Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Incidentally, I wonder if that paltry fine has actually been paid or not, and, if not, whether that makes the EFL a creditor? 

Good question but really...

[Crewton]

13 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Incidentally, I wonder if that paltry fine has actually been paid or not, and, if not, whether that makes the EFL a creditor? 

Yes, it's been used to give Peter Ridsdale another three coats of Sadolins. 

[San Fran Van Rams]

44 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

What puzzles me is the second tribunal found that we did not comply with Fs102 which to everyone else we did. One side must be right and oneside wrong. Add to that our accounts were checked by the accountants ruling body who found nothing wrong. If what I post is correct a simple letter from the ruling body should have been a great lever for the administrators to use. Just because no other club did it out way means nothing because somehow we were found not to be complying with fs102

I agree. And it would seem to me that the second tribunal would be the incorrect party given who was/wasn't on it.

[Ghost of Clough]

5 hours ago, Chester40 said:

Sorry, basic question. 

... the stadium sale....made these losses better, were irrelevant? this is with/without it?

With the sale

[Ghost of Clough]

3 hours ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

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?

LAP decision was final. Derby method was non-compliant, but didn't stop us trying to use a different non-linear method... which we tried but still pulled up on. Now we're forced to use a linear method as we've agreed to it.

I would say harsh based on how we arrived at this point, but fair based on what the excessive losses are.. we also would have excessive losses under the old method anyway.

[Ghost of Clough]

3 hours ago, Hordh said:

This ?

This has made me sad ?

[San Fran Van Rams]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

LAP decision was final. Derby method was non-compliant, but didn't stop us trying to use a different non-linear method... which we tried but still pulled up on. Now we're forced to use a linear method as we've agreed to it.

I would say harsh based on how we arrived at this point, but fair based on what the excessive losses are.. we also would have excessive losses under the old method anyway.

I think its the fact that the LAP decision was made final that really urks me - it didn't seem to come with any expert judgement and seemed to contravene expert opinions. Understand we agreed to it, but that was more out of necessity than an admission of guilt. 

Agreed that we would have had excessive losses at another point in time, but I'd assume our original approach would have resulted in less periods breaking the limit, and perhaps a timed sale of an academy asset to balance the books. 

Out of interest, do you think we could get caught in upcoming years with P&S breaches? Or does the administration and sanction clean the slate for us? 

[Ghost of Clough]

22 minutes ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

I think its the fact that the LAP decision was made final that really urks me - it didn't seem to come with any expert judgement and seemed to contravene expert opinions. Understand we agreed to it, but that was more out of necessity than an admission of guilt. 

Agreed that we would have had excessive losses at another point in time, but I'd assume our original approach would have resulted in less periods breaking the limit, and perhaps a timed sale of an academy asset to balance the books. 

Out of interest, do you think we could get caught in upcoming years with P&S breaches? Or does the administration and sanction clean the slate for us? 

Clean slate as far as I can tell. Back to a point of not exceeding P&S losses of £13m for 21/22

[San Fran Van Rams]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Clean slate as far as I can tell. Back to a point of not exceeding P&S losses of £13m for 21/22

Thank you - really appreciate your knowledge and expertise here!!

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

This has made me sad ?

He's agreeing with your post he just used the wrong emoji buddy - he meant this ?

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

LAP decision was final. Derby method was non-compliant

Was ruled non-compliant. It's an important distinction or least it was ?

[WoollyJumper]

On 16/11/2021 at 22:15, Duracell said:

I've said before that I admire any fan with emotional capacity left to care about what team we play, or engage in discussions about tactics. I feel a little bit about the points deduction too; I always thought it was coming.

My main worries are:

1) How much of the above will be sorted before January? Because if it's not, there could be a firesale of not just the first team, but all the very clearly talented U23s who could be the key to our return to this league. If they go, then we'll be scrambling around to field a team that can stay up in League One next year, let alone any talk of promotion. And perhaps a tad more pertinently;

2) Are we going to exist????????????????*

 

 

*I can't believe how many fans are not obsessively stressed by this question.

Would it help?

[Carnero]

5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Clean slate as far as I can tell. Back to a point of not exceeding P&S losses of £13m for 21/22

Just to "confirm" (if we can take the EFL's word for anything these days!)

[Duracell]

3 hours ago, WoollyJumper said:

Would it help?

Yes. Panicking always makes things better.

[BramcoteRam84]

12 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Just to "confirm" (if we can take the EFL's word for anything these days!)

And the business plan only applies this season if I read it correctly which could be seen as a concession from the EFL given their rules state 2 year business plan on exiting administration.

Presumably (if we are assuming fairness and the EFL don’t have an agenda against Derby) Reading’s isn’t a clean slate they’ve took the minimal impact for this season on proviso they get their costs to a point in the future to avoid further penalties, therefore given where their costs have got to you would imagine they would need to make some seriously drastic moves to comply with future periods which would weaken their squad significantly. 
 

Also the EFL references the overspend for the Covid years in our judgement as included, so when everyone else submits their positions then we will see points deductions handed out to half the league when they fail it. For example - please tell me how Forest will avoid a points deduction when they had a revenue hit similar to ours but a £30m wage bill. 

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

He's agreeing with your post he just used the wrong emoji buddy - he meant this ?

Was ruled non-compliant. It's an important distinction or least it was ?

Was ruled Non compliant ( by non accountants) in relation to the period covered by the charge. So only for three years. That ruling doesn’t set a precedent as far as I know. It is not a Court of Law. And nor is it a precedent that Boro should be able to rely on. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by PistoldPete

[PistoldPete]

10 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

IF we can ignore the semantics around the phrase bad faith for a moment the question for me is why did we make an intentional decision to apply a method of amortisation of players values which was at total variance to the majority of the other clubs in our division.

And the answer isn't because the EFL said we could - taking one step back why did we seek to apply a different accounting method if it wasn't to lever some kind of advantage over our peers.

Not sure I would fancy some of the posters on here handling our case with Boro.

I think whether actions were in bad faith is pretty significant in that context . And our future existence will depend on how much slack we are given by Hmrc. So if a flagrant breach of rules they may have no mercy. An honest mistake is maybe a very different matter. Ours was an honest mistake and quite possibly within the rules, plenty of accountants thought it was.

and as has been answered I think many times , securing an advantage is what every club in the Championship tries to do by a whole variety of means . It doesn’t make it unlawful or even immoral.

plus we wouldn’t know how other clubs do their amortisation. There is no set method.

[Carnero]

21 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

please tell me how Forest will avoid a points deduction when they had a revenue hit similar to ours but a £30m wage bill. 

By selling Robert Rosario to Olympiakos for £ eleventymillion.

[Red Ram]

10 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

IF we can ignore the semantics around the phrase bad faith for a moment the question for me is why did we make an intentional decision to apply a method of amortisation of players values which was at total variance to the majority of the other clubs in our division.

And the answer isn't because the EFL said we could - taking one step back why did we seek to apply a different accounting method if it wasn't to lever some kind of advantage over our peers.

The answer to this question is in the 'Agreed Decision':-

"As a direct result of such breach, “the Club significantly reduced its costs in the years in question compared to other Championship clubs, which had the effect that, because of the FFP restrictions, they were potentially able to increase their spend on player purchases in those years compared to what would have occurred had they adopted the straight-line treatment which other clubs adopt”

[The Baron]

14 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

Are there any other teams on the EFL points deduction radar ? Perhaps @The Baron could do some forensics on Stoke, Brizzle and Boro ?

 

As requested. The above figures are before P&S adjustments (infrastructure etc) 

[Brammie Steve]

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

Just to "confirm" (if we can take the EFL's word for anything these days!)

Confuscious he say:-

“Beware EFL word “Provided!” “