Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

3 hours ago, LazloW said:

It’s not so much that what he says isn’t untrue, just the gusto and apparent pleasure he takes in saying it that rankles! 

Generally not far off the mark tho

[LazloW]

3 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Generally not far off the mark tho

We’ll, if that gives him and you joy then so be it. Misery loves company.

[PistoldPete]

7 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

They're not though?

a) Punishment for adopting an improper accounting policy. Done.

b) Punishment for breaking FFP / overspending following restating the accounts. Ongoing.

c) Punishment for administration. Ongoing.

They're all treated as separate crimes - a) didn't necessarily have to lead to b), it just did in our case.

Sorry if you feel it's pointless, was just trying to understand your logic and explaining mine. There's no need to reply further to this message btw, I don't mind ?

 

It is effectively the same "crime". Because we used an amortisation policy that didnt suit the EFL under Parry's agenda (but was perfectly fine under Harvey) we used that policy in ignorance of the fact that using EFL's now preferred amortisation  method, we could breach FFP. So we get punished twice for effectively the  same "failing". 

And if we did overspend then the EFL case is that we went into admin because we had overspent. So again punishing us for the same thing.

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by PistoldPete

[May Contain Nuts]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

It is effectively the same "crime". Because we used an amortisation policy that didnt suit the EFL under Parry's agenda (but was perfectly fine under Harvey) we used that policy in ignorance of teh fact that using EFL's now preferred amortisation  method, we could breach FFP. So we get punished twice for effectively the  same "failing". 

And if we did overspend then the EFL case is that we went into admin becasue we had overspent. So again punishing us for the same thing.

 

Yes I get that it's unjust, hence my posts/rants against the EFL previous.

Its just that 'effectively' means squat now. Whether we like it or not they're separate disciplinary issues. 

Remember when we were all optimistic that even with our reconfigured figures we'd still be under the FFP limits? 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, r_wilcockson said:

Derby update: appeal over the -12 point deduction for entering administration has been adjourned. Genuine chance the appeal may be dropped altogether, with talks continuing between the EFL and #dcfc administrators. Re: club sale, 3-4 parties are in talks. Percy 

What a surprise.  Looks like -15 then   The Athletic has softened up the other clubs so they will support it. We can do this !

Edited November 8, 2021 by kevinhectoring

[Comrade 86]

6 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Sorry if you feel it's pointless, was just trying to understand your logic and explaining mine. There's no need to reply further to this message btw, I don't mind ?

I'll try one last time.

The 9 additional points being bandied about by journos all arise from the the amortisation policy findings without which the club was adamant we had met FFPs limits. Those 'breaches' in turn led us to administration. If the EFL has pause for thought in terms of the administration sanction (and I don't claim to know that they do), we could offer to waive the appeal process in return for concessions on the charges directly arising from the IDC's reluctant amortisation sanction. The likelihood of the admin appeal therefore creating an ugly and inconvenient precedent for the EFL is therefore avoided and the club gets the benefit of reduced points deductions for anything not directly related to said charges. Everyone gets what they want, to a point, at least. 

I'm not saying that is what is happening, merely musing on the possible outcomes as unlike yourself, I don't believe the outcome is already decided or that any potential outcome can be dismissed as 'impossible'. Frankly, if it were that straightforward, I'd venture there'd be no need for an adjournment.

In any case, I'll leave it there! ?

[Ram-Alf]

7 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I'll try one last time.

The 9 additional points being bandied about by journos all arise from the the amortisation policy findings without which the club was adamant we had met FFPs limits. Those 'breaches' in turn led us to administration. If the EFL has pause for thought in terms of the administration sanction (and I don't claim to know that they do), we could offer to waive the appeal process in return for concessions on the charges directly arising from the IDC's reluctant amortisation sanction. The likelihood of the admin appeal therefore creating an ugly and inconvenient precedent for the EFL is therefore avoided and the club gets the benefit of reduced points deductions for anything not directly related to said charges. Everyone gets what they want, to a point, at least. 

I'm not saying that is what is happening, merely musing on the possible outcomes as unlike yourself, I don't believe the outcome is already decided or that any potential outcome can be dismissed as 'impossible'. Frankly, if it were that straightforward, I'd venture there'd be no need for an adjournment.

In any case, I'll leave it there! ?

So what you sayin?

[Comrade 86]

Just now, Unlucky Alf said:

So what you sayin?

You can duck right off ?

[jono]

2 hours ago, Ambitious said:

This is dodgy as duck. 

My guess is that the administrators have delayed the appeal process, based on a favourable outcome with the EFL from the FFP sanctions. I would think a successful administrative appeal would cause chaos that the EFL don’t want, considering the amount of clubs who potentially could go down the same administration route knowing a points deduction may not be imposed, so have done a deal to ease off on the FFP providing we ease off with our administration appeal.

It says to me we have a powerful case with the appeal and EFL are using the leverage of other deductions to stop us doing it.

If the sum total with a closed book remains at 12 then maybe it’s a road we have to go down 

[May Contain Nuts]

49 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I'll try one last time.

The 9 additional points being bandied about by journos all arise from the the amortisation policy findings without which the club was adamant we had met FFPs limits. Those 'breaches' in turn led us to administration.

If the EFL has pause for thought in terms of the administration sanction (and I don't claim to know that they do), we could offer to waive the appeal process in return for concessions on the charges directly arising from the IDC's reluctant amortisation sanction. The likelihood of the admin appeal therefore creating an ugly and inconvenient precedent for the EFL is therefore avoided and the club gets the benefit of reduced points deductions for anything not directly related to said charges. Everyone gets what they want, to a point, at least. 

I'm not saying that is what is happening, merely musing on the possible outcomes as unlike yourself, I don't believe the outcome is already decided or that any potential outcome can be dismissed as 'impossible'. Frankly, if it were that straightforward, I'd venture there'd be no need for an adjournment.

In any case, I'll leave it there! ?

Regardless of what lead to what or how reluctant the amortisation decision, how adamant the club were on this, that or the other it's a fact that we are officially guilty of the amortisation stuff, and have faced our punishment for it.

That the punishment cascaded downwards and lead directly to us failing FFP is neither here nor there unfortunately. We're not dealing with a compassionate organisation.

The only thing I'm saying is impossible is us having that overturned or somehow using how close a decision it was as a bargaining tool, which is what you suggested in your first post! We lost, they won. It's hard to accept but accept it we must, because it isn't changing.

I didn't say the outcome of anything else in our case was decided, but you're putting forward a situation where we hold as strong a hand as the EFL just because they don't want us to set a precedent. We don't (imo) and personally I think we'd have to be kidding ourselves to believe that was the case.

We're running out of time to get this all sorted, they have all the time in the world.

Our bargaining chip is not setting a precedent for future exploitation of an unprecedented situation. Their bargaining chip is the existence of the club.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Guest]

On the BBC website is it says

“administrators are talking to the Football League about potential punishments for other financial breaches in future years.”

What does that mean?  Or am I being daft?

Andrew

[Elwood P Dowd]

7 minutes ago, Andrew1 said:

On the BBC website is it says

“administrators are talking to the Football League about potential punishments for other financial breaches in future years.”

What does that mean?  Or am I being daft?

Andrew

It’s like a suspended sentence, if we behave ourselves the suspended punishment is not applied, a suspended punishment is a nice “face” saver for the EFL

[alexxxxx]

Are we sure the 'future years' doesn't just mean the years after the first set of accounts that were submitted? 

I actually think this is really bad news. 

[Gritstone Ram]

12 minutes ago, Andrew1 said:

On the BBC website is it says

“administrators are talking to the Football League about potential punishments for other financial breaches in future years.”

What does that mean?  Or am I being daft?

Andrew

I assume that COVID may have a financial impact in future years accounts.

[Malty]

What is frustrating is that with the embargo and the time it’s taking to sort this our our club continues to have an uncertain future and that in itself is a punishment.

For me, stretching this out further, intentional or otherwise in itself is a vindictive act. If there’s anything that supporters groups should call out it’s this. 

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

1 hour ago, LazloW said:

We’ll, if that gives him and you joy then so be it. Misery loves company.

Why does it give me joy?

Bit of a leap there.

He just seems to be more realistic in his outlook on occasion than some of the fantasists amongst our community.

 

[uttoxram75]

55 minutes ago, jono said:

It says to me we have a powerful case with the appeal and EFL are using the leverage of other deductions to stop us doing it.

If the sum total with a closed book remains at 12 then maybe it’s a road we have to go down 

Looks like thats going to be the case dunt it. Maybe the administrators have called the EFL's bluff knowing they haven't got enough on us to go for further points?

I don't agree with 12 at all, its not been done with professionalism, its petty minded vindictiveness from bamfords like Maguire and Gibson putting public pressure on the lily livered tosspots at the EFL but so be it, we'll survive with 12 and that will absolutely destroy them all.

 

[Eddie]

37 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Are we sure the 'future years' doesn't just mean the years after the first set of accounts that were submitted? 

I actually think this is really bad news. 

Anyone with half a brain would have said 'subsequent years' - but as it's the EFL, half a brain for them would be considered 'gifted'.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

The amortisation stuff is done and dusted having gone through all of the various appeals processes. We've had our punishment for it, end of story, no go-backs unless the EFL are feeling very generous and decide to revisit a past decision they've already won!

It's fully in the EFL's control at this point to make things as easy or difficult for us as possible. If they want to draw it out they can, but it would seriously endanger the sale and therefore the existence of the club.

So us.

 

 

 

 

Well, not quite. We're in phase 2 of the amortisation issue. Phase 1 concluded with the £100k fine and being told to restate the accounts and P&S submissions.

[Ramarena]

2 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

A new cocktail he is marketing ?

Master Yoda?????