Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Curtains]

Just now, Rev said:

I'm not sure £8m a month is correct?

Wasn't it £8m a week?

Well if you are right it’s even worse than I thought 

[PistoldPete]

47 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

We had effectively in real time exceeded FFP limits (using whichever amortisation policy of the 2 you want to choose) before 1) we were charged by the EFL and 2) COVID hit us all. Did you also assume that Morris flogging the stadium was also nothing to do with FFP?

I said if someone had evidence to the contrary... and i seem to remember your challenge for me to provide my evidence, which I duly did  .. where is yours?   

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

That’s true and I didn’t remember that. But what @PistoldPete was advocating was that it go back to the same panel 

Ok. Is that not also possible? If not at least back to an IDC with an accountant on it.

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

That’s true and I didn’t remember that. But what @Pistoldpete was advocating was that it go back to the same panel 

It does seem a more sensible option though. The entire case came down to whether Professor Pope was a reliable witness, and the LAP made their decision entirely on the basis of what the DC wrote in their report, they never even got to speak to him themselves.  Although there are obviously significant time and cost reasons to not want a brand new DC.

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

It does seem a more sensible option though. The entire case came down to whether Professor Pope was a reliable witness, and the LAP made their decision entirely on the basis of what the DC wrote in their report, they never even got to speak to him themselves.  Although there are obviously significant time and cost reasons to not want a brand new DC.

There's quite a significant cost to relegation. And a lot of time playing matches that may not mean anything when you get 21 points deducted.

[JfR]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

That’s true and I didn’t remember that. But what @PistoldPete was advocating was that it go back to the same panel 

In fairness, under the powers that the LAP were given, they should have had no power to refer the case back to the original DC for consideration of the sanctions, only to sanction the particular of the charge that they overturned, or to set up (yet another) disciplinary commission. However, as the former would have meant two particulars of the same charge would have been sanctioned by different bodies, and one of those sanctions would not have been allowed to be appealed, and the latter would have been (to put it in less legal terms) a complete ballache, there was an agreement amongst all parties to refer the case back to the DC, despite the LAP officially being granted no powers to do so (P.98 in the LAP decision report). So, in one part of the case they did go against the regulations and refer back to the DC.

[Bladderwrack]

What was needed was to get the club on to an even keel from the start. The oh we have problems here let’s wallpaper them over with this, oh more problems more wallpaper please. Then when the wallpaper tore different things were used to cover up. Mel you cannot keep just keep covering up for ever eventually you have to do repairs or the whole thing will fall down and now loothey have.

Why do business men lose all business acumen with football clubs. Football clubs are different, people do not fall in love with Sainsbury’s or Mark’s and Spencer’s, if starbuck’s or McDonalds folded people may miss them but they would not grieve them.

Football clubs become entangled into the very souls of their fans. You have to have responsible acting people to safeguard them, Derby this time around were not given that luxury and the fans are paying the emotional cost.

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There's quite a significant cost to relegation. And a lot of time playing matches that may not mean anything when you get 21 points deducted.

But another round of DC and LAP hearings could have added years onto the process. We could still be going through this stuff next season and facing further deductions in league 1.

[plymouthram]

Sorry if I get this wrong. If we can't transfer in any players, take on any loans, not go above 25 players in the 1st team squad. What happens in January if we lose the 2 players on the 6 month contracts and on top of that, we lose 3 or 4 players that other teams buy. The EFL wanting to help and save clubs does'nt make sense with these restrictions in place.

Or does the goalposts get moved if we have a new owner of the club prior to January or the end of the season ?                                            Also, how long does the suspended -3 points stay in place

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, JfR said:

In fairness, under the powers that the LAP were given, they should have had no power to refer the case back to the original DC for consideration of the sanctions, only to sanction the particular of the charge that they overturned, or to set up (yet another) disciplinary commission. However, as the former would have meant two particulars of the same charge would have been sanctioned by different bodies, and one of those sanctions would not have been allowed to be appealed, and the latter would have been (to put it in less legal terms) a complete ballache, there was an agreement amongst all parties to refer the case back to the DC, despite the LAP officially being granted no powers to do so (P.98 in the LAP decision report). So, in one part of the case they did go against the regulations and refer back to the DC.

Which only emphasises the point. They should have referred the charge back to the IDC (or another IDC) with an order to consider the matter on which the previous IDC were deemed to have failed.   Then both sides still have the option to appeal against either the charge or sanction or both to the LAP. Never mind the ballache, I think we have one right now thank you.

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, plymouthram said:

Sorry if I get this wrong. If we can't transfer in any players, take on any loans, not go above 25 players in the 1st team squad. What happens in January if we lose the 2 players on the 6 month contracts and on top of that, we lose 3 or 4 players that other teams buy. The EFL wanting to help and save clubs does'nt make sense with these restrictions in place.

Or does the goalposts get moved if we have a new owner of the club prior to January or the end of the season ?                                            Also, how long does the suspended -3 points stay in place

We can still sign frees and loans (with no loan fee). The rules are a bit more relaxed, and some of the youngsters won’t count at the moment. We basically have 20/25 slots filled IIRC, with a few youngsters part way to counting. We’ve probably got a bit of wiggle room to bring a couple of players in in January as it is, and a few more if the likes of Marshall leave.

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

But another round of DC and LAP hearings could have added years onto the process. We could still be going through this stuff next season and facing further deductions in league 1.

This was all being decided in May of this year. Would have been done and dusted by now.

[i-Ram]

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I said if someone had evidence to the contrary... and i seem to remember your challenge for me to provide my evidence, which I duly did  .. where is yours?   

Look at the losses under No. 22 of the attached https://www.efl.com/contentassets/065e21d5596b42e7a882322d3a203509/efl-v-dcfc-agreed-decision-approved-for-publication-15-november-2021.pdf

The policy change will not have effected the amount of the losses, just the timing. All our deferring of writing down the values of Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, etc., would have hit the 2018/19 accounts hard. Long before EFL charged Derby in Jan 2020 and COVID hit us all in Mar 2020.

[kevinhectoring]

9 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The procedural rules require an accountant to be on the IDC. Which are then made a mockery of if an alterantive panel without an accounatnt on it over-rule them on a matter about an accounting standard.

Plus I think as an overall principle , proper remedy for a wrong is that the wronged party is put back in the same position as if that wrong had not happened. In that case, if the wrong was that the IDC did not consider the EFL's expert report, the remedy would be to order the IDC to consider the expert report. And then Derby's legal team could have cross examined in the obvious flaws within it.       

 

I didn’t see that an accountant must be on the panel but I may not know where to find it (is it in 90 of the EFL dispute rules?). 

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

This was all being decided in May of this year. Would have been done and dusted by now.

It took from sometime in 2019 to get to that point. Obviously COVID affected things, plus other factors, but we have no way of saying how long it would have taken. We’re not just talking about a referral back to the DC to reassess something here, that specific LAP power (as I read it anyway) is basically to order a completely new hearing from scratch.

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be desirable to us, and may well have been the right decision, but it’s not some quick fix that would have sorted everything overnight.

[kevinhectoring]

21 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

It does seem a more sensible option though. The entire case came down to whether Professor Pope was a reliable witness, and the LAP made their decision entirely on the basis of what the DC wrote in their report, they never even got to speak to him themselves.  Although there are obviously significant time and cost reasons to not want a brand new DC.

The LAP can’t themselves take evidence. True also that we didn’t want further delay 

very sadly the whole thing became a pis$ing match between the lawyers on the DC and on the LAP 

[PistoldPete]

54 minutes ago, SBW said:

I think the evidence that we broke the rules is the club have accepted a penalty owing to the rules being broken.  

 

We can create conspiracy theories but the reality is the club acted entirely immorally.  I've seen suggestions that the EFL enforced an embargo, to push us into this position to then force a concession for the points deduction.  But the club hasn't been paying HMRC and hasn't produced it's accounts for a number of years, that's why an embargo/conditions were enforced.

 

The EFL have most certainly gone for the jugular.  Largely because of how Morris and co acted, but ultimately the club acted in bad faith for a sustained period of time.

 

It sucks.  But if we won the play-offs a few years back we'd all be enjoying the success that came with it, ignoring the immoral actions of the club.  

 

I think we just have to take this on the chin, it's caught up and it's no-ones fault but the decision makers at the club as to why. 

 

 

 

The IDC ruled that we did not act in bad faith. Just made an honest error. And in fact the IDC had previously said it wasnt even an error it was compliant apart from the description in the accounts being a bit sloppy, for which on its own no punishment was even considered.

[Abu Derby]

There is a point of contention that I understand the Administrators are discussing and could form the basis of another appeal. 
It’s this: when I was doing O level Mathematics, one rule that is beyond dispute (unless the rules of Physics have changed) is that two minuses make a plus. 
The EFL have made a serious error of judgment by awarding us two separate penalties. 
Therefore:. -12 - -9 = -12 + 9 = -3. 
We can live with -3 points, I can’t see what the fuss is about. 

[PistoldPete]

20 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Look at the losses under No. 22 of the attached https://www.efl.com/contentassets/065e21d5596b42e7a882322d3a203509/efl-v-dcfc-agreed-decision-approved-for-publication-15-november-2021.pdf

The policy change will not have effected the amount of the losses, just the timing. All our deferring of writing down the values of Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, etc., would have hit the 2018/19 accounts hard. Long before EFL charged Derby in Jan 2020 and COVID hit us all in Mar 2020.

But we knew this. And  if we  broke  FFP before January 2020 why didn't EFL charge us for breach of 2018-19?  

Edited November 16, 2021 by PistoldPete

[duncanjwitham]

13 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Look at the losses under No. 22 of the attached https://www.efl.com/contentassets/065e21d5596b42e7a882322d3a203509/efl-v-dcfc-agreed-decision-approved-for-publication-15-november-2021.pdf

The policy change will not have effected the amount of the losses, just the timing. All our deferring of writing down the values of Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, etc., would have hit the 2018/19 accounts hard. Long before EFL charged Derby in Jan 2020 and COVID hit us all in Mar 2020.

Bear in mind that those losses are all rolling 3 year losses, so the actual losses are only a third of what’s quoted there.  The total FFP overspend is about £33m (although it could be higher depending on how those listed figures deal with ‘resetting’ losses in previous seasons). I think that overspend falls into the season we sold the stadium, so it would have been interesting to see if we could have used the reserve valuation thingy at that point - I’m probably mangling this, but we basically ‘stored’ some of the profit from the sale of the stadium for future use, but if we knew where we were on FFP terms we may not have done that at all.  All it takes is using that, and maybe some other action like not signing Bielik, and we’re not that far off hitting the target.