Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Tyler Durden]

Maybe the BBC know something we don't about the outcome of our appeal...on their match report today for Hull Vs Barnsley they stated on their website "Hull beat Barnsley 2-0 in the bottom of the table Championship match"

[PistoldPete]

52 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

I guess the counter argument to that will be that the only reason we addressed our overspending is because of the restrictions put in place on us by the EFL, otherwise we'd have merrily gone on our way amortising as we were, increasing losses and accruing more debt until the point this was all inevitable anyway.

Good old EFL, they're just trying to save us from ourselves. What lovely chaps.

If we had wanted to carry on spending regardless why had  we not re-newed Martin and Huddlestone's contracts before March 2020, when they were due to expire in the summer? We wanted to keep them both apparently. Amortisation had nothing to do with Derby's administration  as even Rick Parry told Radio Derby. It doesn't affect our cashflow .

Edited November 7, 2021 by PistoldPete

[Tamworthram]

53 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

I guess the counter argument to that will be that the only reason we addressed our overspending is because of the restrictions put in place on us by the EFL, otherwise we'd have merrily gone on our way amortising as we were, increasing losses and accruing more debt until the point this was all inevitable anyway.

Good old EFL, they're just trying to save us from ourselves. What lovely chaps.

You may be right but, if we did address overspending then I don’t see that it matters, for this appeal, what caused us to. That’s not what the panel should be ruling on.

It should be a relatively straight forward question: Would we have been able to avoid administration if it hadn’t been for the effects of Covid? Sadly, life, and anything to do with the EFL is rarely that simple.

[May Contain Nuts]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

If we had wanted to carry on spending regardless why had  not re-newed Martin and Huddlestone's contracts before March 2020, when they were due to expire in the summer? Amortisation had nothing to do with Derby's adminsitration it as even Rick Parry told Radio Derby. It doesnt affcet our cashflow .

I'm not arguing a case for the EFL being correct, just thinking aloud what they might try to say.

It's not uncommon for contract renewals to happen inside the final 3-6 months.

We're talking about 2 players the wrong side of 30 and with recent fitness issues, so you'd expect us to offer them less money on any new deals. Players don't tend to jump at the opportunity to reduce their wages so it's not really a surprise to anyone that we didn't get their contracts sorted out as early as March.

We were charged by the EFL in January 2020 at which point we'd have been under a soft embargo

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

I'm not arguing a case for the EFL being correct, just thinking aloud what they might try to say.

It's not uncommon for contract renewals to happen inside the final 3-6 months.

We're talking about 2 players the wrong side of 30 and with recent fitness issues, so you'd expect us to offer them less money on any new deals. Players don't tend to jump at the opportunity to reduce their wages so it's not really a surprise to anyone that we didn't get their contracts sorted out as early as March.

We were charged by the EFL in January 2020 at which point we'd have been under a soft embargo

Sure but its a sign we were tightening the purse strings way before COVID certainly on wages. Loads of players had left before then too.

[i-Ram]

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

No need for that. I think if you read past judgments at appeals hearings it is very obvious that EFL press for maximum punishment they can. No, they implement the maximum punishment allowable under the rules agreed with member clubs.  The truth is nearer that often they are prepared to bend a little, and actually apply a punishment a little less than what was originally applied.

They tried to get us relegated when the punishment was in fact only £100k fine . Please supply details of how they tried to get us relegated.

And claimed we "deliberately broke FFP rules" which the IDC said was rubbish we couldn't possibly have known we were in breach of FFP if our own auditors said it was OK. Please supply details of where they claimed we deliberately broke FFP RULES

etc etc.

So no bias from me , I form my opinion based on the evidence that is plain for all to see, and from EFL's own statements.  As above, evidence please.

In this case the rules state there is an automatic 12 point penalty , but we can appeal on grounds of force majeure. There is no doubt that COVID is a force majeure event. EFL are quoted as being "shocked" that we are appealing. Please supply the EFL quote as to being shocked that we are appealing on a force majeure basis. Why on Earth should they be shocked? I really don’t think they were Were they shocked when Wigan appealed, with considerably less merit? 

I have no probelm with the 12 point penalty being applied automtically but after we have appealed someone else suggested we could reach an agreement with EFL on what the penalty should be. Who is this someone else, and what importance are they? I am just saying I see no prospect of that on EFL's past perfmormance, they press for the maximum penalty they can get away with. Please supply evidence, based on past performance, where the EFL have pressed for a penalty in excess of the maximum allowable.

See above.

Pete, it is all biased waffle. I can understand that you are fed up of the EFL, #metoo, but your reply is all miss-information. There are other posters on here who keep repeating that the EFL want to dock us another 9 points, with another 3 suspended, for FFP breaches, and I also ask them to provide evidence that the EFL have actually said that too.

[Tyler Durden]

20 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

See above.

Pete, it is all biased waffle. I can understand that you are fed up of the EFL, #metoo, but your reply is all miss-information. There are other posters on here who keep repeating that the EFL want to dock us another 9 points, with another 3 suspended, for FFP breaches, and I also ask them to provide evidence that the EFL have actually said that too.

Refer to dictionary definition of dogmatic 

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

See above.

Pete, it is all biased waffle. I can understand that you are fed up of the EFL, #metoo, but your reply is all miss-information. There are other posters on here who keep repeating that the EFL want to dock us another 9 points, with another 3 suspended, for FFP breaches, and I also ask them to provide evidence that the EFL have actually said that too.

1) they do not implement the maximum possible.. they try and get the maximum they can.Why? The rules do not insist they have to get maximum penalties possible , or even any penalties at all. Why can they not judge each case on its merits? And why even bring charges they don't actually succeed with?

2) see earlier in this thread with exact quotes from IDC hearings. Also EFL statement they were disappointed we only got a fine. 

3) See IDC appeal (when we were fined £100k)

4) John Percy of the national press, the  Daily Telegraph quoted that EFL sources were "shocked"

5) Kevin Hectoring, I believe

6) FOr alleged breach of amortisation rules, EFL sought penalty point deduction. There is no scale of penalties for this  , so no penalty points were deducted, but EFL wanted it anyway. For stadium sale , allowed under the rules EFL were trying to punish us, but failed. But like I say there is nothing to say the EFL has to go right up to the maxium penalty allowed under the ruiles anyway. They can judge each case on it merits. But no they go for the adversarial route every time.

   

 

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

What is the construct of the panel hearing the appeal, do we know?

Also in the next breath wondering how independent it will be (ie is it more likely to be a rubber stamp exercise as Gibson has the final say or not).

[i-Ram]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

1) they do not implement the maximum possible.. they try and get the maximum they can.Why? The rules do not insist they have to get maximum penalties possible , or even any penalties at all. Why can they not judge each case on its merits? And why even bring charges they don't actually succeed with?

2) see earlier in this thread with exact quotes from IDC hearings. Also EFL statement they were disappointed we only got a fine. 

3) See IDC appeal (when we were fined £100k)

4) John Percy of the national press, the  Daily Telegraph quoted that EFL sources were "shocked"

5) Kevin Hectoring, I believe

6) FOr alleged breach of amortisation rules, EFL sought penalty point deduction. There is no scale of penalties for this  , so no penalty points were deducted, but EFL wanted it anyway. For stadium sale , allowed under the rules EFL were trying to punish us, but failed. But like I say there is nothing to say the EFL has to go right up to the maxium penalty allowed under the ruiles anyway. They can judge each case on it merits. But no they go for the adversarial route every time.

So mostly opinion. Even where you still believe you might have some facts you haven’t given me any. Thanks for responding.

[PistoldPete]

22 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Refer to dictionary definition of dogmatic 

Just did. It said "Tyler Durden".

[DCFC1388]

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

So mostly opinion. Even where you still believe you might have some facts you haven’t given me any. Thanks for responding.

I suggest if you want more facts  from me, read this thread from start to finish. I am not going to repeat for every person what has already been said before. 
 

[Indy]

24 minutes ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

What is the construct of the panel hearing the appeal, do we know?

Also in the next breath wondering how independent it will be (ie is it more likely to be a rubber stamp exercise as Gibson has the final say or not).

If it’s the same as the IDC for the amortisation issue, I think it consisted of one representative nominated by each side (which the other side can lodge objections to if they feel there’s a vested interest), and a third member mutually agreed between the two sides.
 

Where there is a specialist angle there must be specialist knowledge in the panel - eg an accountant or administration expert, in this case. 
 

Happy to be corrected if I’ve misremembered it. 

[Tyler Durden]

7 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Just did. It said "Tyler Durden".

Funnily enough you responded to one of my posts earlier where I said I we need to be open minded about the result of the appeal and accept it's decision whether it be good, bad or indifferent.

If that's dogmatic then we use different dictionaries.

[Ram-Alf]

Can this question be answered if anyone knows.

The IDC Pannel meets/has met, Will evidence be introduced by both parties via paper form and read by the IDC, Or something akin to a courtroom setting ie 3 panell members sitting while the EFL and DCFC have their respective legal team there...or via Zoom or whatever it is they use?

[i-Ram]

30 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I suggest if you want more facts  from me, read this thread from start to finish. I am not going to repeat for every person what has already been said before. 
 

I am 95% sure of the facts thanks, and I didn’t get them from this forum. I have read more simply the underlying documents. I am happy to accept there is a small chance that I may have missed something, but based on your replies you are not a source from which I will get reliable information to be absolutely certain.

[MACKWORTHRAM]

39 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Don't quite understand the "players left in dark by adminstrators since September" part.

We've heard more of the adminstrators in the last few weeks then we did off Mel Morris in the last 2 years.

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 minute ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

Don't quite understand the "players left in dark by adminstrators since September" part.

We've heard more of the adminstrators in the last few weeks then we did off Mel Morris in the last 2 years.

 

Disconnected the leccy to keep the expenses down.... ?

[PistoldPete]

24 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I am 95% sure of the facts thanks, and I didn’t get them from this forum. I have read more simply the underlying documents. I am happy to accept there is a small chance that I may have missed something, but based on your replies you are not a source from which I will get reliable information to be absolutely certain.

If you don't get facts from this forum, why are you on it? To give us your facts? Programmed to give but not receive?