Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Leeds Ram]

11 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

...and that justifies grassing us up to the powers that be, does it?

If he had nothing to gain from it he could, should and preferably would have either kept his mouth shut, or at least  limited his comments to social media posts and podcasts. Quite frankly it's none of his damn business what we do, but he's made it his business and now he spends an inordinate amount of his time publicly criticising us.

He's made his point, why not move onto other matters?

That's what the dislike of Maguire boils down to, we could have 20 page arguments about how his bias, qualifications, motives, career prospects but ultimately nobody likes a grass, nobody likes self-publicising attention seekers.

Sadly there's a handful of people who sit there backing him up because of their own dislike of Mel Morris, as if they have to take a side, and I really don't get it.

If someone thinks we've broken the rules and ethically done something incorrect then even though i don't like how it's impacted the club it creates a difficult dilemma as to if it was the right thing to do. Obviously from our side he's a grass but I'm pretty sure if it was another club using these tactics we'd not be exactly claiming they were innocent either.  It's clear to anyone who's looked at the issue that we were gaining an immediate advantage using amortisation the way we did which also carried an increased risk for the future, the question of if we broke the rules or not is a different one and I can't be bothered to go back into it. 

I nor you nor anyone on this forum as far as I'm aware know Maguire or his motives. He maintains he's sick of analysing us and would like to move on, maybe the reason he hasn't is because like it or not we've become an absolute basket case that makes for sad but interesting analysis? Maybe, it's because he's  a nasty attention seeker. Only he knows but i think pinning the blame on Maguire, Parry and the EFL ignores the real problem that was at our club and who now has exited. 

[Woodley Ram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes.  all true. But Mel is a Ram and the others are not.

I don’t hate Mel, he gambled and lost. I didn’t hear many dissenting voices when we had that mad season of spending. 
 

 Unfortunately it was Mels responsibility to run the club properly and he and Mr Pearce failed to do that.

yes it’s due to those two that we are in this mess but they didn’t set out to do this, but should have been more diligent 

[I know nuffin]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Nope. Can’t agree with your first sentence even. He is not objective, he makes a living providing information as clickbait to prove his own importance! Do you really believe we’re the only club pushing boundaries?! Where is his crusade against Reading etc?

As for his professional ability’s, I remain to be convinced of his accountancy skills.

I heard the ‘message’ before that twit stuck his oar in - it was obvious Mel was pushing our spending limits in the race to the Prem. But even so, our accountancy techniques have not been proven against accounting rules, just EFLs interpretation. If the EFL had told us that sooner maybe we’d have been more cautious with our P&S spending!

Those that can do, those that cannot teach

[I know nuffin]

8 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

If someone thinks we've broken the rules and ethically done something incorrect then even though i don't like how it's impacted the club it creates a difficult dilemma as to if it was the right thing to do. Obviously from our side he's a grass but I'm pretty sure if it was another club using these tactics we'd not be exactly claiming they were innocent either.  It's clear to anyone who's looked at the issue that we were gaining an immediate advantage using amortisation the way we did which also carried an increased risk for the future, the question of if we broke the rules or not is a different one and I can't be bothered to go back into it. 

I nor you nor anyone on this forum as far as I'm aware know Maguire or his motives. He maintains he's sick of analysing us and would like to move on, maybe the reason he hasn't is because like it or not we've become an absolute basket case that makes for sad but interesting analysis? Maybe, it's because he's  a nasty attention seeker. Only he knows but i think pinning the blame on Maguire, Parry and the EFL ignores the real problem that was at our club and who now has exited. 

If an expert, who in my book gets income from being an expert, keeps saying everything is ok they soon lose that income stream. If is only by insisting that things are wrong and the interpretation in their mind why they are wrong does that income stream continue. It's a bit like bad news sells newspapers

[The Baron]

10 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

If an expert, who in my book gets income from being an expert, keeps saying everything is ok they soon lose that income stream. If is only by insisting that things are wrong and the interpretation in their mind why they are wrong does that income stream continue. It's a bit like bad news sells newspapers

I don't get my income from football though. 

[Tyler Durden]

35 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

how come maguire never does. To me he is obviously biased that is my opinion and I am not the only one who thinks that. 
 

it is a fact that maguire and parry worked together. I am not passing on anything as fact that this is only opinion.

Cant you see how your own statement has undermined your whole argument -  top paragraph you say that is my opinion then closely followed by you are not passing on anything as fact that is only opinion.

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Cant you see how your own statement has undermined your whole argument -  top paragraph you say that is my opinion then closely followed by you are not passing on anything as fact that is only opinion.

You’re arguing for the sake of it now.

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Gaspode said:

Apart from the fact it's actually "Derbyshire born and Derbyshire bred, strong in t'arm and wick in t'head" (with wick meaning 'quick')

Yes, I used to quote it that way too, snowflake.

• Weak - 475,000 references
• Wick - 358,000 references
• Quick - negligible

It's like Brexit all over again.

[The Baron]

46 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Maguire accused an auditor of not being independent because he was a rams fan. 
 

did he provide any evidence  that the auditors work was impacted in anyway by the fact if being a rams fan. No he didn’t. 
 

I have heard a lot of quotes from maguire and I have never heard him criticise Efl. Other commentators have. Nixon has. Samuel at the mail has. Parliament has.

how come maguire never does. To me he is obviously biased that is my opinion and I am not the only one who thinks that. 
 

it is a fact that maguire and parry worked together. I am not passing on anything as fact that this is only opinion.

I have been critical of the EFL, such as the failure in respect of Bury, the approach taken to the destruction of Macclesfield, the appointment of a person onto the board who has just come off a 7 year ban as a director of any company in the UK, the failure to use a proper recruitment policy in relation to the Chief Exec. 

 

As for Rick Parry, I've never worked with him, he loathes me. 

[Sparkle]

For those that believe we can’t win this appeal could you please give me 4 or 5 examples of how a football club can win an appeal against administration because a football club surely can win its appeal or there wouldn’t be an appeal process ? 
 

seriously please give me some examples 

[Indy]

7 minutes ago, The Baron said:

I have been critical of the EFL, such as the failure in respect of Bury, the approach taken to the destruction of Macclesfield, the appointment of a person onto the board who has just come off a 7 year ban as a director of any company in the UK, the failure to use a proper recruitment policy in relation to the Chief Exec. 

 

As for Rick Parry, I've never worked with him, he loathes me. 

Hi Kieran. Genuine question: do you honestly believe that the Ebola epidemic in Congo is sufficient precedent for DCFC to have been prepared for a £20m shortfall in revenue caused by COVID pandemic shutdown? I just don’t see how that can be a reasonable position.

It’s very clear that millions of people/businesses/governments around the world were unprepared for the impact, but a second division football club on the other side of the planet from the disease origin should have been?

Edited October 22, 2021 by Indy
Missed question mark at the end

[Tyler Durden]

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

You’re arguing for the sake of it now.

Not trying to objectionable - the OP has their views as do I but opinions is all they are. 

[The Baron]

Just now, Indy said:

Hi Kieran. Genuine question: do you honestly believe that the Ebola epidemic in Congo is sufficient precedent for DCFC to have been prepared for a £20m shortfall in revenue caused by COVID pandemic shutdown? I just don’t see how that can be a reasonable position.

It’s very clear that millions of people/businesses/governments around the world were unprepared for the impact, but a second division football club on the other side of the planet from the disease origin should have been. 

I don't think that, I was putting forward the case that the EFL will use to press ahead with the penalty. They will also point out that there are 71 other clubs in the EFL who have been impacted by Covid who are not in administration. It's not a case of taking sides, more to do with presenting the cases on both sides of the divide. 

I specifically said that if a club was in a precarious financial position then Covid would make things worse. 

[Indy]

3 minutes ago, The Baron said:

I don't think that, I was putting forward the case that the EFL will use to press ahead with the penalty. They will also point out that there are 71 other clubs in the EFL who have been impacted by Covid who are not in administration. It's not a case of taking sides, more to do with presenting the cases on both sides of the divide. 

I specifically said that if a club was in a precarious financial position then Covid would make things worse. 

Thanks for answering. If the EFL do cite Ebola as a reasonable precedent it will make them look foolish, in my opinion. 
 

The question about why the other 70 clubs didn’t go into administration is more complex, and I’d hope Derby’s administrators can put forward a reasonable case that, even though our finances weren’t great, it wasn’t reckless to have large loans with a reasonable expectation of income to service the outgoings - until the force majeure event happened. 
 

I think it’s a reasonable argument, but can see it going either way. Would just like a fair hearing without the likes of Gibson, The Daily Mail etc misreporting elements and/or trying to influence. 

[The Baron]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

Thanks for answering. If the EFL do cite Ebola as a reasonable precedent it will make them look foolish, in my opinion. 
 

The question about why the other 70 clubs didn’t go into administration is more complex, and I’d hope Derby’s administrators can put forward a reasonable case that, even though our finances weren’t great, it wasn’t reckless to have large loans with a reasonable expectation of income to service the outgoings - until the force majeure event happened. 
 

I think it’s a reasonable argument, but can see it going either way. Would just like a fair hearing without the likes of Gibson, The Daily Mail etc misreporting elements and/or trying to influence. 

A fair hearing is right for both parties and also the integrity of the game.

 

The automatic points deduction was introduced by the EFL specifically because clubs were abusing administration as a means of gambling trying to get promoted and then stiffing their creditors if things did not work out. In that sense the penalty has worked given the reduction in the number of clubs going into admin since its introduction. 

[PistoldPete]

32 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Cant you see how your own statement has undermined your whole argument -  top paragraph you say that is my opinion then closely followed by you are not passing on anything as fact that is only opinion.

I think there may be a typo. I meant I am not passing on anything as if it were fact when in reality it is only opinion… although if mr maguire himself says he has never worked with party then I may be mistaken. The two have both worked for university of Liverpool to the best of my knowledge.

[PistoldPete]

28 minutes ago, The Baron said:

I have been critical of the EFL, such as the failure in respect of Bury, the approach taken to the destruction of Macclesfield, the appointment of a person onto the board who has just come off a 7 year ban as a director of any company in the UK, the failure to use a proper recruitment policy in relation to the Chief Exec. 

 

As for Rick Parry, I've never worked with him, he loathes me. 

Ok well I don’t hang on your every word. But Efl has been criticised a few times by the IDc and by newspapers etc in their conduct of the Derby case . 
 

I have never heard you be critical at all of them in that context , not once. 

[Ram-Alf]

4 minutes ago, The Baron said:

A fair hearing is right for both parties and also the integrity of the game.

 

The automatic points deduction was introduced by the EFL specifically because clubs were abusing administration as a means of gambling trying to get promoted and then stiffing their creditors if things did not work out. In that sense the penalty has worked given the reduction in the number of clubs going into admin since its introduction. 

It's a good job there was the bailout of millions of £s for those that applied from some maybe going into Administration, Of which we were either denied, Or didn't apply for knowing it would be denied.

[Indy]

8 minutes ago, The Baron said:

A fair hearing is right for both parties and also the integrity of the game.

 

The automatic points deduction was introduced by the EFL specifically because clubs were abusing administration as a means of gambling trying to get promoted and then stiffing their creditors if things did not work out. In that sense the penalty has worked given the reduction in the number of clubs going into admin since its introduction. 

I agree that a points penalty for wilful administration as an easy way out is right. And DCFC would argue that they were forced into this position through circumstances - not their own doing. There must be scenarios where this is a reasonable argument, otherwise why bother having an appeals process. We’re still suffering hardship through the administration itself, but the points penalty is a separate judgement on the motives behind being in that position. 
 

Fingers crossed it gets heard and finalised soon. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Indy

[The Baron]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Ok well I don’t hang on your every word. But Efl has been criticised a few times by the IDc and by newspapers etc in their conduct of the Derby case . 
 

I have never heard you be critical at all of them in that context , not once. 

I was critical of the EFL at the IDC!