Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[i-Ram]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well Kevin ‘s suggestion is that the Efl action may be a reason why he couldn’t sell the club. But anyway hopefully Tracey crouch review means no more Efl regulation and then I will have nothing to Moan about either.

[PistoldPete]

30 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Even if he had managed to sell the club, looking at the sort of people he was getting involved with it may only have hastened his reputational plummet to villain status

Maybe . Or maybe some people would realise there are worse owners out there. Far worse. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

4 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

As a Consultant the first thing you advise the client is ......they need more consultancy 

[kevinhectoring]

44 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Or if the EFL had never charged us in the first place. Both charges required the EFL to over-ride indpendent assessments (by the valuers of PPS and by the auditors). Both very high bars (or should have been). And the amortisation policy should have been challenged in 2016 or not at all.  

I agree the EFl treated us unfairly but not for these reasons. There’s a massive range of possible values of a stadium depending on assumptions and basis of valuation. I don’t think you can say that once you have a value from a valuer it can’t be challenged. As for your point about auditors, you are saying that the EFL can never challenge audited accounts. Well that doesn’t seem to work. And on your last point, we know that the amortisation method wasn’t understood by the EFl until shortly before the first hearing. We misdescribed it in the notes to accounts and there are strong indications we misdescribed it to the EFL
 

Overall we suffered a harsh penalty - there were loads of mitigating  factors not given sufficient weight imho. But what the EFL really did wrong was to allow the Gibson faction to string things out - no doubt that was a major factor in triggering the administration 
 

 

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I agree the EFl treated us unfairly but not for these reasons. There’s a massive range of possible values of a stadium depending on assumptions and basis of valuation. I don’t think you can say that once you have a value from a valuer it can’t be challenged. As for your point about auditors, you are saying that the EFL can never challenge audited accounts. Well that doesn’t seem to work. And on your last point, we know that the amortisation method wasn’t understood by the EFl until shortly before the first hearing. We misdescribed it in the notes to accounts and there are strong indications we misdescribed it to the EFL
 

Overall we suffered a harsh penalty - there were loads of mitigating  factors not given sufficient weight imho. But what the EFL really did wrong was to allow the Gibson faction to string things out - no doubt that was a major factor in triggering the administration 
 

 

Kevin sorry if I misquoted you. But I do not agree that the stadium sale can be challenged just because you get a different valuer with a different opinion. That isn’t how it works , it’s not really how HMRC work. 
 

and on the second point the IDC made clear that the mis statement in the accounts would have suggested a far worse noncompliant  policy than anything we actually used. It suggested we used “residual values” for players at the end of contracts when everyone knows that players values are zero at the end of the contracts. So how come EFL weren’t all over that then? 
 

EFL’s finance director at the time was quoted as saying the charges against Derby were a load of rubbish.

so the only reason we were charged was because there had been a change of personnel at the Efl. Which I think is unfair , inconsistent and unreasonable.

[May Contain Nuts]

25 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Maybe . Or maybe some people would realise there are worse owners out there. Far worse. 

Much worse owners, hand selected by the previous owner?

Edited November 26, 2021 by Coconut's Beard