Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[MACKWORTHRAM]

5 minutes ago, eccles the ram said:

I think we will have the minus twelve points given back to us but then we will be slapped with the minus nine for alledged financial irregularities (EFL don't want to be shown as completely pathetic do they) making us have 3 extra points tally. This is going to be very interesting in the next couple of weeks especially if we can get four points from our next two games! UTR

Even if it is that. I think we'd stay up. Get to January in and around it, get some players in and we'll be fine.

I don't know the ins and outs. But is the points deduction for breaking FFP set at 9 points?

I was under the impression that it was determined by how much you have exceeded the limits by.

So for example a club that has gone over FFP by £5 million would not face the same points deduction as a club that exceeded it by £20 million.

Also on Mel's interview with Radio Derby they asked him that if they resubmitted the accounts would it mean that we would have fallen foul of FFP. To which Mel answered yes. Then I'm sure he said it would have equated to a 4 point deduction considering how much they exceeded FFP by.

Or have I completely dreamt this?

[RadioactiveWaste]

7 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

Even if it is that. I think we'd stay up. Get to January in and around it, get some players in and we'll be fine.

I don't know the ins and outs. But is the points deduction for breaking FFP set at 9 points?

I was under the impression that it was determined by how much you have exceeded the limits by.

So for example a club that has gone over FFP by £5 million would not face the same points deduction as a club that exceeded it by £20 million.

Also on Mel's interview with Radio Derby they asked him that if they resubmitted the accounts would it mean that we would have fallen foul of FFP. To which Mel answered yes. Then I'm sure he said it would have equated to a 4 point deduction considering how much they exceeded FFP by.

Or have I completely dreamt this?

I was under them impression that 9 points was the EFL's negotiating stance, 4 million in one year, so 4 points was DCFC's negotiating stance, however, the option to have it tested the proper way by an IDC has not been persued as yet by the EFL who want a negotated outcome (i.e. what i think they really want, as well as the penalty is to be able to say "Look everybody, Derby said they were guilty like us, wycombe and Boro said all along" and agreed to this)

[Woodley Ram]

59 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

Even if it is that. I think we'd stay up. Get to January in and around it, get some players in and we'll be fine.

I don't know the ins and outs. But is the points deduction for breaking FFP set at 9 points?

I was under the impression that it was determined by how much you have exceeded the limits by.

So for example a club that has gone over FFP by £5 million would not face the same points deduction as a club that exceeded it by £20 million.

Also on Mel's interview with Radio Derby they asked him that if they resubmitted the accounts would it mean that we would have fallen foul of FFP. To which Mel answered yes. Then I'm sure he said it would have equated to a 4 point deduction considering how much they exceeded FFP by.

Or have I completely dreamt this?

That’s what Mel said

[Jimbo Ram]

1 hour ago, eccles the ram said:

I think we will have the minus twelve points given back to us but then we will be slapped with the minus nine for alledged financial irregularities (EFL don't want to be shown as completely pathetic do they) making us have 3 extra points tally. This is going to be very interesting in the next couple of weeks especially if we can get four points from our next two games! UTR

3 less points deduction you mean ?

[StarterForTen]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I was under them impression that 9 points was the EFL's negotiating stance, 4 million in one year, so 4 points was DCFC's negotiating stance, however, the option to have it tested the proper way by an IDC has not been persued as yet by the EFL who want a negotated outcome (i.e. what i think they really want, as well as the penalty is to be able to say "Look everybody, Derby said they were guilty like us, wycombe and Boro said all along" and agreed to this)

Very well put.

Some people (even in media circles) seem to be bandying around the nine-point penalty as if it's up to the EFL to impose when they see fit but, as @RadioactiveWaste has surmised very well, as things stand there is no further penalty imminent. The club either have to accept their guilt and take a negotiated punishment or the EFL need to issue a charge, which would then need to be tested and adjudicated on by an IDC.

Why this hasn't yet come to a head I struggle to understand, unless the Administrators are refusing to engage with the EFL on a negotiated punishment, feeling that is the right/responsibility of a new owner to do so? Perhaps the EFL would rather not press the charges button until a prospective new owner is identified and they can give them the option?

Given the time the process took the first time around, if the EFL are waiting for new owners to be appointed (or at least identified) and then do feel the need to issue a charge, this might not be resolved this season.

Absolutely crazy.

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

These administrators are that good I think they'll get the 12 points back, the EFL will scrap the 9 points for FFP and give us an extra 6 points because they haven't a clue what they're doing. 

We could quite easily be in the play offs by mid January. 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I was under them impression that 9 points was the EFL's negotiating stance, 4 million in one year, so 4 points was DCFC's negotiating stance, however, the option to have it tested the proper way by an IDC has not been persued as yet by the EFL who want a negotated outcome (i.e. what i think they really want, as well as the penalty is to be able to say "Look everybody, Derby said they were guilty like us, wycombe and Boro said all along" and agreed to this)

4 points for overspending in the 3 years to 2018 based on a standard amortisation policy.

EFL claim is for an additional 8 points for failing other years, minus 3 for accepting the deal on the table.

DCFC (or Mel) claim is that we shouldn't be punished for further periods due to the circumstances (ordinarily we'd have been punished for 2018 and then have time to address things for the 2019 period and beyond).

[May Contain Nuts]

The only place I can see anyone try to explain it (in a very confusing manner) is Hull Daily Mail, based on the punishment Birmingham, were given and how it was worked out.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-financial-fair-play-explained-2688083

In summary:

Between 2015 & 2018 Birmingham recorded a P&S loss which must have been around £48m and were due to be deducted 12 points.

Being less than £2m over the £39m allowable losses would have reduced their penalty by 9 points (to 3)
Being 'just under £10m' over the £39m allowable losses reduced their penalty by 5 points (to 7)
Being £15m+ over the allowable losses doesn't reduce your penalty at all

Figures in between are guesswork, but Mel Morris apparently said that a £4m breach would mean a 4 point penalty (which makes sense)

If we don't come to an agreement with the EFL and it goes to the disciplinary commission it will be up to them to "judge how far and how flagrantly a club has disregarded the rules, and punish accordingly"

The disciplinary commission decided in the Birmimgham case that by quickly admitting their breach they saved themselves another point (down to 6) - not something we would benefit from.

The disciplinary commission didn't believe their claims of contrition though, due to their loss of over £20m from increased spending the following season (taking it back up to 9). There's also the matter of Birmingham breaking a transfer embargo by paying £2m for Kristian Pedersen in 2018 - all of that only resulted in 3 extra points being added to their penalty.

 

...so what do people should we be looking at if it went to a disciplinary panel vs the EFL trying to get us to agree to 9 points?

[Ghost of Clough]

5 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

The only place I can see anyone try to explain it (in a very confusing manner) is Hull Daily Mail, based on the punishment Birmingham, were given and how it was worked out.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-financial-fair-play-explained-2688083

In summary:

Between 2015 & 2018 Birmingham recorded a P&S loss which must have been around £48m and were due to be deducted 12 points.

Being less than £2m over the £39m allowable losses would have reduced their penalty by 9 points (to 3)
Being 'just under £10m' over the £39m allowable losses reduced their penalty by 5 points (to 7)
Being £15m+ over the allowable losses doesn't reduce your penalty at all

Figures in between are guesswork, but Mel Morris apparently said that a £4m breach would mean a 4 point penalty (which makes sense)

If we don't come to an agreement with the EFL and it goes to the disciplinary commission it will be up to them to "judge how far and how flagrantly a club has disregarded the rules, and punish accordingly"

The disciplinary commission decided in the Birmimgham case that by quickly admitting their breach they saved themselves another point (down to 6) - not something we would benefit from.

The disciplinary commission didn't believe their claims of contrition though, due to their loss of over £20m from increased spending the following season (taking it back up to 9). There's also the matter of Birmingham breaking a transfer embargo by paying £2m for Kristian Pedersen in 2018 - all of that only resulted in 3 extra points being added to their penalty.

 

...so what do people should we be looking at if it went to a disciplinary panel vs the EFL trying to get us to agree to 9 points?

No guesswork needed. They stated what penalties are in the SWFC case

[Indy]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

4 points for overspending in the 3 years to 2018 based on a standard amortisation policy.

EFL claim is for an additional 8 points for failing other years, minus 3 for accepting the deal on the table.

DCFC (or Mel) claim is that we shouldn't be punished for further periods due to the circumstances (ordinarily we'd have been punished for 2018 and then have time to address things for the 2019 period and beyond).

That was my understanding too

[Carnero]

27 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

EFL claim is for an additional 8 points for failing other years, minus 3 for accepting the deal on the table.

Where has this bit of information come from?

Is it for the 3 x P&S periods ending 2019, 2020 & 2021?

[Mountain Ram]

The more I think about this 12 point deduction for administration the more unfair I think it is; it’s not actually punishing the owner that got us in this mess in the first place, it’s punishing the club and fans, by potentially condemning a team to relegation, reducing the chance of a buyer coming in (albeit in our case, it’s sounding promising on the buyer front) and then increasing the chances of liquidation. You’d think the EFL wants to protect it’s member clubs, rather than losing them?!

Surely it would be better for the EFL to instigate some form of bond scheme, where the owners lose their bond if they send the club into administration?

A points deduction for financial fair play seems a tad more sensible, or maybe the team is just banned from getting promoted for the next couple of seasons? It still needs a mechanism to penalise clubs that do a QPR and get promoted before they are scrutinised though. But the root cause still needs to be addressed and a system put in place so teams have to operate within their means.

rant / thoughts over - as this is the EFL nowt logical will happen!!

[ck-]

21 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Am I missing something here, Why would it be -6?, If we win our case of Force Majeure why would we be hit with -6 points and not get all 12 back.

Is it we could be hit with either Force or Majeure? with both carrying -6

Oh come on, be sensible. 
 

 

it’s the EFL we’re talking about, so it will be something ridiculous like a point a letter.

 We’ll pass the Force part - 5 points - but fail Majeure, so that’s -7 points to you Derby … 14 if you appeal. 

[Tyler Durden]

9 minutes ago, Mountain Ram said:

The more I think about this 12 point deduction for administration the more unfair I think it is; it’s not actually punishing the owner that got us in this mess in the first place, it’s punishing the club and fans, by potentially condemning a team to relegation, reducing the chance of a buyer coming in (albeit in our case, it’s sounding promising on the buyer front) and then increasing the chances of liquidation. You’d think the EFL wants to protect it’s member clubs, rather than losing them?!

Surely it would be better for the EFL to instigate some form of bond scheme, where the owners lose their bond if they send the club into administration?

A points deduction for financial fair play seems a tad more sensible, or maybe the team is just banned from getting promoted for the next couple of seasons? It still needs a mechanism to penalise clubs that do a QPR and get promoted before they are scrutinised though. But the root cause still needs to be addressed and a system put in place so teams have to operate within their means.

rant / thoughts over - as this is the EFL nowt logical will happen!!

It was introduced to close the loophole Leicester exploited in 2002 when they went into administration with debts of over 30 million but still managed to gain promotion that same season to the Premiership. 

They also shafted lots of local businesses out of money accordingly by doing this. 

[Ghost of Clough]

32 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Where has this bit of information come from?

Is it for the 3 x P&S periods ending 2019, 2020 & 2021?

Inferred either in the Mel interview or a paper around that time.
Penalty also depends on how it's calculated - losses exceeding £13m during failed periods should be 'reset' to £13m.

A lot of guess work required but 2019 would be the bad one. maybe a couple of points in 2020 too.

[Woodley Ram]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No guesswork needed. They stated what penalties are in the SWFC case

So Reading, who think they will get 6 points should get 12 as they are over the £15m mark!

[Woodley Ram]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

4 points for overspending in the 3 years to 2018 based on a standard amortisation policy.

EFL claim is for an additional 8 points for failing other years, minus 3 for accepting the deal on the table.

DCFC (or Mel) claim is that we shouldn't be punished for further periods due to the circumstances (ordinarily we'd have been punished for 2018 and then have time to address things for the 2019 period and beyond).

First time I have had this explained, thank you. So do you know the breakdown of the subsequent year over spend? Are we (Mel) saying that DCFC budgeted to be within FFP based on the original submitted accounts and could have altered them if we had chance. That seems a reasonable defence as long as we were within FFP with the old accounts    

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Inferred either in the Mel interview or a paper around that time.
Penalty also depends on how it's calculated - losses exceeding £13m during failed periods should be 'reset' to £13m.

A lot of guess work required but 2019 would be the bad one. maybe a couple of points in 2020 too.

Would 2019 be any worse than 2018? I suppose it is the three year period ending 2019 that counts so maybe including both those years is bad . Of course if sheff we’d get points deducted in mitigation why wouldn’t we? 
 

it’s mostly Efl’s fault anyway why didn’t they challenge the amortisation method in 2016, when it was first disclosed? Or in 2018 when maguire pointed it out again ( I mean they should have known what it was anyway). But really they have no excuse for Derby using the same amortisation and repeating  same “error” year after year.

[B4ev6is]

4 hours ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

Even if it is that. I think we'd stay up. Get to January in and around it, get some players in and we'll be fine.

I don't know the ins and outs. But is the points deduction for breaking FFP set at 9 points?

I was under the impression that it was determined by how much you have exceeded the limits by.

So for example a club that has gone over FFP by £5 million would not face the same points deduction as a club that exceeded it by £20 million.

Also on Mel's interview with Radio Derby they asked him that if they resubmitted the accounts would it mean that we would have fallen foul of FFP. To which Mel answered yes. Then I'm sure he said it would have equated to a 4 point deduction considering how much they exceeded FFP by.

Or have I completely dreamt this?

No mate

That is still going on and still made there minds up on that one.

[Sparkle]

5 hours ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

I might be going mad, but I really do think we will get some if not all of the 12 points back.

1. That article in the sun (I know it's the sun) on how the EFL are looking at changing the rules on administration. Essentially so that any unsuccessful appeals will be met with a further 6 point deduction.

It seems to me that the EFL are very worried (they can't appeal the outcome either way) that we have a very strong case. They also know that if we do get this decision overturned and points back this will set a precedent. Other clubs in the championship will see this and enter administration themselves knowing that they would also not get a points deduction. By threatening them with a further 6 points for an unsuccessful appeal they are hoping this would deter any other club from entering administration.

2. The administrators were here a good few weeks before lodging the appeal. It's not like they've come in and done it instantly. They have clearly gone through the accounts with a fine toothcomb and spoke to lawyers before deciding to move forward with the appeal. They clearly feel we have a strong case.

3. As we all know money is scarce. Yet the administrators have spent around £300k on this appeal. If for one second they thought that there was no chance at all of being successful with it, they wouldn't have done it.

 

If we haven’t got a case then I would like to see an example of one that has? 
hopefully the independent panel is exactly that and I don’t care about the behaviour of other clubs and why on earth would a club want to voluntarily go into Administration it’s far to dangerous.

if we are granted a reduced point penalty or no penalty it’s because we have a heck of a case