EFL Verdict

[G-Ram]

Duck the EFL

[Spanish]

Wouldn’t be surprised if the club don’t stick to their guns now and maintain the line that they are compliant and that view is supported by auditors.  If they can’t get that support they can’t follow that path.

[Chellaston Ram]

let’s get now get Mengi on loan and hopefully Delap

[MaltRam]

Another battle won, but the war not over. Need the accounts in, and us out of Um Bongo, and we need the takeover urgently too.

Worth pausing to say that Steve Gibson and Rick Parry can get ducked too.

[Spanish]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Just reading the DC report now and they are clear that they could (if necessary) have made a points deduction that would have been for 20/21 season! Not got to the bit where they say why they didn't yet, but makes me wonder what it is if the EFL have decided not to appeal the punishment...

"40) Thus we conclude:

1) That it is open to us to impose a deduction of points on the Club as a sanction for the proven breaches if that is the sanction/one of the sanctions that we consider to be necessary and proportionate in order to achieve the sanctioning aims

(2) That it is open to us to impose such a points deduction to take effect in the 2020/2021 season if we consider that a deduction of points in that season is necessary and proportionate in order to achieve the sanctioning aims

(3) That save in rare cases where the circumstances require otherwise, no account should generally be taken of the fact that a points deduction effective in the 2020/2021 season would (if that deduction was to be 2 points or more) have the effect of relegating the Club."

I noted that also, it could have been much worse

[Comrade 86]

26 minutes ago, TaahnRam said:

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

There's a definite implication that we've been less than transparent in many statements, below are a selection. It appears the DC got a bit impatient with the "EFL is against us/Mel" argument in their responses to several statements too.

 

 

Load of subjective nonsense. From your own carefully selected texts...

"We accept that the club has at no time sought to mislead the EFL"

"In all other respects (bar the one line in our accounts describing out amortisation policy) we accept that the club has acted with candour and transparency in its dealings with the EFL"

If these appear damning condemnations, rather than mealy-mouthed excuses for their inept handling of the investigations and subsequent appeals, then fair enough, but we'll have to agree to disagree. It was openly accepted that the EFL failed to understand the methodology used and the terminology that described it. Somehow, that has morphed, in the minds of some, into some carefully orchestrated campaign to hoodwink the EFL.

The focus should not now be further baseless accusations levelled at a club who have been driven to the brink, but rather on the astounding lack of professionalism displayed by a sporting body who have shown themselves to be both hugely hypocritical and vindictive in equal measures. If their board had an ounce of self-respect, then resignations would be being submitted as we speak, yet despite this pointless and ultimately fruitless campaign against the club, their noses will remain firmly in the trough.

Frankly, I think the club have remained remarkably dignified in the their conduct over the course of the last 18 months, certainly when compared to the EFL, Gibson and that utter gobshite of an owner at Wycombe.

[RoyMac5]

The LAP found in our favour:

"  (2) However, in fairness to the EFL we make clear that, as we have set out above, we did not understand Mr Lewis QC to be inviting us to find dishonesty on the part of the Club, in the sense of finding that it had engaged in conduct which it had known at the relevant times was impermissible.

The Club of course knew that it was implementing and operating the amortisation policy which the LAP has now found to be non-compliant with FRS 102, but there is no basis on which to conclude that the Club knew or even suspected that the policy was non-compliant during the relevant seasons. Similarly, the Club knew that the Annual Accounts contained a description of the amortisation policy which we found to be non-compliant with FRS 102, but once again there is no basis on which to conclude that the Club knew (in the sense of ‘consciously appreciated’) that that description was non-compliant

(3) We reject the EFL’s suggestions that the Club acted recklessly or in bad faith for similar reasons. While the DC Decision did not contain any express findings as regards the Club’s state of mind (1) when formulating, implementing and operating the amortisation policy, and (2) as regards the wording of the relevant Note in the Annual Accounts (because it was unnecessary for us to do so in order to determine whether each Particular of Charge 2 was or was not proven)

Edited July 2, 2021 by RoyMac5

[CornwallRam]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The LAP found in our favour:

"  (2) However, in fairness to the EFL we make clear that, as we have set out above, we did not understand Mr Lewis QC to be inviting us to find dishonesty on the part of the Club, in the sense of finding that it had engaged in conduct which it had known at the relevant times was impermissible.

The Club of course knew that it was implementing and operating the amortisation policy which the LAP has now found to be non-compliant with FRS 102, but there is no basis on which to conclude that the Club knew or even suspected that the policy was non-compliant during the relevant seasons. Similarly, the Club knew that the Annual Accounts contained a description of the amortisation policy which we found to be non-compliant with FRS 102, but once again there is no basis on which to conclude that the Club knew (in the sense of ‘consciously appreciated’) that that description was non-compliant

(3) We reject the EFL’s suggestions that the Club acted recklessly or in bad faith for similar reasons. While the DC Decision did not contain any express findings as regards the Club’s state of mind (1) when formulating, implementing and operating the amortisation policy, and (2) as regards the wording of the relevant Note in the Annual Accounts (because it was unnecessary for us to do so in order to determine whether each Particular of Charge 2 was or was not proven)

The paragraph you haven't highlighted is actually the most important. It is within the EFL's power to relegate or eject any club found to have acted in bad faith. No need for points deductions, DCs, LAPs or anything else, just a straight red card.

[TaahnRam]

2 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Load of subjective nonsense. From your own carefully selected texts...

"We accept that the club has at no time sought to mislead the EFL"

"In all other respects (bar the one line in our accounts describing out amortisation policy) we accept that the club has acted with candour and transparency in its dealings with the EFL"

If these appear damning condemnations, rather than mealy-mouthed excuses for their inept handling of the investigations and subsequent appeals, then fair enough, but we'll have to agree to disagree. It was openly accepted that the EFL failed to understand the methodology used and the terminology that described it. Somehow, that has morphed, in the minds of some, into some carefully orchestrated campaign to hoodwink the EFL.

The focus should not now be further baseless accusations levelled at a club who have been driven to the brink, but rather on the astounding lack of professionalism displayed by a sporting body who have shown themselves to be both hugely hypocritical and vindictive in equal measures. If their board had an ounce of self-respect, then resignations would be being submitted as we speak, yet despite this pointless and ultimately fruitless campaign against the club, their noses will remain firmly in the trough.

Frankly, I think the club have remained remarkably dignified in the their conduct over the course of the last 18 months, certainly when compared to the EFL, Gibson and that utter gobshite of an owner at Wycombe.

Damning condemnations no but I don't think we come out whiter than white. Agree to disagree like you say. Couldn't agree more about the EFL whose handling of the whole situation has been dreadful from the start and whose actions could have potentially destroyed our club.  

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, Spanish said:

I noted that also, it could have been much worse

And then I've quoted the bit where LAP basically said we had acted (in our P&S submissions) without knowledge of our 'non-compliance'. So that is what saved us, as it should as the EFL had let us continue for 3 years!

[Tamworthram]

15 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Timing is key points deducted at LAP2 or DC2 would have relegated us.  If we breach it goes to DC3 and points are likely 21/22

Surely if they’d won an appeal and we’d been relegated we’d still face another penalty next season for failing FFP. Therefore, I don’t see how not appealing could increase next years penalty.

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

And then I've quoted the bit where LAP basically said we had acted (in our P&S submissions) without knowledge of our 'non-compliance'. So that is what saved us, as it should as the EFL had let us continue for 3 years!

I said it elsewhere this could be easily tightened with an auditors certificate of compliance with accountancy standards and P&S rules

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Surely if they’d won an appeal and we’d been relegated we’d still face another penalty next season for failing FFP. Therefore, I don’t see how not appealing could increase next years penalty.

The punishment was a £100k fine and resubmission of accounts. They stated that it was within their power to deduct points retrospectively. But they haven't, why on earth would you appeal in case they changed their mind?!

[Woodley Ram]

46 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Surely that statement means that we didn't break the existing rules?

No it means that there is no evidence that we obtained a sporting advantage. The issue that the EFL had was that FFP is over a 3 year period so that fact we altered the amortisation over the different years , the effect ( as we always went to 0 in the end) was no different thereby we didn’t obtain a sporting advantage. 
 

the FFP examination of our books with the straight line method is different 

[G-Ram]

Make sure the new accounts pass FFP then draw a line under it and move on hopefully 

[JfR]

Thought this was an interesting point to flag up, as it might have got a bit lost in the rest of the case:
While the notes on the accounts weren't complete and gave the wrong impression of the policy used, the notes gave the impression that Derby were using a "worse" policy than they were actually using, one where they assigned a value at the end of the contract rather than near the end of the contract, so even if the EFL didn't correctly understand the policy used, they should have at least known from the notes that a new, unusual method of amortisation was being used when the accounts were submitted.

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Woodley Ram said:

No it means that there is no evidence that we obtained a sporting advantage. The issue that the EFL had was that FFP is over a 3 year period so that fact we altered the amortisation over the different years , the effect ( as we always went to 0 in the end) was no different thereby we didn’t obtain a sporting advantage. 
 

the FFP examination of our books with the straight line method is different 

Don’t you detect the feeling that we will restate the accounts in the way we and our auditors believe is compliant with accountancy standards, doesn’t necessarily mean it will comply the elf’s view of what is the correct methodology.  All these games are killing us though, we could win this war only to find it was just a battle

[RoyMac5]

Here's what saved us from a points deduction last season:

"62) Before we leave this section, we record that, had we taken a different view of the Club’s conduct – and in particular, had we concluded that the Club had indeed been reckless or dishonest in its decision to implement and operate the amortisation policy, that the Club had acted other than in good faith and/or that the Club had deliberately misrecorded or attempted to conceal the amortisation policy that it had implemented and was operating – we would have taken a far harsher view as to the gravity of the Club’s conduct."

[Gringo]

Nick De Marco reaction on twitter

Delighted for Derby County. The idea of any points deduction, let alone a retrospective one, was a nonsense in the circumstances. The full written reasons of the DC make clear why any points deduction would be wholly disproportionate and I urge anyone interested to read them.

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I suspect that the source of the deep disappointment is the shredding of their reputation as a competent regulator....

That horse bolted years ago ?