Points deduction incoming?

[Reggie Greenwood]

2 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I have no reason to not beleive Percy and the 9 points.

Gut feeling - 6 point deduction on the way with us signing up to an agreed business plan (amount paid on wages, number of players, transfer fees etc) including the right to audit.

The January  window is going to be so important to us as injuries and fatigue will set in leaving us short of numbers and experiance. 

 

I’m not accusing Percy of lying but the tweet and the article are ambiguous and as stated before if the EFL had an iron clad case why would the word negotiate appear ? They would just apply the punishment. Looks like as others have said politics and face saving on behalf of the EFL , who are seeing how far and hard Mel/ DCFC are prepared to push back  especially if a takeover is hovering in the back ground. 
A supposition with no basis in fact DCFC would accept a suspended 3 points as per the wages thing would be my hope 

[alexxxxx]

From what it sounds like, the fact that there seems to be a desire to come to an agreement means theres some sort of ambiguity there - id wager that Derby have refused to go to a simple straight-line amatorisation which has put the efl in a huff. EFL maybe have looked at the accounts and there working shows us being over p&s limits, whilst our working shows otherwise.

If they were to charge us, we'd appeal and frankly we don't want that as we'd be under a longer Embargo and the efl are split where some clubs dont want to throw more money in litigation where there's a good chance theyd lose whilst other clubs still continue their crusade against us. 

They've got us over a barrel because we need to rid ourselves of these problems to get the club sold and the Embargo is ruining our clubs chances. 

 

[StarterForTen]

Let's assume that the financial information demanded within the punishment for the accounting breach has been presented, I am guessing the 'constructive dialogue' that is ongoing centres around culpability.

I think we have to assume at this point that restated accounts are reflecting a breach in P&S allowances and therefore a further punishment is due. We don't know that of course, but the fact this is still rumbling on (and the fact we used a non-standard amortisation policy in the first place - why do that unless it was 'needed'?) points that way.

It seems logical that both sides want to settle the matter so are perhaps ready to set aside the full EFL disciplinary protocols to get things sorted. I would guess the argument will be centring on the fact that, by accepting the 2016 accounts, the EFL removed the necessity of the club altering its course for 2017 and, indeed a few subsequent seasons.

The club will be arguing that the EFL accept some culpability in this matter and that a punishment should reflect that.

For what it's worth (not very much!) I think we'll end up with a 6 point deduction like Sheffield Wednesday did last year. I'm not saying the 'crimes' are anything related, but regulators love to hide behind perceived precedent.

[RoyMac5]

An amusing reply to the DET's take on Percy's piece.

"gavinduenas 9 MIN AGO

I'm not keen on the points deduction but I love the sound of an imposed business plan. About time we had one! "

[RadioactiveWaste]

I'm pretty sure the business plan is a red herring in relation to the issues from 16-18 accounts, "we're imposing a business plan on you to correct what you did three years ago" is not really going to hold water, especially as the club is activly seeking new ownership.

The only way i could see an agreed business plan is if there's a current issue, but given the cost cutting and covid mitigation factor I doubt that's going to be a thing. I think it's being thrown about because of the birmingham business plan but the situation is not really the same.

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

I’m not accusing Percy of lying but the tweet and the article are ambiguous and as stated before if the EFL had an iron clad case why would the word negotiate appear ? They would just apply the punishment. Looks like as others have said politics and face saving on behalf of the EFL , who are seeing how far and hard Mel/ DCFC are prepared to push back  especially if a takeover is hovering in the back ground. 
A supposition with no basis in fact DCFC would accept a suspended 3 points as per the wages thing would be my hope 

The EFL are wanting to say we agreed to it what ever it is and they probably believe we will accept something harsher than other clubs would - recent example - we missed a wages payment by 1-2 weeks we accepted 3points suspended - Sheffield Wednesday 4 months non payment who accepted 6 points suspended penalty with 3 points almost knocked off very quickly - that was anything but consistent in my mind and may well be what the Bullies at the EFL are trying to do. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Sparkle

[May Contain Nuts]

12 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Of course there's a pretty bad extrapolation possible here. Maybe the points deduction is for failing to comply with the instructions to present restated accounts. There could be another points deduction on the horizon when we do present the accounts and possibly fail P&S.

Fair point.

I'd have thought that failing to submit the required information by the initial deadline, or even the extended deadline would have a more set-in-stone punishment and be non-negotiable, but then I don't remember this being stated anywhere or set out in any documented ruling.  Not sure I'd expect a 9-12 point penalty to be the punishment for it though.

If we've spent all this time and still haven't sorted out poo out and are are unwilling to, or can't, provide the EFL with the required information then we're an even bigger shambles than even the harshest of critics thought.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Ghost of Clough]

30 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

For what it's worth (not very much!) I think we'll end up with a 6 point deduction like Sheffield Wednesday did last year. I'm not saying the 'crimes' are anything related, but regulators love to hide behind perceived precedent.

What are you basing 6 points on though?

6 points is for exceeding limits by £6-8m , or a lesser amount with aggravating factors, or a higher amount with mitigating factors.

SWFC were given a 12 point penalty based on their overspend, later reduced on appeal due to the 'circumstances' of their stadium sale.

[Sparkle]

Meanwhile Reading FC who have clearly breached F&P are in a transfer embargo but no talk of charges or points deduction - I thought this was supposed to be laid out? 

[Spanish]

Just now, Sparkle said:

Meanwhile Reading FC who have clearly breached F&P are in a transfer embargo but no talk of charges or points deduction - I thought this was supposed to be laid out? 

timing wise I am not sure but the process is the club puts in their P&S summary which includes an assessment for the next accounts due June.  The EFL impose a soft embargo if a breach is anticipated and then engage with the club as to how the can minimise the breach.  I guess that is where Reading are at the moment

[Malty]

My suspicion is that by restating all of our amortisation then we will have breached FFP quite a few years ago. The EFL will have to agree with DCFC on punishment for accounts that they have already approved …. Which I suspect will be cause for some debate on what is the correct treatment. It’s a right mess tbh, so they must be trying to work out what they should do that holds water legally, bearing in mind that whatever they do could set a precedent. 
 

Plus of course if we get a points deduction cue potential legal action from Wycombe??

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

8 minutes ago, Malty said:

My suspicion is that by restating all of our amortisation then we will have breached FFP quite a few years ago. The EFL will have to agree with DCFC on punishment for accounts that they have already approved …. Which I suspect will be cause for some debate on what is the correct treatment. It’s a right mess tbh, so they must be trying to work out what they should do that holds water legally, bearing in mind that whatever they do could set a precedent. 
 

Plus of course if we get a points deduction cue potential legal action from Wycombe??

It wouldnt be retrospective,a deduction would be for this season.

[jono]

How’s this for an angle . We get to the point where half a dozen of the bigger championship clubs all start with a 3 - 6 point penalty. The relegated prem clubs then face even less competition when trying to get back up. Closed shop by any means possible, aided and abetted by our own governing body suggesting there should be a level playing field while rolling the turf for the relegated prem teams and scattering mines and man traps in our half of said field playing field 

[Spanish]

23 minutes ago, Malty said:

My suspicion is that by restating all of our amortisation then we will have breached FFP quite a few years ago. The EFL will have to agree with DCFC on punishment for accounts that they have already approved …. Which I suspect will be cause for some debate on what is the correct treatment. It’s a right mess tbh, so they must be trying to work out what they should do that holds water legally, bearing in mind that whatever they do could set a precedent. 
 

Plus of course if we get a points deduction cue potential legal action from Wycombe??

they don't approve the accounts. DC2 commented on this.  They rely on the honesty of the club and the professionalism of the auditors

[Anag Ram]

15 minutes ago, jono said:

How’s this for an angle . We get to the point where half a dozen of the bigger championship clubs all start with a 3 - 6 point penalty. The relegated prem clubs then face even less competition when trying to get back up. Closed shop by any means possible, aided and abetted by our own governing body suggesting there should be a level playing field while rolling the turf for the relegated prem teams and scattering mines and man traps in our half of said field playing field 

Yeah, can you imagine what it would be like if one of the big money spinners like Arsenal got relegated? 

They'd probably start the season +12! 

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I'm pretty sure the business plan is a red herring in relation to the issues from 16-18 accounts, "we're imposing a business plan on you to correct what you did three years ago" is not really going to hold water, especially as the club is activly seeking new ownership.

The only way i could see an agreed business plan is if there's a current issue, but given the cost cutting and covid mitigation factor I doubt that's going to be a thing. I think it's being thrown about because of the birmingham business plan but the situation is not really the same.

Don't forget that we're only allowed to lose £5m per season if Mel is not putting equity in. We could easily be currently in breach.

I do agree that the business plan thing suggests a current issue.

[Spanish]

4 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

Yeah, can you imagine what it would be like if one of the big money spinners like Arsenal got relegated? 

They'd probably start the season +12! 

well given the parachute payments I think that is probably true already

[hintonsboots]

7 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Don't forget that we're only allowed to lose £5m per season if Mel is not putting equity in. We could easily be currently in breach.

I do agree that the business plan thing suggests a current issue.

 

The imposition of a business plan suggests we have breached FFP spending limits, and I presume will be similar to working under an embargo. What I find most disturbing is a regulator having to come in and organise our business affairs because we haven’t been able to do it ourselves.

EFL statement from 2018 re Birmingham City.

The EFL statement read: 'Under the Profitability and Sustainability rules that are aligned with the Premier League, the club has agreed, with immediate effect, to adhere to a business plan imposed by the EFL, which includes a number of financial targets, including controlling player related expenditure, which together have the objective of meeting the requirements of the P&S Regulations “.

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

 

The imposition of a business plan suggests we have breached FFP spending limits, and I presume will be similar to working under an embargo. What I find most disturbing is a regulator having to come in and organise our business affairs because we haven’t been able to do it ourselves.

EFL statement from 2018 re Birmingham City.

The EFL statement read: 'Under the Profitability and Sustainability rules that are aligned with the Premier League, the club has agreed, with immediate effect, to adhere to a business plan imposed by the EFL, which includes a number of financial targets, including controlling player related expenditure, which together have the objective of meeting the requirements of the P&S Regulations “.

Isn't that just agreeing to not spend too much ie stick to P&S?

[Sparkle]

19 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Don't forget that we're only allowed to lose £5m per season if Mel is not putting equity in. We could easily be currently in breach.

I do agree that the business plan thing suggests a current issue.

That’s been nagging me for a while - maybe Mel has said he will not fund the losses up to the £13 million we were allowed