Embargo.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, Leeds Ram said:

If the amortisation policy is allowing us to delay losses as I've described then it gives us an advantage in 1 potentially 2 ways. The first one is it allows us to spend more in a short period of time, that's a definite advantage that we had. The second one is contingent upon if we can maximise our revenue streams to mitigate the depreciation, if we managed to do that then we've had a second longer term advantage of potentially excessive spending over a long period of time. It has the potential downside that if we couldn't find the revenue then we'd hit a sticky wicket in the longer term. 

Amortisation does not affect what a club can spend on transfers.

The fact that every season since 2019 we've had to sell one of our prize assets does not indicate to me that we were gaining any real advantage.

[Spanish]

8 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Its disingenuous in that you were stating two hours earlier that there was no advantage gained by the club to @Wolfie. Now you are agreeing there was competitive advantage from the change of policy.  What do you think a professional football club might most want to be be obtaining - competitive or financial advantage? ?

I may be wrong with the dates, I dont know for certain, and really cant be arsed to look back at dates involving ground sale, and the running down of said players contracts to nil. (It would have been around the same time I guess that Morris was telling fans at group events that they could all do their bit to improve income and make sure we stay within FFP limits, although he had at the time already  completed the stadium transaction).  Anyway, the stadium sale I would suggest was forced upon Morris as the only 'clever' way to cover the big losses that had been deferred on player values.  

 

DC1

The Club responded on 25 April 2018, enclosing a revised P&S Appendix 1 Form That revised P&S Appendix 1 Form recorded

a) A loss before tax for T-2 (year to 30 June 2016) of £14,725,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£15,271,000)17 b) A loss before tax for T-1 (year to 30 June 2017) of £7,873,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£4,686,000) c) A forecast loss before tax for T (year to 30 June 2018) of £27,445,000 with Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of (-£23,970,000) The Club’s actual/forecast aggregated loss before tax for T, T-1 and T-2 was thus still £50,043,000, but its actual/forecast Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 had become (-£43,927,000). That aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax had thus become a figure in excess of the LLT and the ULT

70) On 4 May 2018 the EFL wrote to the Club a) With further queries about its P&S Information, and b) To advise that, since the revised P&S Appendix 1 Form showed a breach of the P&S Requirement (because the aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings Before Tax exceeded the ULT), the Club would be placed under a registration embargo pursuant to EFL Regulation 16.20. 71) The Club continued to address the EFL’s queries. It also began to consider what steps it might take before the end of the year ended 30 June 2018 (i.e. T) to avoid breaching the aggregate ULT for T, T-1 and T-2. The steps that it took comprised 2 strands: a) It began to negotiate to sell players to other clubs b) It decided in principle to sell Pride Park to Mr Morris. As we have set above, Mr Morris was by that time already interested in developing Pride Park as a ‘stand-alone’ venture.

[Leeds Ram]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Amortisation does not affect what a club can spend on transfers.

The fact that every season since 2019 we've had to sell one of our prize assets does not indicate to me that we were gaining any real advantage.

No it doesn't directly but it gives us greater headroom to spend more on transfers than what others could do if we're delaying losses by overvaluing assets. This is where the competitive advantage comes from right at least theoretically. Now whether that was realised in the longer term because of our imprudent spending, lack of promotion, and inability to maximise revenue to offset depreciation is entirely irrelevant to the first short term advantage that we gained. It speaks more to the risk of the policy long term (if you can't use revenue to offset asset loss then you've hit a snag ) which is precisely what I said in my previous post. 

[Wolfie]

20 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well I apologise as I wasn't aware that a business trying to obtain a competitive advantage over it's competitors was against the rules.

I never claimed it was against the rules. I was merely rubbishing the club's assertion that the unique policy amongst EFL clubs gave them no advantage over the rest. Something which you now accept.

Presumably the EFL will have seen through this as well, which might not have helped our current negotiations with them.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, Wolfie said:

I never claimed it was against the rules. I was merely rubbishing the club's assertion that the unique policy amongst EFL clubs gave them no advantage over the rest. Something which you now accept.

Presumably the EFL will have seen through this as well, which might not have helped our current negotiations with them.

Getting bigger sponsorship deals than our competitors give us a competitive advantage.

Getting bigger crowds than our competitors give us a competitive advantage. 

Having a better academy than our competitors should give us a competitive advantage.

Should the EFL charge us for any of the above?

[May Contain Nuts]

29 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

I never claimed it was against the rules. I was merely rubbishing the club's assertion that the unique policy amongst EFL clubs gave them no advantage over the rest. Something which you now accept.

Did the club assert that, that we weren't looking to gain any advantage whatsoever (even a completely fair one), or are you just quoting posters on here saying that the club asserted that?

Whatever the case, it seems from reading posts a couple of pages back that you only have to appear to be seeking an unfair advantage to be treated as guilty of seeking an unfair advantage... so, what, a club only needs to be accused of something to be punished for it!? What a system!

Edited September 9, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[duncanjwitham]

11 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Did the club assert that, that we weren't looking to gain any advantage whatsoever (even a completely fair one), or are you just quoting posters on here saying that the club asserted that?

I'm not sure the club has ever asserted that. In public anyway.  The clubs stated position was always that the ERV method was a better fit for how we intended to use the transfer market (buying players, developing them and selling them on) than a straight-line method.  And under FRS102, that's fine - you are supposed to use the model that best suits your particular use-case (providing it's legal, of course).

The "gained no advantage" line comes from DC2, but it should be made clear that specifically applies to the amortization method alone, not any indirect results of it.  The amortization policy itself didn't give us more leeway in the transfer market, that's why we basically got a slap-on-the-wrist fine for it.  The net result of that policy might have been in some years we gained more leeway, at the expense of having less leeway in future years.  The position in DC2 was that if that is the case, and that extra leeway allowed us to overspend, it should be dealt with as a separate issue, because it's not the amortisation policy that's wrong, it's the overspend.

[Oldben]

I think the clubs leeway is connected to Sheffield wednesday who were given a 12pt deduction, reduced to 6pts on appeal.

I would accept a reduction from 9pts to 6pts.

I think 6pts could still hurt the clubs chances of survival.

Whatever points are given the lifting of the transfer embargo is a requisite otherwise the efl have to own up to the fact that for no decent reason they have basically forced the club into administration.

I say no decent reason because the amortisation method used was not illegal, or else the auditors would not have used it.

Companies House would not have accepted the filed accounts.

In my opinion, No transfers and a large points deduction relegated the club, and puts the club into administration.

 

 

 

[duncanjwitham]

14 minutes ago, Oldben said:

I think the clubs leeway is connected to Sheffield wednesday who were given a 12pt deduction, reduced to 6pts on appeal.

I've never actually looked at the Sheffield Wednesday written reasons for the appeal points reduction, so just had a skim through.  The main reason their points deduction was reduced was because their stadium sale, while not occurring in the right year, was actually pretty close to it (a couple of weeks after their accounting period closed).  And they'd informed the EFL of their intention to sell long before that.  So their LAP basically took that as mitigating circumstances - they were actively trying to do something that would've meant they were within the allowed limits, and so they should get some credit, even though they never quite made it in time.

How that would translate to a potential appeal/agreed-decision from us is interesting, because we never actually took the corrective action that Sheffield Wednesday took. But we had no reason to think we actually had to, because as far as we were concerned we'd met the limits (allowing for the stadium sale etc).  So I honestly don't know if there's any direct parallels or precedents set between the 2 cases.  I certainly don't think you can just say something like they got theirs halved, so ours should be too.

[Sparkle]

It will be a sad day when we actually pay money for a player again.

hopefully we never need to buy from other championship clubs or Arsenal - they can find their own money 

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Getting bigger sponsorship deals than our competitors give us a competitive advantage.

Getting bigger crowds than our competitors give us a competitive advantage. 

Having a better academy than our competitors should give us a competitive advantage.

Should the EFL charge us for any of the above?

Don't give them any ideas!

[Crewton]

Problem is the EFL have let a large number of "competitive advantage" dodges pass through (Leicester, Watford, Wolves, Forest I'm sure have tried similar too) without serious sanction (or none, in some cases) since the start of FFP and they're now playing catch-up at a time when it's us they can get their teeth into. The lack of opprobrium experienced by these and other miscreants is also galling, when some of those dodges were little more than fraud.

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Oldben said:

I think the clubs leeway is connected to Sheffield wednesday who were given a 12pt deduction, reduced to 6pts on appeal.

I would accept a reduction from 9pts to 6pts.

I think 6pts could still hurt the clubs chances of survival.

The problem (well, one problem) we have is that with the EFL effectively trying to bully us into accepting a points penalty by withholding our right to operate under normal trading conditions is that if we accept it there won't be any recourse to an appeal to lessen the penalty at a later date.

If we accept their 'deal', we cannot appeal.

...but that just makes you wonder how little they actually have on us, if they're so convinced of our guilt then what's stopping them just applying a punishment and letting us appeal it? They'll win the appeal, surely, without any problems, we're bang to rights...?

It's being presented as them wanting to end this as quickly as we do, presented as them being 'reasonable' by entering into negotiations but is anyone actually buying that? Of course they're not being reasonable, they're trying to get as much from us as possible, a far higher punishment than is actually warranted by our actions, without their decision being scrutinised by a third party.

It's practically extortion - if they get away with this what else will they get away with in future?

Edited September 9, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[RoyMac5]

12 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

The problem (well, one problem) we have is that with the EFL effectively trying to bully us into accepting a points penalty by withholding our right to operate under normal trading conditions is that if we accept it there won't be any recourse to an appeal to lessen the penalty at a later date.

If we accept their 'deal', we cannot appeal.

...but that just makes you wonder how little they actually have on us, what's stopping them just applying a punishment and letting us appeal it?

It's being presented as them wanting to end this as quickly as we do, presented as them being 'reasonable' by entering into negotiations but is anyone actually buying that? Of course they're not being reasonable, they're trying to get as much from us as possible, a far higher punishment than is actually warranted by our actions, without their decision being scrutinised by a third party.

It's practically extortion - if they get away with this what else will they get away with in future?

?

Plus, exactly who is this all for?

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

Maybe our “reasonable” start to the season has encouraged MM to be a bit bolder in his negotiations.
Were EFL thinking higher pressure would build on us with expecting a poorer start?

And MM is thinking, If WR can keep this going then EFL bluff will be called with a none agreed imposed penalty which his legal advice says we would have high chance of winning an appeal on (with legal costs to EFL).

Edited September 9, 2021 by Dean (hick) Saunders

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Oldben said:

I think the clubs leeway is connected to Sheffield wednesday who were given a 12pt deduction, reduced to 6pts on appeal.

I would accept a reduction from 9pts to 6pts.

I think 6pts could still hurt the clubs chances of survival.

Whatever points are given the lifting of the transfer embargo is a requisite otherwise the efl have to own up to the fact that for no decent reason they have basically forced the club into administration.

I say no decent reason because the amortisation method used was not illegal, or else the auditors would not have used it.

Companies House would not have accepted the filed accounts.

In my opinion, No transfers and a large points deduction relegated the club, and puts the club into administration.

What is all of this about accepting a reduction?

Reduction from what?

First of all they need to charge us with something, then us be found guilty and then a points deduction applied as set out in the rule book.

Only at that time is there anything to be appealed, up until that point we are guilty of nothing and should be treated as such.

[alram]

I have long been an overlooker on these things and showed little interest, i generally believe as fans we dont know what goes on behind the scenes especially when it comes to the complicated nature of finances nowadays with financial fair play and whatever other restrictions there is. everybody like to think they know what they are talking about but the reality is it is all guesswork and speculation. I have always been a fan of whats on the pitch and pay little attention to the stuff that goes on elsewhere.

but you cannot ignore it at the moment despite my best efforts because it is clearly having a massive effect of things on the pitch and i am extremely worried about the future. we all like to blame the EFL but we as a club and mainly mel morris at to blame. The EFL dont wake up and decide I am going to punish Derby. We as a club have acted terribly over recent history, disregarding authorities, rules and other clubs. You even look at how long this has dragged on for, and looks like there is no end in sight. Why does this not happen at other clubs? it is you broke X rule, here is the punishment. With us we make everything difficult, struggling and resisting despite being guilty of charges. 

i am sure i will take some stick for almost 'defending' the efl (go easy on me )i think the efl are an immoral organisation with no leadership, but at the end of the day this whole situation is our doing. i think the chants at the efl should be directed at the man running the club that is mel morris. 

let us just look at the facts of the situation, we are in absolute turmoil and mel morris has had dozens and dozens of opportunities to resolve this entire situation, but he seems to be dragging his heels at every opportunity. i ask why? if he resolves all these issues which the efl clearly want to do, he could potential sell the club easier. so why is he not looking to resolve these issues? 

for me i am seriously worried about the long term future of our club, we can blame the efl, boris johnson, covid or the pope. at the end of the day all of this could be resolved by mel morris, whether he genuinely does not want to fund the club going forward then the club needs clarity.

my reading of this situation is mel knows the crowd have not turned on him so he is keeping his mouth shut, i think the reality of this situation could be grim for us supporters and mel knows this. i think mel is direspecting the players, the manager and the fans in his handling of this situation.

sorry to be all doom and gloom this is just my thoughts on the sitatuion i had to get it off my chest

Edited September 9, 2021 by alram

[Tyler Durden]

5 minutes ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

And MM is thinking, If WR can keep this going then EFL bluff will be called with a none agreed imposed penalty which his legal advice says we would have high chance of winning?

Does Mel Morris actually have legal advice or indeed listens to it?

The cases of Sam Rush and Richard Keogh would suggest not. 

[May Contain Nuts]

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

?

Plus, exactly who is this all for?

I guess the only people who could stand to benefit from us receiving a points deduction would be this year's Championship relegation contenders, not that anything we're supposed to have done has had any discernible impact on their own fortunes.

A bit like how it was going to be Wycombe who'd have benefited had the disciplinary panel chosen to deduct points from last season's tally, even though they were playing in League One at the time of our supposed discretions.

It's mad really - punish us for some perceived wrongdoing that (realistically) didn't negatively impact anyone else, first by giving every other team in the league an advantage over us with the transfer embargo (even another team they can prove have spent £54m more than they were allowed!) and then further punishing us with a 9 point deduction.

It's not just mad, it's totally insane and there's no justification for it.

 

[hintonsboots]

13 minutes ago, alram said:

have long been an overlooker on these things and showed little interest, i generally believe as fans we dont know what goes on behind the scenes

But then you go on to say you do know and it’s all MM’s fault. It will be easier  to apportion blame, once we have all the facts, if that ever happens, due to the number of NDA’s floating around.