Embargo.

[Tyler Durden]

56 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Lawyers never ever ever give better odds than 50/50 they always say it depends on the judge on the day.

Might as well do away with lawyers then, defend yourself and toss a coin before the court case.......

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

If the EFL had a cast iron, watertight case they would slap us with a points deduction immediately and dare us to appeal it. They haven't done that, which could indicate that they aren't entirely sure.

On the other hand, if we were totally bang to rights and had a 0% chance of winning an appeal we would take whatever was on offer and just get this over with.

they want an agreement so this can be ended, partly, at least, it is a matter of interpretation of rules.  Mel may be quite happy for an embargo to continue so that the stop to further costs is not down to him.  Who knows, not one of us

[Retro_RAM]

Am I right in thinking that all this transfer embargo rubbish is in place to just frustrate clubs, to stop them appealing and taking it to the courts with the EFL knowing/hoping the length of time appeals take and with an embargo in place most clubs will just bend over and accept the punishment?

 

[Spanish]

Just now, Retro_RAM said:

Am I right in thinking that all this transfer embargo rubbish is in place to just frustrate clubs, to stop them appealing and taking it to the courts with the EFL knowing/hoping the length of time appeals take and with an embargo in place most clubs will just bend over and accept the punishment?

 

no

[Woodley Ram]

surprised by the poor reporting by the BBC today (16th September) stating that our amortilisation left a residual amount at the end of contract when it didnt it ended as zero. Bad repporting from someone (BBC) I would have expected better from

[Van der MoodHoover]

53 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Didn't really take this para in from the EFL statement earlier. 

""In any disciplinary matter, the EFL will always consider whether it can be concluded by way of an Agreed Decision as per EFL Regulation 85. An Agreed Decision, which is subject to independent ratification, is deemed appropriate in circumstances which justify the conclusion of an effective and equitable resolution without a referral to a Disciplinary Commission."

Who would do the 'independent ratification'?

When I looked at the text of regulation 85 earlier, if the club acknowledge and accept the sanction within 14 days then...

85.6 Where the Proposed Respondent accepts the Proposed Sanction in accordance with this 
Regulation 85, the matter shall be referred to one of those individuals who have elected to act 
as a chair of the Disciplinary Commission (using the same appointment process as set out in 
Regulation 90.3.1)

85.7 In the event that the individual appointed pursuant to Regulation 85.6 does not ratify the 
Proposed Sanction, the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission for 
determination in accordance with this Section 8. The individual appointed pursuant to 
Regulation 85.6 shall not act as the chairperson of the Disciplinary Commission pursuant to 
Regulation 90.3.1

So the bits of process that involve the club are set out in microscopic detail. It is only the procedure that must be followed by the EFL which is completely lacking. 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

9 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

surprised by the poor reporting by the BBC today (16th September) stating that our amortilisation left a residual amount at the end of contract when it didnt it ended as zero. Bad repporting from someone (BBC) I would have expected better from

That's been a case from almost every outlet that has had anything to say about this process from start to finish a couple of years ago. It also, at least in my mind, is one of the reasons that so many fans of other clubs carry the perception that we are guilty beyond all possible doubt.

Not one news agency has taken a step back, done any reasonable analysis and published something close to the actual situation, at least not from what I have seen.

[hintonsboots]

4 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

It is only the procedure that must be followed by the EFL which is completely lacking. 

 

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

When I looked at the text of regulation 85 earlier, if the club acknowledge and accept the sanction within 14 days then...

85.6 Where the Proposed Respondent accepts the Proposed Sanction in accordance with this 
Regulation 85, the matter shall be referred to one of those individuals who have elected to act 
as a chair of the Disciplinary Commission (using the same appointment process as set out in 
Regulation 90.3.1)

85.7 In the event that the individual appointed pursuant to Regulation 85.6 does not ratify the 
Proposed Sanction, the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission for 
determination in accordance with this Section 8. The individual appointed pursuant to 
Regulation 85.6 shall not act as the chairperson of the Disciplinary Commission pursuant to 
Regulation 90.3.1

So the bits of process that involve the club are set out in microscopic detail. It is only the procedure that must be followed by the EFL which is completely lacking. 

So we could agree with the EFL and still the 'agreement' could be rejected and sent to the Disciplinary Commission!!! FFS, lets just go there and do it now! ?

[duncanjwitham]

23 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

If the EFL had a cast iron, watertight case they would slap us with a points deduction immediately and dare us to appeal it. They haven't done that, which could indicate that they aren't entirely sure.

On the other hand, if we were totally bang to rights and had a 0% chance of winning an appeal we would take whatever was on offer and just get this over with.

I'm not actually 100% sure the EFL can do this.  The rules don't seem massively clear on it, but it seems to me that it's case of we either do an Agreed Decision, or the EFL formally charge us and it goes to another DC. There's no allowance in the rules for the EFL to just arbitrarily slap a points deduction on us themselves (outside of the fixed 12 point penalty for going into admin etc).

The graded penalties for levels of overspend (the 1 point per £Xm of overspend stuff) don't seem to be in the rules anymore (if they ever were...).  They're referenced as being part of the 'guidelines' in the Sheffield Wednesday appeal written reasons, but I can't find those guidelines online anywhere.  And I think that was the only mechanism that could have existed for an automatic deduction (without going to a DC etc).

[Van der MoodHoover]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

So we could agree with the EFL and still the 'agreement' could be rejected and sent to the Disciplinary Commission!!! FFS, lets just go there and do it now! ?

Unfortunately, the trigger for all of regulation 85s terms to kick in is the EFL sending their letter. 

Until they do so, 85 is not live (campaigning slogan?) and we have no means to unilaterally trigger it by, for example, sending a preemptive refusal to accept any sanction offered by the EFL... 

 

It really is a form of tyranny.... ?

[Woodley Ram]

19 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

That's been a case from almost every outlet that has had anything to say about this process from start to finish a couple of years ago. It also, at least in my mind, is one of the reasons that so many fans of other clubs carry the perception that we are guilty beyond all possible doubt.

Not one news agency has taken a step back, done any reasonable analysis and published something close to the actual situation, at least not from what I have seen.

great post

[LazloW]

I haven't gone through the whole thread on this (or all the tweets and media) so pardon my ignorance...  but do we know for certain at the moment whether the club has agreed that it has broken the rules and we are just negotiating the penalty or whether the club is still disputing whether we have broken any rules and thus whether a penalty is justified in the first place?

If its the former, then can't really see what is taking so long. There can't be many options and if there is no agreement then there must be a course of action (either a penalty is imposed or we go back to arbitration). 

[RadioactiveWaste]

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

So we could agree with the EFL and still the 'agreement' could be rejected and sent to the Disciplinary Commission!!! FFS, lets just go there and do it now! ?

In theory yes, but it's only likely to be rejected at that stage if the agreement is not in line with the rules or there is some sort of legal problem with it.

If for example a club loses too much in FFP terms and by standard tarrif should get -7 points deducted, but "agrees" with the EFL no points but a fine (for very flimsy reasons) then it might be rejected - i think it's there in terms of "checks and balances" rather than to interfere in the process.

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, LazloW said:

I haven't gone through the whole thread on this (or all the tweets and media) so pardon my ignorance...  but do we know for certain at the moment whether the club has agreed that it has broken the rules and we are just negotiating the penalty or whether the club is still disputing whether we have broken any rules and thus whether a penalty is justified in the first place?

If its the former, then can't really see what is taking so long. There can't be many options and if there is no agreement then there must be a course of action (either a penalty is imposed or we go back to arbitration). 

Any question that starts "do we know for certain" is going to result in a "no" answer at the moment.

We don't know what the discussion is about, and honestly, whether we've broken the rules and what punishment we might be due aren't entirely separate things.  If we're still arguing over exactly what amortization models are allowed, then the answer to that question will determine the extent of any overspend, and hence the extent of any punishment.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, LazloW said:

I haven't gone through the whole thread on this (or all the tweets and media) so pardon my ignorance...  but do we know for certain at the moment whether the club has agreed that it has broken the rules and we are just negotiating the penalty or whether the club is still disputing whether we have broken any rules and thus whether a penalty is justified in the first place?

If its the former, then can't really see what is taking so long. There can't be many options and if there is no agreement then there must be a course of action (either a penalty is imposed or we go back to arbitration). 

At least in public / negoitating position DCFC are still of the "done nothing wrong" noises.

In private, we don't know.

 

[RAM1966]

24 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm not actually 100% sure the EFL can do this.  The rules don't seem massively clear on it, but it seems to me that it's case of we either do an Agreed Decision, or the EFL formally charge us and it goes to another DC. There's no allowance in the rules for the EFL to just arbitrarily slap a points deduction on us themselves (outside of the fixed 12 point penalty for going into admin etc).

The graded penalties for levels of overspend (the 1 point per £Xm of overspend stuff) don't seem to be in the rules anymore (if they ever were...).  They're referenced as being part of the 'guidelines' in the Sheffield Wednesday appeal written reasons, but I can't find those guidelines online anywhere.  And I think that was the only mechanism that could have existed for an automatic deduction (without going to a DC etc).

Whether the guide has been removed or not, our 'alleged' offences were over the same 3 year FFP P&S period as Sheff Wed and therefore they should use the same guidelines for us.   

I also find that there is no indefinite period for this to go on is nothing short of holding a gun to Mels head.  I think he may just tell the EFL to GTF and go down the disciplinary route.   My understanding of Mel is that he is very headstrong and often will not take advice from those around him.  I'm guessing that is why we are in the complete mess we are in.....

I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if Mel just tells the EFL to go down the disciplinary route if the punishment is not going to be capped at 3 - 6points..... 

One final point - This can't be a punishment for the amortisation of players as we've already been punished £100K for that, it must be to do with the way that the accounts have been resubmitted and the EFL have another p*ssy on, because we presented them again in a legal way of accounting practices that the non-financially trained EFL do not like.....  Tough they should accept it and just close the loop and give clear direction on how amortisation of players should recorded.

Part of me hopes that Mel does take them on no matter how long it takes, then sue them, should we lose our Championship status, after wrongly hounding us for the last 18 months.  Other clubs including Boro have done similar things with zero comeback, yet Derby seem to ne the whipping boys, as someone has said because of the TV deal.....

Edited September 16, 2021 by RAM1966

[StarterForTen]

19 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Unfortunately, the trigger for all of regulation 85s terms to kick in is the EFL sending their letter. 

Until they do so, 85 is not live (campaigning slogan?) and we have no means to unilaterally trigger it by, for example, sending a preemptive refusal to accept any sanction offered by the EFL... 

 

It really is a form of tyranny.... ?

Which means the club can be held in a  continuous loop of 'negotiations' while sitting under the terms of a transfer embargo they have no means of getting out of. Nice.

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

The really ominous line from the EFL which comes across as a threat is:

"There are no timescales for this matter to be concluded and the League will not be providing any further comment at this time."

This is a not so subtle message to Derby that "either you agree to us punishing you with a hefty deduction or we'll keep you in embargo for ever and you'll never be able to sell your club, Mr Morris. Which will serve you right for trying to lead a breakaway TV deal."

 

Which would definitely be crossing borders into the law of the land and put the EFL in a very dangerous legal position I suspect.

[Ram-Alf]

22 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Which means the club can be held in a  continuous loop of 'negotiations' while sitting under the terms of a transfer embargo they have no means of getting out of. Nice.

Saturday 7th May, Derby County Vs Cardiff City 12-30pm K Off.

Derby County are 4 points clear of the relegation zone, Forest, Hull and Blackpool have been relegated, We can not be relegated, Cardiff City need a win to to stay in a play off place.

DCFC have been in Embargo all season, And have by all the odds not been relegated, Several of our players are walking wounded, 2 are suspended, We only have 15 available players to choose from and 3 of those are goalkeepers, DCFC are forced to pick a team that is seriously broken...we get beaten 0-6...Coventry, Hudds, Boro, QPR and Brum are in uproar as they were chasing the last place, Boro needed to win by more goals than Cardiff and miss out as they won 5-0,Boro believe we threw the game.

As one person said many years ago..."I'd love it-just love it.

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Unlucky Alf