Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Foreveram]

Radio Derby news just said we would find out our punishment in the next 48 hours.?

[i-Ram]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Advantage? Of course there was an advantage... it's no different to selling a player, or having bigger gate receipts. It's not about having an advantage, but an unfair one.

2 clubs each buy a player for £10m on 4 year deals but amortize differently.
Does either have an unfair advantage when either club can adopt either policy?

With respect, our 'manipulation' of financial figures is different to selling a player or having bigger gates. The latter two are accepted as being part and parcel of being a football club in a competitive league. As for amortising differently, Morris and Pearce should have been more upfront and trasparent as to their policy. If they had been clear in 2015/2016 (or whatever the time was when they first introduced their policy) I am pretty sure they would have been guided by the EFL then that their policy might not be construed as fair compared to, or by, the other member clubs. They were trying to be cute, creative, and it came back to bite them. Unfortunately it has caused huge repercussion for the Club you and I support.

[May Contain Nuts]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

£4m was for the 3 years to 2018. 9 will be including further failed periods (2019, 2020 and possibly 2021)

...but you've previously said that other clubs have the figures reset/amended following the first breach to avoid being punished for the same thing in subsequent years?

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[MackworthRamIsGod]

10 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Radio Derby news just said we would find out our punishment in the next 48 hours.?

[Wolfie]

12 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Radio Derby news just said we would find out our punishment in the next 48 hours.?

Aah but it's a little known fact that the EFL work on "Venus time"

Venus rotates much more slowly than Earth does, so a day on Venus is much longer than a day on Earth. A day on Venus lasts for 243 Earth days or 5,832 hours

I blame Brexit

[Gaspode]

8 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

With respect, our 'manipulation' of financial figures is different to selling a player or having bigger gates. The latter two are accepted as being part and parcel of being a football club in a competitive league. As for amortising differently, Morris and Pearce should have been more upfront and trasparent as to their policy. If they had been clear in 2015/2016 (or whatever the time was when they first introduced their policy) I am pretty sure they would have been guided by the EFL then that their policy might not be construed as fair compared to, or by, the other member clubs. They were trying to be cute, creative, and it came back to bite them. Unfortunately it has caused huge repercussion for the Club you and I support.

That's correct, but there is an implied responsibility on the overseeing organisation (the EFL) to ensure they are properly reviewing submissions and verifying that that they meet their defined standards (something they clearly failed to set out in advance....)

[Gaspode]

15 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Radio Derby news just said we would find out our punishment in the next 48 hours.?

Do we know what we've been charged with yet? - surely there must be something if we're going to be punished.....

[The Big One]

Cheer up fellow Rams - on a day we get 21 points confirmed, Reading FC who will also get a points deduction but rumoured to be only 6 are today signing Andy Carroll.  Football has gone mad!!

[May Contain Nuts]

21 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Morris and Pearce should have been more upfront and trasparent as to their policy. If they had been clear in 2015/2016 (or whatever the time was when they first introduced their policy) I am pretty sure they would have been guided by the EFL then that their policy might not be construed as fair compared to, or by, the other member clubs.

Only pretty sure? Clearly you're not certain of their competency to actually do what you're suggesting.

Me I'm pretty sure they'd have just continued to consider it something beyond their level of responsibility; don't forget that Kieran Maguire grassed us up / wrote to the EFL alerting them to the potential issues in June 2018 yet they didn't do anything for 19 months to seek any clarity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51322797

 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[FlyBritishMidland]

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think it is   And that’s supported by what MM said on RD

Look at EFL’s policy towards promoted clubs who failed FFP and compare that to what we are being subjected to. It is a total  joke 

Trouble is, they’re no longer members of the EFL so can’t be punished by them.  The clubs breach FFP in the year they get promoted then submit accounts already being in the PL and the EFL are powerless.   If we’d have gone up in 15/16 we’d have been fine too.  It’s a problem when you have having two organisations running the game.

[May Contain Nuts]

3 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

Trouble is, they’re no longer members of the EFL so can’t be punished by them.  The clubs breach FFP in the year they get promoted then submit accounts already being in the PL and the EFL are powerless.   If we’d have gone up in 15/16 we’d have been fine too.  It’s a problem when you have having two organisations running the game.

...but if they they do then get relegated the EFL's answer is only to fine them, or it has been so far.

If Villa come down again do you think the EFL will immediately stick them under a transfer embargo and seek to deduct them 12 points?

Edited November 15, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Ghost of Clough]

5 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

...but you've previously said that other clubs have the figures reset/amended following the first breach to avoid being punished for the same thing on repeat?

 

Yearly figures would be reset in the years where losses exceed £13m in the failed periods. This would not prevent being punished for future failed periods.

So under the rules, a £4m overspend is 4 points. 15/16 and 16/17 exceed £13m so are reset to £13m for future periods.

15/16 drops off for the 2019 period, so only 16/17 reset figure is used, 17/18 and 18/19 actual figures are used.

Another £4m overspend and another 4 points. 18/19 is then reset as well for future periods.

£5m overspend this time, which also falls inside the 4 point bracket. 19/20 also reset for future periods.

The 2021 period is calculated differently. This is a 4 year period, with the 2 Covid seasons averaged.

This time we make an adjusted P&S profit and avoid any penalty.

 

This would match the EFL's offer of 12 points, 3 of which are suspended.

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

Trouble is, they’re no longer members of the EFL so can’t be punished by them.  The clubs breach FFP in the year they get promoted then submit accounts already being in the PL and the EFL are powerless.   If we’d have gone up in 15/16 we’d have been fine too.  It’s a problem when you have having two organisations running the game.

Independent regulator. Let the EFL/pl operate the commercial aspects and trade association type stuff, but the rule breaking goes via a regulator.

[FlyBritishMidland]

3 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

...but if they they do then get relegated the EFL's answer is only to fine them, or it has been so far.

If Villa come down again do you think the EFL will immediately stick them under a transfer embargo and seek to deduct them 12 points?

No, they probably wouldn’t.  They may not even fine them.  Is there a time limit that the charge can go back?  Which shows the whole thing is broken.  And the prize makes it worth the gamble, which doesn’t make it right.

[JfR]

30 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

With respect, our 'manipulation' of financial figures is different to selling a player or having bigger gates. The latter two are accepted as being part and parcel of being a football club in a competitive league. As for amortising differently, Morris and Pearce should have been more upfront and trasparent as to their policy. If they had been clear in 2015/2016 (or whatever the time was when they first introduced their policy) I am pretty sure they would have been guided by the EFL then that their policy might not be construed as fair compared to, or by, the other member clubs. They were trying to be cute, creative, and it came back to bite them. Unfortunately it has caused huge repercussion for the Club you and I support.

Based on the commission's report, I think it's inaccurate to say that the club were not upfront and transparent about the change in amortisation policy. The club explicitly stated in the P&S submissions for the first year in which the policy changed that there was a change in amortisation policy within the accounts, and that this change consisted of a switch from a straight line form of amortisation to a method of amortisation that considered a player's "residual value". While the commission concluded that the description of the change within the accounts was incomplete, they also found that the club had not made any attempt to conceal the policy from the EFL, and, furthermore, that while the EFL's interpretation of the notes was not entirely accurate to the reality of the new amortisation policy, the interpretation that they made - that the club were assigning a value at the end of a player's contract rather than near the end of a player's contract - was "more radical and more obviously objectionable" than the policy the club actually implemented. 

[i-Ram]

29 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Only pretty sure? Clearly you're not certain of their competency to actually do what you're suggesting.

Me I'm pretty sure they'd have just continued to consider it something beyond their level of responsibility; don't forget that Kieran Maguire grassed us up / wrote to the EFL alerting them to the potential issues in June 2018 yet they didn't do anything for 19 months to seek any clarity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51322797

Oh I am pretty certain that the EFL are incompetent. I am not arguing a case for the EFL here by the way, nor am I a supporter of theirs. If Morris/Pearce had engaged though with the EFL back in 2016 - i.e. made it clear what the new policy was - there would/could have been no comebacks in later years. Fwiw, I think they preferred at the time not to be too open regarding the position.

[PistoldPete]

57 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

With respect, our 'manipulation' of financial figures is different to selling a player or having bigger gates. The latter two are accepted as being part and parcel of being a football club in a competitive league. As for amortising differently, Morris and Pearce should have been more upfront and trasparent as to their policy. If they had been clear in 2015/2016 (or whatever the time was when they first introduced their policy) I am pretty sure they would have been guided by the EFL then that their policy might not be construed as fair compared to, or by, the other member clubs. They were trying to be cute, creative, and it came back to bite them. Unfortunately it has caused huge repercussion for the Club you and I support.

The policy was described in the 2015/16 accounts. It was found to be misleading only because of the reference to “residual values” . Which is a reserved term in the accounting standard to mean the value at the end of the contract. 

as anyone knows a footballers value at the end of the contract is zero due to the bOsman ruling. So the EFL were misled into thinking we assigned non zero values to players whose actual values were zero… and their accounting expert was instructed to write a report saying this was not compliant. Which frankly if that was the policy you wouldn’t need to be an expert to know such a method would be non compliant.
 

so I’m not sure how EFL can reasonably explain why they didn’t pick up on this earlier. Or how they could try and claim Derby were deliberately concealing something .. how could they deliberately be concealing something by describing the method as an obviously non compliant one?

 

 

[i-Ram]

17 minutes ago, JfR said:

Based on the commission's report, I think it's inaccurate to say that the club were not upfront and transparent about the change in amortisation policy. The club explicitly stated in the P&S submissions for the first year in which the policy changed that there was a change in amortisation policy within the accounts, and that this change consisted of a switch from a straight line form of amortisation to a method of amortisation that considered a player's "residual value". While the commission concluded that the description of the change within the accounts was incomplete, they also found that the club had not made any attempt to conceal the policy from the EFL, and, furthermore, that while the EFL's interpretation of the notes was not entirely accurate to the reality of the new amortisation policy, the interpretation that they made - that the club were assigning a value at the end of a player's contract rather than near the end of a player's contract - was "more radical and more obviously objectionable" than the policy the club actually implemented. 

Sorry JFR. Not got time for the remainder of the day to challenge you or anyone on this (work this afternoon and I am out at a gig this evening), but thanks for the response. You may be right - I personally have no memory of the club declaring a change of policy in their P&S submissions. I know they did change the wording in the audited accounts, which was considered a bit ambiguous. Can you, or anyone, provide me withthe information as to how and what we declared in our P&S submissions from 2016 onwards.

 

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, JfR said:

Based on the commission's report, I think it's inaccurate to say that the club were not upfront and transparent about the change in amortisation policy. The club explicitly stated in the P&S submissions for the first year in which the policy changed that there was a change in amortisation policy within the accounts, and that this change consisted of a switch from a straight line form of amortisation to a method of amortisation that considered a player's "residual value". While the commission concluded that the description of the change within the accounts was incomplete, they also found that the club had not made any attempt to conceal the policy from the EFL, and, furthermore, that while the EFL's interpretation of the notes was not entirely accurate to the reality of the new amortisation policy, the interpretation that they made - that the club were assigning a value at the end of a player's contract rather than near the end of a player's contract - was "more radical and more obviously objectionable" than the policy the club actually implemented. 

I think that’s pretty much what I wrote without seeing your post. You put it better.

[RoyMac5]

50 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yearly figures would be reset in the years where losses exceed £13m in the failed periods. This would not prevent being punished for future failed periods.

So under the rules, a £4m overspend is 4 points. 15/16 and 16/17 exceed £13m so are reset to £13m for future periods.

15/16 drops off for the 2019 period, so only 16/17 reset figure is used, 17/18 and 18/19 actual figures are used.

Another £4m overspend and another 4 points. 18/19 is then reset as well for future periods.

£5m overspend this time, which also falls inside the 4 point bracket. 19/20 also reset for future periods.

The 2021 period is calculated differently. This is a 4 year period, with the 2 Covid seasons averaged.

This time we make an adjusted P&S profit and avoid any penalty.

 

This would match the EFL's offer of 12 points, 3 of which are suspended.

Do these figures include the stadium money that was 'discovered'?