Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Ram-Alf]

Funny how our punishment was cut, Dried and signed off by both parties before Reading get their slap on the wrist...Shafted would be more appropriate.

[PistoldPete]

48 minutes ago, angieram said:

So, the EFL can be flexible when it suits them?  Interesting.

Not so keen on upholding the principles of the regulations here!

Is there any point in continuing meetings with them?

[RoyMac5]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Is there any point in continuing meetings with them?

 

[Ramarena]

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

As part of the 'agreed decision' Reading's salary cap for this season is set at £21.1m, 33% higher than ours. Seems totally fair and proper that.

That’s one Andy Caroll lying on a treatment table right there.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

EFL commitment - as safe as washing your baalocks with a cheese grater.

[SBW]

19 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

But none of that is acting in bad faith. If we or rather Pearce (and our auditors) at most made an honest mistake on the amortisation issue then any consequent breaches of ffp rules are also made due to the same honest mistake. 
 

I think not paying people because you don’t have the money or thought someone else had agreed to pay is also not acting in bad faith.

For example I would certainly say QPR spending what they liked to get promoted is acting in bad faith because they must have known they were breaking the rules it was a wilful act.

Of course it's bad faith.

 

If you try and sneak around rules/laws you are acting in bad faith.  It wasn't an honest mistake, it was a clear attempt at circumvention.  How is a player with less time on his contract worth more money than at the start of their contract?

 

You are burying your head in the sand I am afraid.  QPR did act in bad faith, they too overspent. 

 

The difference between them and us is they got promoted.  

[San Fran Van Rams]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Well we lost about £136m between 14/15 and 20/21 whereas Reading lost £57.8m between 17/18 and 20/21.

We failed three periods by a total of £21.5m. They failed 1 period by £18.8m.

I think I said yesterday that we should have had 21 points deducted. They should have had 12 points. Both have basically had that punishment halved.

But the 21 points deducted would be based on the assumption that our amortization policy was FRS102 non-compliant right? Have there been sufficient details released from the LAP that overturned the original DC decision to prove we were in the wrong on that?

I get that we were kicking the can down the road somewhat with our approach, but I also assume that selling players at a profit and other sources of revenue (e.g. new sponsorship deals etc.) during the years when we were due to amortize the most would have offset the losses to some extent. Our forecasting models and decision making will have been impacted by the change in underlying policy.

I may be wrongly implying this, but I take from your response that you think the EFL has been fair in its punishment of Derby in comparison with other clubs?

[PistoldPete]

28 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

EFL's business plan? What is their business? Putting a wrecking ball to what is left of the club? 

[San Fran Van Rams]

3 minutes ago, SBW said:

Of course it's bad faith.

 

If you try and sneak around rules/laws you are acting in bad faith.  It wasn't an honest mistake, it was a clear attempt at circumvention.  How is a player with less time on his contract worth more money than at the start of their contract?

 

You are burying your head in the sand I am afraid.  QPR did act in bad faith, they too overspent. 

 

The difference between them and us is they got promoted.  

I wasn't aware this had happened - can you point to where Derby did this and for which players?

[SBW]

3 minutes ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

I wasn't aware this had happened - can you point to where Derby did this and for which players?

 

That's the crux of the amortisation issue.  

[Crewton]

So, not only did Reading sell their stadium to themselves, they also sold their training ground to themselves and received a grant of £10M for an unspecified purpose. Without these items, their losses would have been even greater. 

But, hey, they've been open and honest and are super super rich... ... ? 

 

[Hordh]

11 hours ago, 24Charlie said:

Leeds where already down when then took the ten points. They went into admin as soon as relegation was assured to get the deduction applied that season so they would not get it applied in league 1. The EFL saw through it and handed them a 15 point deduction which Leeds appealed but where unsuccessful. As a result they didn’t bounce straight back.

They got the 15 points because they didn't exit admin with a CVA courtesy of Ken Bates. 

[Hordh]

15 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

EFL's business plan? What is their business? Putting a wrecking ball to what is left of the club? 

Making sure the club doesn't go back to the old ways. Brum had the same when they got the 9 points. 

[San Fran Van Rams]

14 minutes ago, SBW said:

 

That's the crux of the amortisation issue.  

Not its not... the crux of amortization issue is that we didn't depreciate the same amount every year. No player was worth more at the end of their contract than at the start which is what you stated and all players had a residual value of 0 at the end of their contract.... 

If you can show me otherwise, please do.

[PistoldPete]

27 minutes ago, SBW said:

Of course it's bad faith.

 

If you try and sneak around rules/laws you are acting in bad faith.  It wasn't an honest mistake, it was a clear attempt at circumvention.  How is a player with less time on his contract worth more money than at the start of their contract?

 

You are burying your head in the sand I am afraid.  QPR did act in bad faith, they too overspent. 

 

The difference between them and us is they got promoted.  

You have misunderstood on two points.

1) Derby's amortisation did  not increase the value during the contract, it only ever reduced from its initial value.

2) Acting in bad faith means : "in a dishonest and improper way : with no intention of honouring a promise".
 

There was no dishonesty on Derby's part they genuinely believed that the amortisation policy was within the rules (and still do , by the way) . It was disclosed in the accounts and any mis-statements in the notes were just sloppy and not intentional ,as the IDC confirmed. 

QPR on the oher hand deliberately overspent with no intention of sticking to FFP.

Edited November 17, 2021 by PistoldPete

[Hordh]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Well we lost about £136m between 14/15 and 20/21 whereas Reading lost £57.8m between 17/18 and 20/21.

We failed three periods by a total of £21.5m. They failed 1 period by £18.8m.

I think I said yesterday that we should have had 21 points deducted. They should have had 12 points. Both have basically had that punishment halved.

This ?

[Rev]

15 minutes ago, SBW said:

 

That's the crux of the amortisation issue.  

No it's not. 

The only possible way a players book value can increase under any amortisation method is after a contract renewal, when the agents fees have to be added on as a cost of retaining the player.

The value is quite simple, how much did it cost to acquire the players services for the duration of their playing contract, excluding their wages.

 

[Andicis]

27 minutes ago, SBW said:

 How is a player with less time on his contract worth more money than at the start of their contract?

What are you even talking about here? 

We used a recognised method of accounting for our amortisation policy. It's just different to the one commonly used in football. 

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, Hordh said:

Making sure the club doesn't go back to the old ways. Brum had the same when they got the 9 points. 

Well yes and Brum were penalised for not selling Che Adams for less than his worth. I rest my case.

[Ramarena]

31 minutes ago, Crewton said:

So, not only did Reading sell their stadium to themselves, they also sold their training ground to themselves and received a grant of £10M for an unspecified purpose. Without these items, their losses would have been even greater. 

But, hey, they've been open and honest and are super super rich... ... ?