EFL Verdict

[duncanjwitham]

We still don't know *for sure* the exact reasons we are under an embargo. We know it's at least in part due to the 2019 and 2020 accounts not being submitted yet. We have no idea if it's also related to the EFL charges, and the 3 sets we need to re-submit.  We know for sure that the embargo relating to the charges was dropped when we were cleared originally and I haven't seen any mention of it starting again since the EFL appeal victory or the punishment decision.  It may well be that we can now submit the 2019/2020 sets with the 'correct' amortisation model and have the embargo lifted. We can then sit on the 2016/17/18 sets until the last minute.

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

It may well be that we can now submit the 2019/2020 sets with the 'correct' amortisation model and have the embargo lifted. We can then sit on the 2016/17/18 sets until the last minute.

I doubt anything will happen until the latest appeal report is published - how much longer will they be!!!

[RadioactiveWaste]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It allowed us to spend more, but didn't originally factor in a stadium sale. The profit from that should mean we sneak inside the limits

Us winning the stadium part helps immeasurable. Well, measurably I suppose seeing as the figures are known.

[Spanish]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Do you know that we are, as a fact, in an embargo? Or are you basing it on usual circumstances of late accounts = embargo.

And what impact would a soft embargo have anyway? Signings can still be made if certain requirements are met. As you seem so sure we are over the limit, then it would be better to submit as late as possible. If we were under an embargo at the moment, it would be a soft one. If we submitted the accounts which showed we were over the limit, then we would most certainly be under a 'hard' embargo instead.

it is an assumption, which is supported by the Marriott problems I suppose

[duncanjwitham]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It allowed us to spend more, but didn't originally factor in a stadium sale. The profit from that should mean we sneak inside the limits

And of course it's not really straight pass/fail, it's how much you fail by. Given the stadium sale, it's unlikely we're failing by untold millions of overspending, so any points deductions that might arise *should* be relatively minor.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

it is an assumption, which is supported by the Marriott problems I suppose

I can't help but think there's more at play in the Marriott situation.

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I can't help but think there's more at play in the Marriott situation.

maybe but sometimes the obvious answer can be correct?  The lack of contract renewals is also worrying.  You will recall I did a thread on embargoes based on the DC1 report and I think we have been hamstrung by this for a long time (not itk so just guesswork)

[Woodley Ram]

20 minutes ago, Spanish said:

maybe but sometimes the obvious answer can be correct?  The lack of contract renewals is also worrying.  You will recall I did a thread on embargoes based on the DC1 report and I think we have been hamstrung by this for a long time (not itk so just guesswork)

I think your guesswork is right, no idea if by design or accident but EFL need to look at what they are doing. Innocence until proven guilty should be the rule here, not 2 years of embargoes that could have a worse effect than a points deduction

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Woodley Ram said:

I think your guesswork is right, no idea if by design or accident but EFL need to look at what they are doing. Innocence until proven guilty should be the rule here, not 2 years of embargoes that could have a worse effect than a points deduction

as it stands maintaining Championship status in 2021/2 would be a Great Escape.

[Sparkle]

On 30/06/2021 at 11:02, Spanish said:

remember when Leeds were fined £200k for spying, puts our fine in context doesn't it

They didn’t pay it though - their manager did ! And an argument could have been made that they dishonourably gained 6 points from us ( they didn’t need to spy on the pitch) so should have been docked those points whilst spying on all the other clubs as well causing league chaos yet again. 

[Sparkle]

It terms of our accounts - wouldn’t they have changed despite of our re doing of them in line with what is now being said to be done with reference to all the extensions we gave out to several players like Johnson Butterfield Forsyth etc. I mean that our original submissions could only improve over both types of accounts or have I got that wrong?  

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

I think your guesswork is right, no idea if by design or accident but EFL need to look at what they are doing. Innocence until proven guilty should be the rule here, not 2 years of embargoes that could have a worse effect than a points deduction

The impact the soft embargoes that we have had  to endure (whilst under investigation) could be measured.

I would suggest the point at where we were prior to those sanctions imposed and where we ultimately ended last season.

What was the impact and the points differential from 19-20 to 20-21. 

That impact is certainly measurable and the restrictions imposed by this sanction placed upon DCFC whilst under investigation must be taken into consideration. 
 

Hopefully common sense breaks out between all involved and some sort of normality can be restored. 

Truth be told the knock on effect of the sanctions will result in DCFC being relegated by the end of the coming season anyway…. So well done to all involved wielding the axe over our club, you will all eventually realise your wishes.
 

[RoyMac5]

11 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

Truth be told the knock on effect of the sanctions will result in DCFC being relegated by the end of the coming season anyway….

Lol. Winning lottery numbers please. ?

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Lol. Winning lottery numbers please. ?

Get what you’re saying ?? but with a squad size of ours, inability to invest in the squad along with a managerial set up such as ours it’s a recipe for disaster. 
 

I, as everyone on here am hoping for a Phoenix from the flames moment for us all. Unfortunately everything that going on around us stacks up against us and is telling me something very different ??

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

Get what you’re saying ?? but with a squad size of ours, inability to invest in the squad along with a managerial set up such as ours it’s a recipe for disaster. 
 

I, as everyone on here am hoping for a Phoenix from the flames moment for us all. Unfortunately everything that going on around us stacks up against us and is telling me something very different ??

Wait and see where we are when the transfer window closes.

[DCFC1388]

Well 2 of our August champ games (Peterborough & Forest) & Salford in the cup have been selected to be on TV by Sky so surely that puts the EFL in a tough spot if they're trying to get us relegated, a bit of TV pressure on them

[Van der MoodHoover]

5 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

And of course it's not really straight pass/fail, it's how much you fail by. Given the stadium sale, it's unlikely we're failing by untold millions of overspending, so any points deductions that might arise *should* be relatively minor.

Somebody clarified tho that the EFL can also impose a penalty of up to 9 points in respect of how "awkward" we've been, independent of the size of any breach. Think that it might be @Ghost of Cloughwho clarified that.

So I think our assumption should be that for even a small amount the wrong side of the line the EFL will be wanting to start at 9.

We can appeal that part which I'm sure we would. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

22 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Somebody clarified tho that the EFL can also impose a penalty of up to 9 points in respect of how "awkward" we've been, independent of the size of any breach. Think that it might be @Ghost of Cloughwho clarified that.

So I think our assumption should be that for even a small amount the wrong side of the line the EFL will be wanting to start at 9.

We can appeal that part which I'm sure we would. 

The "aggravating factors" part of the sanctions. Which is why the £100k fine + resubmitted accounts should be appropriate for the accounting charge.

[Ghost of Clough]

11 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Somebody clarified tho that the EFL can also impose a penalty of up to 9 points in respect of how "awkward" we've been, independent of the size of any breach. Think that it might be @Ghost of Cloughwho clarified that.

So I think our assumption should be that for even a small amount the wrong side of the line the EFL will be wanting to start at 9.

We can appeal that part which I'm sure we would. 

Don't forget it can be reduced too.

Interestingly, Birmingham had extra points added on to their penalty due to season on season increases in losses (£2m, £13m, £34m). However, the EFL didn't pursue the same for SWFC despite also having season on season increases in losses (£19m, £29m, £42m).

[hintonsboots]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Don't forget it can be reduced too.

Interestingly, Birmingham had extra points added on to their penalty due to season on season increases in losses (£2m, £13m, £34m). However, the EFL didn't pursue the same for SWFC despite also having season on season increases in losses (£19m, £29m, £42m).

So the EFL are applying random penalties ??