Embargo.

[Wolfie]

43 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The FFP rules say you get docked up to 12 points, based on the exact amount of overspend. Up to an additional 9 points can be added on for “aggravating circumstances”, which is supposed to be for things like deliberately hiding what you’re doing, knowingly breaking the rules etc.  In our case there’s no way that should apply, because we have pages and pages of stuff from the DC written reasons about us gaining no direct sporting advantage from the amortisation policy, and having no reason to suspect what we’re doing was against the rules etc.

I was (slightly facetiously) suggesting that if we haven’t failed FFP, the EFL might try and tack the 9 points on anyway for what they construe as maliciously (not) breaking the rules.

I don’t buy this not gaining an advantage by what we did guff. There has to be a reason why 71 clubs do it one way and we did it another. 
 

Obviously that’s what the club would claim but is utter tosh. We got found out and need to agree the punishment ASAP. 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

I don’t buy this not gaining an advantage by what we did guff. There has to be a reason why 71 clubs do it one way and we did it another. 
 

Obviously that’s what the club would claim but is utter tosh. We got found out and need to agree the punishment ASAP. 

We got found out for doing something that wasn't against the rules. Don't you understand the difference between breaking the rules and doing something not covered by the rules?

[CBRammette]

1 hour ago, alexxxxx said:

Efl want us relegated it's been clear for about 18 months.

Tbh with -9/-12 I'd support a legal battle. At least then we might stay up. -6 may be worth putting it to bed. 

The efl are basically saying 'get relegated' or take us to court. 

I think acceptability of say -6 depends on whether that's everything in full and final settlement to the point of all closed and reported years accounts submitted and signed off and we then move forward. OR if its -6 then they keep going for another -3 here and there with more charges/embargoes on different charges then that is totally different. As we rightly dont know what is going on behind the scenes with the EFL talks could also depend of view of any potential buyer who may also be in discussions with the EFL. The only winners in this will as usual be the lawyers

Edited September 8, 2021 by CBRammette
Nonsense

[falconram]

I was told Monday MM is sticking by his guns, wants the rules changing as we havnt broken any rules,just done them a different way. 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, CBRammette said:

I think acceptability of say -6 depends on whether that's everything in full and final settlement to the point of all closed and reported years accounts submitted and signed off and we then move forward. OR if its -6 then they keep going for another -3 here and there with more charges/embargoes on different charges then that is totally different. As we rightly dont know what is going on behind the scenes could also depend of view of any potential buyer who may also be in discussions with the EFL. The only winners in this will as usual be the lawyers

We did all this when the appeal was being heard - it came out as £100k fine. I still think Percy is poo-stirring.

[angieram]

56 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The FFP rules say you get docked up to 12 points, based on the exact amount of overspend. Up to an additional 9 points can be added on for “aggravating circumstances”, which is supposed to be for things like deliberately hiding what you’re doing, knowingly breaking the rules etc.  In our case there’s no way that should apply, because we have pages and pages of stuff from the DC written reasons about us gaining no direct sporting advantage from the amortisation policy, and having no reason to suspect what we’re doing was against the rules etc.

I was (slightly facetiously) suggesting that if we haven’t failed FFP, the EFL might try and tack the 9 points on anyway for what they construe as maliciously (not) breaking the rules.

I thought that's what you meant - hence my comment! 

[I know nuffin]

45 minutes ago, davenportram said:

I think the EFL are trying to save face - how can we be punished for doing something that at the time was accepted by the EFL as not breaking the rules but they retrospectively decide wasnt within the rules?

I would speculate this will all depend on what cards Mel holds. If he has one from the auditors governing body to say that our method of amortization is within their rules Mel will be fighting to use it but the EFL will be fighting to stop him. If Mel can use it no doubt he will want some form of compensation to cover his defence costs and things like losing Marriott on a free transfer. The EFL will be fighting to hang something on us to save face and stop the pressure they are getting from lower league clubs many of which cannot be happy that the EFl are wasting their money. Peterborough owner apparently has come out and said that. If it was an open and shut case it would be all over by now so common sense says we must have something that the EFL cannot bulldozer over without ending up in a court of law. Far fetched? Only time will tell but that old phrase might just ring true- In Mel we trust

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

5 minutes ago, falconram said:

I was told Monday MM is sticking by his guns, wants the rules changing as we havnt broken any rules,just done them a different way. 

 

[atherstoneram]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

We got found out for doing something that wasn't against the rules. Don't you understand the difference between breaking the rules and doing something not covered by the rules?

Yes i do but why do something different to the other 71 clubs which would have been the standard policy. IIRC the club"discussed" with the EFL how our accounts would be submitted and that was agreed.What neither you or i know is that what we submitted was what had been verbally agreed, the EFL have admitted they don't look at the accounts before signing them off, they are signed off "on trust". MM then comes out and states publicly "how easy it to manipulate the rules". There is the possibility that this raised a Red flag within the EFL who scrutinised the accounts and the method used was not the same as originally agreed. We have only been fed one side of the story. 

[MikeS]

57 minutes ago, davenportram said:

I think the EFL are trying to save face - how can we be punished for doing something that at the time was accepted by the EFL as not breaking the rules but they retrospectively decide wasnt within the rules?

Because it could be that they are close to being made to look a bunch of mugs. They are desperate not to throw in the towel because their stance in this has been over the top and out of line. They need to pin a points deduction on the club, to give their actions merit. Where any 9 point deduction comes from is a continuing mystery, when only a fine has been deemed appropriate by an independent  panel.

On the other hand, it could be the club are bang in the wrong or perhaps Percy is circulating complete tosh. It's not the first time that we have seen such alleged information about this situation from him, all of which has drifted away into oblivion.. 

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Yes i do but why do something different to the other 71 clubs which would have been the standard policy. IIRC the club"discussed" with the EFL how our accounts would be submitted and that was agreed.What neither you or i know is that what we submitted was what had been verbally agreed, the EFL have admitted they don't look at the accounts before signing them off, they are signed off "on trust". MM then comes out and states publicly "how easy it to manipulate the rules". There is the possibility that this raised a Red flag within the EFL who scrutinised the accounts and the method used was not the same as originally agreed. We have only been fed one side of the story. 

The method we used is fairly standard one. Why does any business chose to do things a certain way that is different. To gain an advantage - well obviously. It's not against the rules. I do not get what you are on about. Only fed 'one side' after two independent panels have scrutinised things and we only got a £100k fine, because we didn't 'explain things well enough'. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by RoyMac5

[Elwood P Dowd]

If Derby do not agree with whatever sanction the EFL want to impose the sanction can be referred to the Disciplinary Panel.

85.4  The EFL will propose a sanction and detail its reasons in writing (a Proposed Sanction). The Proposed Respondents shall have two options: 

85.4.1 to accept the Proposed Sanction within 14 days of receipt; or

85.4.2 to reject the Proposed Sanction, in which case the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with this section 8.

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Elwood P Dowd

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, davenportram said:

I think the EFL are trying to save face - how can we be punished for doing something that at the time was accepted by the EFL as not breaking the rules but they retrospectively decide wasnt within the rules?

Schrödinger's Transgression

[CBRammette]

20 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

We did all this when the appeal was being heard - it came out as £100k fine. I still think Percy is poo-stirring.

Yes like groundhog day isnt it. Think we are good clickbait. The phrasing of tweets very vague

[ossieram]

36 minutes ago, falconram said:

I was told Monday MM is sticking by his guns, wants the rules changing as we havnt broken any rules,just done them a different way. 

I was told the same and that Mel is willing to take this to the law courts.  

I don't know how or if the person who told me knows this for sure or if it's bs.

[atherstoneram]

14 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The method we used is fairly standard one. Why does any business chose to do things a certain way that is different. To gain an advantage - well obviously. It's not against the rules. I do not get what you are on about. Only fed 'one side' after two independent panels have scrutinised things and we only got a £100k fine, because we didn't 'explain things well enough'. 

Why don't you get what i am about, the club and EFL came to an agreement about how our accounts would be submitted, we may have then added other processes which extended that advantage and which would just have been signed off because they trusted us to submit the accounts as discussed. We are members of an association. The other 21 clubs in the league may have been aware that the rules could be manipulated but didn't, if you don't want to abide by those rules,simple get out.  

The sooner MM is gone the better,after the Keogh disaster even more so,he comes across as a victorian business owner who thinks he can do what he wants at will

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

The sooner MM is gone the better,after the Keogh disaster even more so,he comes across as a victorian business owner who thinks he can do what he wants at will

He's a Tory. He can.

[atherstoneram]

Just now, Eddie said:

He's a Tory. He can.

He likes to think and wishes he can,that's the problem but in truth he can't.

[oomarkwright]

48 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

We did all this when the appeal was being heard - it came out as £100k fine. I still think Percy is poo-stirring.

What he said. 

[Yani P]

i think its pretty straightforward...

The EFL want us punished, even though our accounting policy was not illegal it was just not covered by the rules.

They have a trump card right now - they can keep us under embargo basically preventing us from functioning as a football club in a competitive fashion with all of the other championship clubs. They also know that this action could get us relegated by proxy - especially if we get some injuries.

It appears they are playing a poker game - they will do everything to save face - both for themselves, and the Chairmen pressing for us to get punished. So are they saying Morris..take a penalty, or take us to court and we will keep you under embargo for as long as that takes.

 

IF  Morris thinks he has an airtight case then he has to go to court, if he has an airtight case you would hope a decent barrister would get the embargo lifted - especially as their appears to have been no drive by the EFL to get an early resolution - and if we are found not guilty then surely we could sue the EFL for a significant sum for stopping us from running the football business operations?

 

I guess the big issue is whether Morris can even be bothered to fight? I would hope he would but who knows...and I guess the other matter is do we have an airtight case - the silence coming from within the club could be for any number of reasons, my hope is that its because we have dynamic evil barristers plotting our case and are giving nothing away.