where the LAP ended up. 

what is not in doubt is that the EFL did not understand what we were doing. They hadn‚Äôt even ‚Äėgot it‚Äô¬†days before the DC hearing. So the suggestion they approved what we were doing is cloud cuckoo land.¬†
 

unfortunately the evidence indicates we misled them. Our auditor basically admitted the notes explaining the changes were non-compliant. An accident? Perhaps. This led¬†to the DC finding us ‚Äėguilty‚Äô on a minor count.¬†More troubling is that when the club was asked to disclose documents relating to the accounting issue, they claimed to have none - this was clearly incorrect and the word mincing LAP did not mince their words on this. They called us liars.¬†
 

We are very far from squeaky clean. 
 

I am guessing that I love our club just as much as you do. But the blind loyalty shown on this forum is foolish, not least because the club’s decision makers keep an eye on what we all think about these things. And the fans’ support of the club’s foolish squabble with the EFL perpetuates it. We will do better next season if we stop this fighting with them and focus on the squad and the pitch. 
 

it all comes back to Mel. He has spent a lot of his money to find that the deck is stacked against him, that the system is unfair. So he has pushed the envelope. We should thank him for that. But it has not worked so we need to take our medicine and focus on next season (in the championship). 
 


 

how come you know so much about what was asked for and what was given or not given? Also that Derby were called liars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Derby trending on twitter. Heart failure thought we were down.¬†But fairly¬†calm on here and relax. Combination of horse racing and people offering us sympathy based on Wayne's England side choices. Its going to be a long few weeks ūüėĪ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, i-Ram said:

A vulnerable person (Morris) is approached by an unscrupulous person (an agent or EFL club representative) offering goods that are clearly not fit for purpose, and at a greatly exaggerated price compared to market value. Said vulnerable person not only pays the exaggerated price, but also gets taken in by a third party’s sob story (a player) who suggests that moving to Derby without significant financial security would be a huge issue for his wife and family, who are happily homed and schooled in an idyllic part of England (say, Bradford). Said vulnerable person promises to compensate third party hugely be it by salary or length of contract, or indeed offering family members a job in the scouting department. At vulnerable persons request third party agrees to stand gooning in a picture with vulnerable person, both draped in black and white scarf.

It’s a modern day scandal I tell thee.

Well I know something about you @i-Ram. You’ve never been to Bradford. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Angie Ram Angie Ram

there are 2 versions of this, one comes from the DC, one from the LAP. One version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on with our accounts and that’s the fault of the EFl. That version was (sort of) supported by the DC. The other version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on and that was because they were misled by the club. That was where the LAP ended up. 

what is not in doubt is that the EFL did not understand what we were doing. They hadn‚Äôt even ‚Äėgot it‚Äô¬†days before the DC hearing. So the suggestion they approved what we were doing is cloud cuckoo land.¬†
 

unfortunately the evidence indicates we misled them. Our auditor basically admitted the notes explaining the changes were non-compliant. An accident? Perhaps. This led¬†to the DC finding us ‚Äėguilty‚Äô on a minor count.¬†More troubling is that when the club was asked to disclose documents relating to the accounting issue, they claimed to have none - this was clearly incorrect and the word mincing LAP did not mince their words on this. They called us liars.¬†
 

We are very far from squeaky clean. 

Can you point to this bit in the document? If I'm looking at the correct section (Section S), I read it differently to how you have. My interpretation is that the LAP do seem to accept that there are no documents formally evidencing the club's approach to ascertaining an ERV, but are critical of the non-existence of these documents. Their position, as far as I can see, is that this gave the EFL sufficient grounds to believe that the Club's approach was not "reliable and systematic", and that, had they been asked to hear the case de novo as the EFL requested, they may have come to a different conclusion to the original DC. However, the important thing to remember is that the the LAP declined the EFL's request to have the hearing held de novo, and that the original DC's decision on any factor that isn't overturned still stands as the definitive conclusion. Indeed, the LAP sets out the reasons for why this should be in their decision to decline the EFL's appeal to have the hearing held de novo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Unfortunately the evidence indicates we misled them. Our auditor basically admitted the notes explaining the changes were non-compliant. An accident? Perhaps. This led¬†to the DC finding us ‚Äėguilty‚Äô on a minor count.¬†More troubling is that when the club was asked to disclose documents relating to the accounting issue, they claimed to have none - this was clearly incorrect and the word mincing LAP did not mince their words on this. They called us liars.¬†

 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",

You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.

I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.

...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.

Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.

 

Edited by Coconut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Coconut said:

 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",

You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.

I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.

...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.

Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.

 

Later the LAP say

 It can be seen from this that the way in which the treatment was explained in the accounts was misleading and wrong, and thus the DC found the fifth particular of the Charge proved

it’s a bloody mess really 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Later the LAP say

 It can be seen from this that the way in which the treatment was explained in the accounts was misleading and wrong, and thus the DC found the fifth particular of the Charge proved

it’s a bloody mess really 

FFS, knew there'd be something.

However, that doesn't say that the intent was to mislead, otherwise the wording would be "deliberately misleading".

Unless the fifth particular was that we'd intentionally mislead them? 

If someone states the truth as they see it, but they're wrong, then their comments can still be called misleading.

Edited by Coconut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Angie Ram Angie Ram

there are 2 versions of this, one comes from the DC, one from the LAP. One version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on with our accounts and that’s the fault of the EFl. That version was (sort of) supported by the DC. The other version is: the EFL had no clue what was going on and that was because they were misled by the club. That was where the LAP ended up. 

what is not in doubt is that the EFL did not understand what we were doing. They hadn‚Äôt even ‚Äėgot it‚Äô¬†days before the DC hearing. So the suggestion they approved what we were doing is cloud cuckoo land.¬†
 

unfortunately the evidence indicates we misled them. Our auditor basically admitted the notes explaining the changes were non-compliant. An accident? Perhaps. This led¬†to the DC finding us ‚Äėguilty‚Äô on a minor count.¬†More troubling is that when the club was asked to disclose documents relating to the accounting issue, they claimed to have none - this was clearly incorrect and the word mincing LAP did not mince their words on this. They called us liars.¬†
 

We are very far from squeaky clean. 
 

I am guessing that I love our club just as much as you do. But the blind loyalty shown on this forum is foolish, not least because the club’s decision makers keep an eye on what we all think about these things. And the fans’ support of the club’s foolish squabble with the EFL perpetuates it. We will do better next season if we stop this fighting with them and focus on the squad and the pitch. 
 

it all comes back to Mel. He has spent a lot of his money to find that the deck is stacked against him, that the system is unfair. So he has pushed the envelope. We should thank him for that. But it has not worked so we need to take our medicine and focus on next season (in the championship). 
 


 

You say we should stop fighting the EFL…… but how? They will not let us stop fighting because they keep fighting and they are about to do it again. How do we stop this? The answer is that WE can’t only the efl can stop this fight by not appealing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/06/2021 at 00:05, RadioactiveWaste said:

I'm a bit confused.

We've been fined £100k for having a non-compliant accounting methodology. Both the EFL and us can appeal this sanction.

We also have to restate out accounts and P&S submissions.

I thought the issue in the charge was the accounting method - if our re-stated P&S is in breech we'll get punished for that in line with precedent but because we sold PP it's not going to be that much over? Even so that is surely a subsiquent and separate issue to the now resolved accoutancy question.

 

I've just read back through the accounts to see where I think we may actually be:

15/16 - £14.7M Loss

16/17 - £7.9M Loss

17/18 - £14.6 Profit

As the accounts currently stand Derby have posted a loss of £8M over that 3 years FFP period, so unless the restated accounts make us declare an additional £31M we would still be complaint......

I think the EFL are just trying to destabilise the club in anyway they possibly can!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Coconut said:

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",

my continued insistence continues. To my considerable cost I am very familiar with the posh expensive politesse of the courtroom. The notes to our accounts were found to be misleading. I was wrong to say (if I did) that we were found to have misled the EFL re amortisation. I should have said the LAP believed we misled the EFL. That what i think is indicated by the words you quote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RAM1966 said:

I've just read back through the accounts to see where I think we may actually be:

15/16 - £14.7M Loss

16/17 - £7.9M Loss

17/18 - £14.6 Profit

As the accounts currently stand Derby have posted a loss of £8M over that 3 years FFP period, so unless the restated accounts make us declare an additional £31M we would still be complaint......

I think the EFL are just trying to destabilise the club in anyway they possibly can!!!!

We have to remember, at the insistence of Middlesbrough, the EFL formed the view the sale of pride park was illegitimate and therefore shouldn't be included in the P&S calculations.

The EFL lost that part of the charge and did not appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

You say we should stop fighting the EFL…… but how? They will not let us stop fighting because they keep fighting and they are about to do it again. How do we stop this? The answer is that WE can’t only the efl can stop this fight by not appealing. 

you're absolutely right about the appeal - if other clubs insist on it, we can't persuade the EFL off it. But it's not just about the appeal, it is about the many other issues where the EFL has discretion as to how it deals with our club. EG the fixture list.

We read they are making an example of us, to show other clubs they should not exploit accounting loopholes. Well what a surprise that it's us: we issue club statements that attack the EFL  We make public pronouncements which contain thinly veiled threats of litigation. Pointless, unnecessary and inflammatory. We can protect our position in the litigation through private messages to the EFL, no need for this public bile. As a club we have never been so isolated, and it's because Mel won't say, OK call off the dogs, let's move on

It's no good being in the right if you just keep losing and inflicting self harm. It's like being run over on a pedestrian crossing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

you're absolutely right about the appeal - if other clubs insist on it, we can't persuade the EFL off it. But it's not just about the appeal, it is about the many other issues where the EFL has discretion as to how it deals with our club. EG the fixture list.

We read they are making an example of us, to show other clubs they should not exploit accounting loopholes. Well what a surprise that it's us: we issue club statements that attack the EFL  We make public pronouncements which contain thinly veiled threats of litigation. Pointless, unnecessary and inflammatory. We can protect our position in the litigation through private messages to the EFL, no need for this public bile. As a club we have never been so isolated, and it's because Mel won't say, OK call off the dogs, let's move on

It's no good being in the right if you just keep losing and inflicting self harm. It's like being run over on a pedestrian crossing. 

I don’t think too many people look to self harm on a pedestrian crossing?

If they do, would¬†the status of the crossing be Important?¬†Zebra crossings will always have an element of risk, but with Pelican, Puffin, Toucan or¬†Pegasus crossings that ‚Äėcasual‚Äô risk is reduced by the warnings given to both the pedestrian and oncoming vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.