Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Day]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well Pearce didn't get involved in any decisions involving Derby but even so clubs were saying he had a conflict of interest. So voted for Ridsdale instead. Which tells you all you need to know about the integrity of the League. 

And now we have someone from Boro on the board, same club looking to sue...

Hear you, just think it's not something we can complain about really without being privy to what goes on in these meetings.

Ideally the board should be truly independent, but just think it's poor timing for us to start going down that path.

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, David said:

It's rules such as above that builds this "vendetta" that some believe the EFL have towards us.

Let's not forget here, the EFL signed off on our accounts, they only became an issue when they looked into the stadium valuation despite Kieran Maguire alerting the EFL to take a look at our accounts a long long time before the stadium sale was made public.

Meanwhile clubs such as QPR smashed the FFP rules the season we played them at Wembley, were Derby crying and threatening to sue the EFL and QPR, no.

Gibson however, well he's been a dog with a bone on this. I suspect the EFL would not have appealed and pushed as hard if they didn't have this threat hanging over them, and this all may look like paranoia, but honestly tell me I'm wrong.

The EFL will not want this in court, front and back pages of the paper for the country to see their handling of all this.

I find it hard to take that we're being punished for something historically which was approved by the EFL, the punishment doesn't feel like it fits the crime either.

We've been under embargo for the best part of a year, unable to strengthen the team, can't submit accounts as there is an argument over accountancy methods which are not in the EFL rules.

We're then being denied an opportunity of an interest free loan that could have helped prevent us going into admin because of the above investigation, so we're hit with -12.

Yet that doesn't appear to be enough as they want a further 9 point deduction.

At what point are we allowed to feel a little annoyed by what the EFL have done here, I'm amazed other club fans are actually enjoying this when it could be their club next.

We have a club down the A52 with an owner sending players between his 2 clubs in plain sight, how is this not been flagged up as a potential FFP issue, can you imagine transfer negotiations? It's a table with 2 chairs and just himself. 

It just stinks, it really does. Maybe I'm biased as this is my club, but it does absolutely feel like a vendetta that won't end until they have us in League 1.

When you look at what Rooney and this team are up against, it's incredible the fight they continue to show on the pitch. They don't deserve to have a relegation on their CV's, not one of them.

If we somehow stay up against the EFL's best efforts to send us down, without a doubt Rooney should be manager of the season, not that the EFL would be brave enough to award it him.

I would agree with everything you say David except with hindsight knowing what we now know some form of  transfer embargo was a necessary medicine.  Comes a time though where even that is self defeating., if we cannot renew contracts and people leave for nothing. 

[MuespachRam]

5 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Not many football chairman have been treated like Mel has been done by the EFL to be fair.

Anyone who thinks everything that is happening is righteous and just and that Derby deserve everything they get absolutely baffle me.

I have had some choice words for Mel over the last few years but he is on the receiving end of an agenda by someone within the EFL, it is absolutely blatant.

Give it a rest, take off your tin foil hat. He messed up, he messed up big time, and now we are facing the consequences of it.

[MuespachRam]

2 hours ago, Foreveram said:

My opinion, your either 100% behind the club on and off the pitch or you’re not a supporter.

What a load of rubbish.... I am 100% NOT behind the club 100% of the time, I am 100% NOT in agreement with lots of things the club do, so that doesn't make me a supporter?

[basilrobbie]

6 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

It's perfectly possible to simultaneously believe (as I do) that Mel Morris has run the club in a catastrophically awful way, that the EFL have handled their various interactions with us in a pathetically useless way, and that Maguire is an attention-seeking muppet that doesn't seem to know half as much as he thinks he does.

That's the best answer I have seen. 

 

I do see that people can, and do, hold all these views at once. But without Morris's behaviour there would be no interest from Maguire or regulatory action from the EFL. All roads lead back to him. He bet YOUR ranch on black and came up red. 

If we want to truly widen the argument, Morris would not have behaved as he did if the distribution of TV monies were not so grossly inequitable. And that is a crime that a lot of people had a hand in committing.

 

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

But without Morris's behaviour there would be no interest from Maguire or regulatory action from the EFL. All roads lead back to him. He bet YOUR ranch on black and came up red. 

If we want to truly widen the argument, Morris would not have behaved as he did if the distribution of TV monies were not so grossly inequitable. And that is a crime that a lot of people had a hand in committing.

 

The EFL regulatory behaviour only makes Mel look really bad because they reacted retrospectively. If they’d said in the first lot of our accounts gotta be straight line amortisation then fair enough. But they let us believe that how we were doing FFP was acceptable.

[Crewton]

The appeal SHOULD boil down to 3 elements :

- Ability to foresee the Event

- Ability to control the impact

- Mitigation measures that the club could reasonably be expected to implement given the above.

The financial position of the club prior to the Event should only be an issue for consideration if, on balance, a reasonable person in possession of the reasonably available facts could reasonably be expected to have allowed for the probability of the Event occurring.

Whether the panel will adopt those principles will tell us allot about the legal standing of the decision, irrespective of the EFL's closed-shop membership rules.

 

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

That's the best answer I have seen. 

 

I do see that people can, and do, hold all these views at once. But without Morris's behaviour there would be no interest from Maguire or regulatory action from the EFL. All roads lead back to him. He bet YOUR ranch on black and came up red. 

If we want to truly widen the argument, Morris would not have behaved as he did if the distribution of TV monies were not so grossly inequitable. And that is a crime that a lot of people had a hand in committing.

 

Yes in fairness to Rick Parry who I profoundly disagree with on many things, he has recognised that the unfairness of TV deals for EFL clubs and the parachute money that goes with it  is the driver for  high spending and high risk strategy...especially for clubs like Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.

Fulham has a wage bill of, what is it  £100 million. How can anyone in the EFL compete against that? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Crewton]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes in fairness to Rick Parry who I profoundly disagree with on many things, he has recognised that the unfairness of TV deals for EFL clubs and the parachute money that goes with it  is the driver for  high spending and high risk strategy...especially for clubs like Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.

Fulham has a wage bill of, what is it  £100 million. How can anyone in the EFL compete against that? 

 

 

 

 

 

But Rick needs the collapse of a Big Club in the EFL to prove his point. Why people can't see this, I don't know.

[Foreveram]

So your right and I’m wrong and I’m not allowed an opinion. I didn’t say I agree with everything the club does or every decision the owner takes , but if you support the club you do so in the bad times as well as the good not just when it suits you. It’s a bit like having kids. I along with 3000 or so other fans will be cheering the team on at Coventry tomorrow regardless , trying to keep them in this division. Like I said that’s my opinion, I didn’t rubbish yours .

[basilrobbie]

7 minutes ago, Crewton said:

But Rick needs the collapse of a Big Club in the EFL to prove his point. Why people can't see this, I don't know.

I'm sorry, but that is completely paranoid rubbish. There is no "point" to prove - the entire world knows that many of the owners of Championship clubs behave like financially incontinent lemmings. And it was a "point" long before Parry happened along.

 

[PistoldPete]

16 minutes ago, Crewton said:

The appeal SHOULD boil down to 3 elements :

- Ability to foresee the Event

- Ability to control the impact

- Mitigation measures that the club could reasonably be expected to implement given the above.

The financial position of the club prior to the Event should only be an issue for consideration if, on balance, a reasonable person in possession of the reasonably available facts could reasonably be expected to have allowed for the probability of the Event occurring.

Whether the panel will adopt those principles will tell us allot about the legal standing of the decision, irrespective of the EFL's closed-shop membership rules.

 

Yes I stil do not get what Mr Maguire (now I know he lurks on the forum I will call him Mr Maguire) . is going on about .The EFL defintion again.

12.11 For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having
regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances,
other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case
may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due
diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

 

So how can he say COVID is not a Force Majeure event as defined. was it caused by a normal business risk? No certainly not. Could the club reasonably have controlled the event. Well first of all, as you very rightly say they would have need to have been reasonably expected to foresee it  (I dont think so at all that anyone reasonably foresaw lockdown.) Then to control it somehow , How for heavens sake? And then used all due diligence to avoid the event of COVID/ lockdown well also certainly nothing that can done to avoid the happening of either event.

 

That whole argument just seems completly ridiculous Mr Maguire if you are still here.

But still did the force majeure event cause insolvency event, that is the real queston? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by PistoldPete

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

I'm sorry, but that is completely paranoid rubbish. There is no "point" to prove - the entire world knows that many of the owners of Championship clubs behave like financially incontinent lemmings. And it was a "point" long before Parry happened along.

 

Belive me if Derby County were to collapse into liquidation and be banished from the EFL, it would cause a major public enquiry.

[basilrobbie]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Belive me if Derby County were to collapse into liquidation and be banished from the EFL, it would cause a major public enquiry.

So it should. But that would be because the system is fatally flawed, owners behave very stupidly to try to mitigate the worst aspects of it and the EFL has neither the will nor the wherewithal to deal with them or the EPL. No conspiracy, just a catalogue of incompetence.

I don't think Morris was the worst there has been. He's pretty benign when measured against Oyston, Dale, Anderson or the chancer who got hold of WIgan. But he is definitely one of the clumsiest.

[The Baron]

15 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes I stil do not get what Mr Maguire (now I know he lurks on the forum I will call him Mr Maguire) . is going on about .The EFL defintion again.

12.11 For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having
regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances,
other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case
may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due
diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

 

So how can he say COVID is not a Force Majeure event as defined. was it caused by a normal business risk? No certainly not. Could the club reasonably have controlled the event. Well first of all, as you very rightly say they would have need to have been reasonably expected to foresee it  (I dont think so at all that anyone reasonably foresaw lockdown.) Then to control it somehow , How for heavens sake? And then used all due diligence to avoid the event of COVID/ lockdown well also certainly nothing that can done to avoid the happening of either event.

 

That whole argument just seems completly ridiculous Mr Maguire if you are still here.

But still did the force majeure event cause insolvency event, that is the real queston? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Pete

The Wigan administrator used force majeure relating to Covid as their defence for the club going into administration and it was rejected.
 

There are some similarities and some differences between the two claims. 

Whether that’s enough to overcome the penalty is for others to decide. In my opinion (which isn’t fact I appreciate) Derby have the best legal team in the country working for them, which can only help. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

The other question I'd ask is at what point do the EFL believe an owner becomes solely responsible for covering any and all losses?  If Morris had only put in 1p to cover a loss during his ownership, would he still have been responsible for covering the COVID £20m loss too? £100k? £1m? Where is the line?

They seem to be completely upending the entire premise of limited liability and trying to enforce unlimited liability on owners. 

It didn't work 300 years ago (basically forced the economy to be only sole traders with no company formation or capital reallocation) and it won't work now. 

[Crewton]

12 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

I'm sorry, but that is completely paranoid rubbish. There is no "point" to prove - the entire world knows that many of the owners of Championship clubs behave like financially incontinent lemmings. And it was a "point" long before Parry happened along.

 

Sorry, I didn't realise you knew Rick and his inner thoughts. 

I base my thinking on the observation of obvious dichotomies like the EFL not having a defined standard for player amortisation, yet the EFL under Rick Parry charging Derby for using a form of amortisation that wasn't proscribed and whose compliance with FRS102 is subject to debate in accounting circles, and said R Parry esq then claiming that player amortisation was not the driver for pursuing charges against Derby whilst simultaneously pursuing charges against Derby based on requiring Derby to resubmit their P&S calculations on the basis of the EFL's non-prescribed amortisation method, whilst also stating his determination to have player amortisation removed from P&S calculations. 

Can you see the issue here? 

[Oldben]

Article "WILL COVID-19 EXCUSE CONTRACTUAL PERFORMANCE IN INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CONTRACTS?", by lewis silkin solicitors is helpful on the topic.

Highlighted in it are a number of instances where Fifa have accepted that a force majeure has been ruled.

In those cases highlighted fifa ruled in favour.

Rather than appeal to the efl, over Riding them by Derby directly appealing to fifa to make a ruling.

That could be useful because a fifa ruling entirely overrules the efl.

I'm not sure if Derby can directly appeal to fifa on the force majeure.

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Sorry, I didn't realise you knew Rick and his inner thoughts. 

I base my thinking on the observation of obvious dichotomies like the EFL not having a defined standard for player amortisation, yet the EFL under Rick Parry charging Derby for using a form of amortisation that wasn't proscribed and whose compliance with FRS102 is subject to debate in accounting circles, and said R Parry esq then claiming that player amortisation was not the driver for pursuing charges against Derby whilst simultaneously pursuing charges against Derby based on requiring Derby to resubmit their P&S calculations on the basis of the EFL's non-prescribed amortisation method, whilst also stating his determination to have player amortisation removed from P&S calculations. 

Can you see the issue here? 

I'm not even aware that the compliance with FRS 102 is a debate within accounting circles, are there actually any accountants out there that have argued it is non compliant?

[Ram-Alf]

38 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

So it should. But that would be because the system is fatally flawed, owners behave very stupidly to try to mitigate the worst aspects of it and the EFL has neither the will nor the wherewithal to deal with them or the EPL. No conspiracy, just a catalogue of incompetence.

I don't think Morris was the worst there has been. He's pretty benign when measured against Oyston, Dale, Anderson or the chancer who got hold of WIgan. But he is definitely one of the clumsiest.

As I said in an earlier post, I used to follow you guys on "Back Henry Street" because of the Oystons, You've nailed it for me in those few words.

Have a look at this if you have time, 30mins of DCFC  One Journalist in particular Neil Hallam said...most clubs did what we did, But we get caught, It's Political he said...A very good journalist in his day IMO, So much so he had his press pass withdrawn for critisizing a previous owner.