Embargo.

[DCFC1388]

14 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Assuming that the whole "negotiating a punishment thing" is a case of the EFL don't think they have an airtight case against us but do have enough evidence to likely stick us with something eventually then the thing I don't get is why would their opening position in that be for a 12 point deduction ?

I get that's the maximum deduction they can hit us with but surely if they had evidence for that then it would be case closed. The thing is a 12 point deduction basically gives us zero incentive to play ball because it's a nailed on relegation and so we might as well fight them tooth and nail however we can legally. It encourages the legal battle that these negotiations you'd think they are trying to avoid. 

12 points is probably the maximum like you say, looks like their opening position is actually 9 with 3 suspended so slightly below the max. I still feel like we will end up with a 3 point deduction with 3 suspended.

[jono]

16 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Assuming that the whole "negotiating a punishment thing" is a case of the EFL don't think they have an airtight case against us but do have enough evidence to likely stick us with something eventually then the thing I don't get is why would their opening position in that be for a 12 point deduction ?

I get that's the maximum deduction they can hit us with but surely if they had evidence for that then it would be case closed. The thing is a 12 point deduction basically gives us zero incentive to play ball because it's a nailed on relegation and so we might as well fight them tooth and nail however we can legally. It encourages the legal battle that these negotiations you'd think they are trying to avoid. 

I was in a commercial negotiation once,  for agreed financial damages between a supplier and an OEM in the automotive business .. It was a revelation … They’d all been on the same “negotiation course” .. It was the most tawdry posturing waffle I had ever seen between 2 parties who needed each other. They should have been trying to reach an equitable agreement but they both strutted. Some call that negotiation. It was a day of my life wasted .. The final agreement that eventually came  could have been reached between them in 15 minutes with a bit of common sense and fair play. You simply can’t do that these days .. you have to play hard ball which is then reciprocated. 

 

[Eatonram]

[Eatonram]

This is what I was looking for. Very exact and in quotes attributed to EFL

[BucksRam]

I still stick with if we have done something obviously wrong to directly breach their rules we'd have been hit with something by now.  If we have failed FFP for example, but Derby are arguing that it's because the EFL didn't call out our amortisation "discrepancy" for 3 years, then if the EFL are in discussions with us, rather than just hitting us with a big points deduction, does that not smack of their admitting we haven't actually done anything wrong really (other than just not articulating it very well in our account notes) but want to be seen to be upholding their version of the truth.  It just gets weirder and weirder and more and more frustrating.

 

 

[Ambitious]

I just want to see the accounts. If we have breached them, fantastic, get a point deduction sent and lets get on to it. 

If we're still within the restrictions, but the EFL are still looking to punish us for the original amortisation policy (despite having to reissue our accounts) then we can't possibly accept it? 

The accounts will need to be published at some point, therefore we will see a day where we know exactly where we stand. You would think the club, if happy, would publish the results like most of them do. 

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

If we haven’t breached FFP, we should be arguing for a points addition after all the poo the EFL have heaped on us. 

[duncanjwitham]

1 hour ago, BucksRam said:

I still stick with if we have done something obviously wrong to directly breach their rules we'd have been hit with something by now.  If we have failed FFP for example, but Derby are arguing that it's because the EFL didn't call out our amortisation "discrepancy" for 3 years, then if the EFL are in discussions with us, rather than just hitting us with a big points deduction, does that not smack of their admitting we haven't actually done anything wrong really (other than just not articulating it very well in our account notes) but want to be seen to be upholding their version of the truth.  It just gets weirder and weirder and more and more frustrating.

 

If I had to stake my life it, I reckon we've submitted something that the EFL don't believe meets FRS102, but we do.  We've either not used a straight-line amortisation method, or it's something to do with the "missing £30m", or some other big of jiggery-pokery.  I'm almost certain we won't have submitted something that breaches the FFP thresholds, because we'd be absolutely mad to.  If we went down the route of submitting accounts that show overspend and try to argue mitigating circumstances, it's admitting that we were wrong for a start, and the original accounts were 'hiding something'.  It's potentially opening us up to other charges on the HMRC thing, not submitting accounts etc - it goes from "we can't submit it until the EFL clarify things" to "we didn't submit it because we got caught hiding something else".  There's just no major incentive for us to do it IMO.

Whether the straight-line/no-trickery accounts actually show overspend or not is another matter. 3 years ago, I would have been certain that Morris wild stand his ground and submit what he thought was right, just for the principle of it.  But now, with everything that's going on, I'm not so sure.  

[Woodypecker]

2 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

It's up to DCFC to call the bluff and say "right, here's our accounts, you say where they breech and charge us, or GTF"

Without having the full facts however, we don't know if that's a good idea or not.

 

The EFL certainly have to pull up their breeches.

[Ram-Alf]

Scenario

1. EFL have seen the accounts, Had them scrutinised and found no wrongdoing.

If the above is correct then why the carry on?

2. EFL have seen the accounts, Found we have overspent and give DCFC a points deduction

If the above is correct why have they not found us guilty and published so we can move forward

3. Why would the EFL negotiate with DCFC if they are right?

If the above is correct surely they would hit us where it hurts

4.We've only overspent marginally and the points penalty is up for negotiation

MM believes the EFL have already had their blood out of DCFC so MM refuses to accept ANY points deduction

5.Is it possible that DCFC can go to a court and sue for restriction of trade

 

 

[Wolfie]

10 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Scenario

1. EFL have seen the accounts, Had them scrutinised and found no wrongdoing.

If the above is correct then why the carry on?

2. EFL have seen the accounts, Found we have overspent and give DCFC a points deduction

If the above is correct why have they not found us guilty and published so we can move forward

3. Why would the EFL negotiate with DCFC if they are right?

If the above is correct surely they would hit us where it hurts

4.We've only overspent marginally and the points penalty is up for negotiation

MM believes the EFL have already had their blood out of DCFC so MM refuses to accept ANY points deduction

5.Is it possible that DCFC can go to a court and sue for restriction of trade

 

 

Yup

[Woodley Ram]

its all odd, we have either breached FFP or we havnt . If we have, the points deduction per amount overspent is pre defined so we should know what it is. Perhaps the fact we can appeal is the problem with both discussing an amount that is exceptable to both (so we dont appeal). If it isnt that then what is going on and will we ever know?? 

[I know nuffin]

8 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Yup

Could it be about the EFL trying to save face and justify spending the money that belongs to the teams in the EFL including us. They need to find something or possibly anything or the other clubs are going to want changes

[Sparkle]

Is there any reason to stop us actually putting in our accounts for the years we haven’t done so regardless of the EFL viewpoint?

[Gringo]

2 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Is there any reason to stop us actually putting in our accounts for the years we haven’t done so regardless of the EFL viewpoint?

To Companies house or the EFL?

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

35 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

Could it be about the EFL trying to save face and justify spending the money that belongs to the teams in the EFL including us. They need to find something or possibly anything or the other clubs are going to want changes

If that's the case the club should be going legal ASAP. Punishing a club for no reason because a load of other clubs 'think' something happened would be absolutely insane.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

The club surely has to walk away from this and take a legal route. This stagnation is absolutely crazy. Enough is enough.

[RYRAM]

just take points off us already how long can this go on for?

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

The club surely has to walk away from this and take a legal route. This stagnation is absolutely crazy. Enough is enough.

Do you think the court option will bring a speedy result?  Consider also that the result will be appealed, another year with 2 sets of fixtures.

[Sparkle]

12 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

To Companies house or the EFL?

Companies house