Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Sparkle]

3 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

The only place I can see anyone try to explain it (in a very confusing manner) is Hull Daily Mail, based on the punishment Birmingham, were given and how it was worked out.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-financial-fair-play-explained-2688083

In summary:

Between 2015 & 2018 Birmingham recorded a P&S loss which must have been around £48m and were due to be deducted 12 points.

Being less than £2m over the £39m allowable losses would have reduced their penalty by 9 points (to 3)
Being 'just under £10m' over the £39m allowable losses reduced their penalty by 5 points (to 7)
Being £15m+ over the allowable losses doesn't reduce your penalty at all

Figures in between are guesswork, but Mel Morris apparently said that a £4m breach would mean a 4 point penalty (which makes sense)

If we don't come to an agreement with the EFL and it goes to the disciplinary commission it will be up to them to "judge how far and how flagrantly a club has disregarded the rules, and punish accordingly"

The disciplinary commission decided in the Birmimgham case that by quickly admitting their breach they saved themselves another point (down to 6) - not something we would benefit from.

The disciplinary commission didn't believe their claims of contrition though, due to their loss of over £20m from increased spending the following season (taking it back up to 9). There's also the matter of Birmingham breaking a transfer embargo by paying £2m for Kristian Pedersen in 2018 - all of that only resulted in 3 extra points being added to their penalty.

 

...so what do people should we be looking at if it went to a disciplinary panel vs the EFL trying to get us to agree to 9 points?

Birmingham also agreed to it because they knew that it couldn’t relegate them because of its timing - it’s all farcical how it’s implemented to suit some clubs 

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

2 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Birmingham also agreed to it because they knew that it couldn’t relegate them because of its timing - it’s all farcical how it’s implemented to suit some clubs 

Yeah, imagine Man City being in this position. There's no way they'd have been treated this way. 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

So Reading, who think they will get 6 points should get 12 as they are over the £15m mark!

But - the EFL are apparently negotiating over it so expect it to not be that to help Reading out no doubt - also worth remembering that we agreed to a suspended minus 3 points due to not paying the wages last January for ten days whilst Sheffield Wednesday didn’t pay their players for four months and negotiated basically a 3 point suspended penalty as the other 3 points basically was time served 

if I was Derby I wouldn’t negotiate over anything with the EFL - let them charge us let us give our case and let someone else distribute punishment as the EFL come across as exceptionally untrustworthy.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

First time I have had this explained, thank you. So do you know the breakdown of the subsequent year over spend? Are we (Mel) saying that DCFC budgeted to be within FFP based on the original submitted accounts and could have altered them if we had chance. That seems a reasonable defence as long as we were within FFP with the old accounts    

Only guesswork, but we were screwed with either amortisation method. EFL approved method screws us up to 2020/2021, whereas Derby method would have us in a tricky situation for a couple more years after that.

[Reggie Greenwood]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Only guesswork, but we were screwed with either amortisation method. EFL approved method screws us up to 2020/2021, whereas Derby method would have us in a tricky situation for a couple more years after that.

What happened to the stadium money GOC ? Thought that helped us swerve the FFP just 

[alexxxxx]

I know this is boring but I've been pulled in to reading otib and their discussion on us. 

I don't really understand their obsession with us not filing accounts with CH like it's a crime against humanity. I thought it was known that the reason why we've not filed accounts was due to the fact that a fundamental feature of our accounting process has been under scrutiny for so long (years and years) by the efl. Hence why they've not been filed. I also don't quite understand why this in itself has given us (or not) a sporting advantage. Is not filing accounts with CH an offence in itself with proscribed penalty? Surely it is dependent on the outcome of discussions with the efl about the acceptability of amortisation techniques which has been ongoing for literally 2+years?

The DC was clear in that the breach in how the amortisation was described and evidenced in the accounts only merited a small punishment... Any case leading on from that should be based on its own merits.

Derby will eventually be punished (or not, if nothing to answer for) for breaking the rules and an appropriate penalty will be applied. 

Its clear Derby and the efl (and by extension the other clubs) don't trust each other... The independent panels are the best way to resolve this. 

I feel like the whole thing is so blown out of proportion and the background to the whole thing matters. 

Administration is a separate issue and we'll see what happens. 

[PistoldPete]

51 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I know this is boring but I've been pulled in to reading otib and their discussion on us. 

I don't really understand their obsession with us not filing accounts with CH like it's a crime against humanity. I thought it was known that the reason why we've not filed accounts was due to the fact that a fundamental feature of our accounting process has been under scrutiny for so long (years and years) by the efl. Hence why they've not been filed. I also don't quite understand why this in itself has given us (or not) a sporting advantage. Is not filing accounts with CH an offence in itself with proscribed penalty? Surely it is dependent on the outcome of discussions with the efl about the acceptability of amortisation techniques which has been ongoing for literally 2+years?

The DC was clear in that the breach in how the amortisation was described and evidenced in the accounts only merited a small punishment... Any case leading on from that should be based on its own merits.

Derby will eventually be punished (or not, if nothing to answer for) for breaking the rules and an appropriate penalty will be applied. 

Its clear Derby and the efl (and by extension the other clubs) don't trust each other... The independent panels are the best way to resolve this. 

I feel like the whole thing is so blown out of proportion and the background to the whole thing matters. 

Administration is a separate issue and we'll see what happens. 

Well yes the £100,000 fine for allegedly not following an accounting standard (actually a failing if anything by our auditors) is about the size of it.. a smaller fine than Leeds got for spying on us. Did leeds get threatened with relegation for their crime.. I don't think so. 

[alexxxxx]

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Well yes the £100,000 fine for allegedly not following an accounting standard (actually a failing if anything by our auditors) is about the size of it.. a smaller fine than Leeds got for spying on us. Did leeds get threatened with relegation for their crime.. I don't think so. 

I think the problem with the LAP/DC decision was that although it found Derby guilty it couldn't seem to guide the efl and Derby to a solution to the amortisation policy issue. The restating accounts requirement has clearly just kicked the can further down the road.

We're nearly 3 months in from submitting p and s and yet we've still got no idea how much we've allegedly broken p&s rules and no independent panel has even yet to be called. 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by alexxxxx

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, Sparkle said:

why on earth would a club want to voluntarily go into Administration it’s far too dangerous.

If we wipe out the -12 points on appeal it’ll be clear to other clubs that they can file, wipe out 75% of their unsecured creditor claims, [do a deal with HMRC] and come out the other side having saved millions and suffered not much at all. And the stigma associated with football club administration will diminish. You can see why the EFL want to fight us and change the rules 

[MuespachRam]

13 hours ago, Indy said:

The EFL expect owners to cover normal operating losses (as everyone knows that running a club covers that). But if they’re now expecting owners to cover extraordinary losses due to a pandemic (£20m in our case) that’s a very different question.

I think if they are saying that an owner’s full personal wealth should be available to underwrite everything, that’s contrary to the whole principle of having a ‘limited’ company, isn’t it?

The pandemic only happened in Derby then…?

[MuespachRam]

12 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

We were said to need £13.5 million to see us to the end of season. It’s just possible you know he may not have that money in readies .

and even if he had I don’t see the Bank of Mel is any different to any other bank. If Barclays pulled the plug would we be expecting them to keep sinking money in pouring food money after bad?

Exactly….so he pulled the plug and we went into administration which he knew was going to be the result of him pulling the plug. 

[Indy]

2 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

The pandemic only happened in Derby then…?

No.
 

Has every business in the world gone into administration because of Covid? But some have. Different outcomes can result from the same cause. 
 

The relevant question is, was Derby’s vulnerability as a result of Covid due to a reckless approach? The argument is that with a large average gate, and no parachute payments, we would have a larger proportional loss of income (with no ability to reduce outgoings), than clubs with parachute payments or clubs who had never had large gate receipts. Will it be a strong enough defence? Maybe. The administrators clearly think it’s strong enough to put to the test. Hopefully we’ll find out soon. 

[Crewton]

6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

If we wipe out the -12 points on appeal it’ll be clear to other clubs that they can file, wipe out 75% of their unsecured creditor claims, [do a deal with HMRC] and come out the other side having saved millions and suffered not much at all. And the stigma associated with football club administration will diminish. You can see why the EFL want to fight us and change the rules 

You're assuming that the current owners of football clubs would be happy to be wiped out, and potentially risk the club going into liquidation, simply to wipe out debt for the benefit of a new owner. 

That's a popular tactic in the wider business world, where owners routinely set up prepack deals to buy up the profitable parts of a business via a new vehicle whilst screwing creditors, but EFL’s rules prevent that, so I wonder how many would seriously consider using our case as a precedent when they couldn't even guarantee they'd get the same outcome? 

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

Exactly….so he pulled the plug and we went into administration which he knew was going to be the result of him pulling the plug. 

Going into administration is to protect the creditors. Or would you prefer the Hmrc debt just gets bigger and bigger? 

[PistoldPete]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

If we wipe out the -12 points on appeal it’ll be clear to other clubs that they can file, wipe out 75% of their unsecured creditor claims, [do a deal with HMRC] and come out the other side having saved millions and suffered not much at all. And the stigma associated with football club administration will diminish. You can see why the EFL want to fight us and change the rules 

It won’t be clear at all. If they think that , then the reason they went into administration will not be because of COVID but because they think they can get away with it.

But clubs in receipt of loans to 2024 will be unlikely to claim that COVID caused their admin.

[MuespachRam]

6 hours ago, Indy said:

No.
 

Has every business in the world gone into administration because of Covid? But some have. Different outcomes can result from the same cause. 
 

The relevant question is, was Derby’s vulnerability as a result of Covid due to a reckless approach? The argument is that with a large average gate, and no parachute payments, we would have a larger proportional loss of income (with no ability to reduce outgoings), than clubs with parachute payments or clubs who had never had large gate receipts. Will it be a strong enough defence? Maybe. The administrators clearly think it’s strong enough to put to the test. Hopefully we’ll find out soon. 

You really think your 450 pound you spend on a season ticket pays for anything towards running a football club…? Those days are long gone. 

[MuespachRam]

36 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Going into administration is to protect the creditors. Or would you prefer the Hmrc debt just gets bigger and bigger? 

I would prefer that we pay the tax bill….because isn’t that what you are supposed to do, you know to keep things like the NHS running who are saving the lives of people we love…?

[Crewton]

4 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

I would prefer that we pay the tax bill….because isn’t that what you are supposed to do, you know to keep things like the NHS running who are saving the lives of people we love…?

That's an interesting contrast to the earlier post you put on the thread. 

Do you think your £26M goes any way towards the costs of running the NHS, those days are long gone ....

Edited November 3, 2021 by Crewton

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

I would prefer that we pay the tax bill….because isn’t that what you are supposed to do, you know to keep things like the NHS running who are saving the lives of people we love…?

I would prefer the NHS did actually save the lives of people that I love , but let's not go there. 

Yes I would also prefer it if Derby could pay the tax bill. It seems that they do not have £28 million down the back of the sofa.So what do they do?  

 

[Woodley Ram]

12 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

I would prefer that we pay the tax bill….because isn’t that what you are supposed to do, you know to keep things like the NHS running who are saving the lives of people we love…?

I would prefer that we paid all of our bills in full as that's the right thing to do.