Jump to content

Derby to fight 12 point deduction ( according to nixon)


taggy180
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, KRAM said:

Well why don’t you crowd fund it if you are so confident. Then throw the money you raise down the toilet of an appeal.

The Administrators are ruthless, there is no way on this earth they would risk £300K if they did not think there was a reasonable prospect of a result.   Not only that it may slow down the negotiations for prospective buyers!

Firstly the EFL have to defer this to an independent panel and they also have zero right to appeal if we win!  Unlike there other kangaroo disciplinary processes.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

I think it's interesting that other clubs view us as gaming the system to gain an unfair advantage. The thing is though, does that stack up?

To me gaining an unfair advantage really boils down to spending more on players than comparable clubs. Did we really do that? Certainly we had one Barmby window where we signed Johnson, Butterfield, Ince etc, but excluding that it doesn't feel like we've spent any more than any other ambitious Championship team.

I wonder if the big difference is that we have generally spent poorly? Consequently, we had to write off millions for most of our big signings, whereas our rivals tended to recoup at least some of their outlay, so their net spend is likely to be lower.

I'd love someone to look at the figures over Mel's tenure. I bet that Middlesbrough, Forest and Bristol City have spent more than us.

 

DCFC

20/21 +7m

19/20 - 9m

18/19 + 2.2m

17/18 -1.1m

16/17  -26.3

The Gumps

19/20 +2m

18/19 -23.6m

17/18 +10.3m

16/17 +18.3m

17/18  + 7.5

Middlesbrough break even and Bristol City (they had some big sales) made £25m in that period 

so our transfer business has not been sustainable, where as the other 3 have.

player sales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Woodley Ram said:

DCFC

20/21 +7m

19/20 - 9m

18/19 + 2.2m

17/18 -1.1m

16/17  -26.3

The Gumps

19/20 +2m

18/19 -23.6m

17/18 +10.3m

16/17 +18.3m

17/18  + 7.5

Middlesbrough break even and Bristol City (they had some big sales) made £25m in that period 

so our transfer business has not been sustainable, where as the other 3 have.

please see link

player sales

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Is it ?

Certainly @Carnerothinks so because he awarded @PistoldPetea home run. 
 
So, do these words from Mark Phillips’ loose lips mean :

A the EFl launched disciplinary proceedings against a member club. It wanted to ensure that any sanction had some effect, instead of none, because otherwise the proceedings are pointless and a waste of their members’ money and make a mockery of the enforcement regime  

B They’ve got it in for us (as I think you are claiming)

(We know btw that some on the EFl board have got it in for us, but that’s not the point)

I don’t know the answer to the question for sure by the way because I’m not in the room when the EFL decide how to handle these matters. 



 

 
 

 

It shows the Efl trying to max out on penalties … trying to relegate wendies if they possibly could. So no it doesn’t show they have it in for us at all.

but it shows the fundamental conflicted issue  Efl has .. being regulator of clubs as well as acting for the interests of the clubs .

 

it is supposed to act for the interests of all clubs , including us and Sheffield Wednesday by the way. But plainly isn’t .. it just panders to the mob rule and tries to max out on penalties every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

 

 Not sure about these stats at all. Lampard said he made a profit in 2018/19 due to sales of players vydra and Weimann. Also a lot of sales happened in 2016/17 and 2017/18 including Ince, hendrick, Hughes etc.

I think the only real years we made a loss on transfers were 2015/16 and 2019/20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

 Not sure about these stats at all. Lampard said he made a profit in 2018/19 due to sales of players vydra and Weimann. Also a lot of sales happened in 2016/17 and 2017/18 including Ince, hendrick, Hughes etc.

I think the only real years we made a loss on transfers were 2015/16 and 2019/20.

have a look at the link he did 2.2m

Edited by Woodley Ram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

 Not sure about these stats at all. Lampard said he made a profit in 2018/19 due to sales of players vydra and Weimann. Also a lot of sales happened in 2016/17 and 2017/18 including Ince, hendrick, Hughes etc.

I think the only real years we made a loss on transfers were 2015/16 and 2019/20.

Some of the fees listed (both in and out) are clearly nonsense. In many cases, they've listed the headline "maximum possible" fee including add-ons - Bielik £10m, Hughes £8m, Johnson £6m, Buttercup £5m and so on. 

About a year ago, Ryan Conway tweeted that Derby's net spend since 2015/16 was approximately £22m, which seems a much more reliable estimate i.e c. £3.65m per season average. 

It's the wages that put our FFP position at risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Some of the fees listed (both in and out) are clearly nonsense. In many cases, they've listed the headline "maximum possible" fee including add-ons - Bielik £10m, Hughes £8m, Johnson £6m, Buttercup £5m and so on. 

About a year ago, Ryan Conway tweeted that Derby's net spend since 2015/16 was approximately £22m, which seems a much more reliable estimate i.e c. £3.65m per season average. 

It's the wages that put our FFP position at risk. 

You are right of course, players in and out would be in instalments. But it does give an indication of debt (we are about £20m over on transfers). We over spent in 16/17 greatly and have not clawed all of that back from sales. whereas the Gumps have (they had a big spend the year before) , Middlesbrough also and Bristol City made a profit.

The two years that stand out are signing Billick  (19/20) without selling to compensate and 16/17. The other years we are mostly in credit. The issue was always the wages that went along with the signings, which have now gone. I think our debt is a historical one from wages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

You are right of course, players in and out would be in instalments. But it does give an indication of debt (we are about £20m over on transfers). We over spent in 16/17 greatly and have not clawed all of that back from sales. whereas the Gumps have (they had a big spend the year before) , Middlesbrough also and Bristol City made a profit.

The two years that stand out are signing Billick  (19/20) without selling to compensate and 16/17. The other years we are mostly in credit. The issue was always the wages that went along with the signings, which have now gone. I think our debt is a historical one from wages. 

And a current one because of interests incurred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Is it ?

Certainly @Carnerothinks so because he awarded @PistoldPetea home run. 
 
So, do these words from Mark Phillips’ loose lips mean :

A the EFl launched disciplinary proceedings against a member club. It wanted to ensure that any sanction had some effect, instead of none, because otherwise the proceedings are pointless and a waste of their members’ money and make a mockery of the enforcement regime  

B They’ve got it in for us (as I think you are claiming)

(We know btw that some on the EFl board have got it in for us, but that’s not the point)

I don’t know the answer to the question for sure by the way because I’m not in the room when the EFL decide how to handle these matters. 



 

 
 

 

My pennyworth only, but if the sanction is a loss of x amount of points then that alone is the sanction, so apply it! It should not matter whether a team is relegated or not as a consequence of the sanction, that is a by-product surely? If the sanction was automatic relegation then so be it but as far as I know it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

My pennyworth only, but if the sanction is a loss of x amount of points then that alone is the sanction, so apply it! It should not matter whether a team is relegated or not as a consequence of the sanction, that is a by-product surely? If the sanction was automatic relegation then so be it but as far as I know it isn't.

Yes, this view makes sense. But if their approach is: ‘we must make sanctions bite if we can’, and if they are consistent in that approach, we shouldn’t assume they are on a vendetta against us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

The two years that stand out are signing Billick  (19/20) without selling to compensate and 16/17.

We did sell Luke Thomas for ~£1.5m that season, plus supposedly got something like £4m compensation for Lampard going to Chelsea, so it's not like we bought nothing in that summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

You are right of course, players in and out would be in instalments. But it does give an indication of debt (we are about £20m over on transfers). We over spent in 16/17 greatly and have not clawed all of that back from sales. whereas the Gumps have (they had a big spend the year before) , Middlesbrough also and Bristol City made a profit.

The two years that stand out are signing Billick  (19/20) without selling to compensate and 16/17. The other years we are mostly in credit. The issue was always the wages that went along with the signings, which have now gone. I think our debt is a historical one from wages. 

There were no "headline" transfers out in 2019/20, but we received around £1.3M upfront for Liam Delap, £200k-ish for Luke Thomas and supposedly picked up anything between £6-7M via Lampard compensation and play-off final loser's gate receipts. So the upfront fee for Bielik was potentially more than covered. 

We also had much cheaper loans-in that season than 2018/19, and reduced the wage bill considerably as 35 players of various ages and status were either released/transferred (23) or loaned out (12) either for the whole season (eg : Carson) or half a season (eg : Bennett).

As a net result, I don't think it would be hard to make a case for saying that, after failing to win promotion at the last gasp, the club took steps to cut their cloth accordingly, whilst securing one quality young player as an investment (which he surely would have been but fur two unfortunate injuries?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yes, this view makes sense. But if their approach is: ‘we must make sanctions bite if we can’, and if they are consistent in that approach, we shouldn’t assume they are on a vendetta against us. 

Like the consistency of 3 clubs being charged with failing P&S for the 3 years to 2018.

Birmingham penalised in 19/20
Sheff Weds penalised in 20/21
Derby almost certainly penalised in 21/22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Crewton said:

There were no "headline" transfers out in 2019/20, but we received around £1.3M upfront for Liam Delap, £200k-ish for Luke Thomas and supposedly picked up anything between £6-7M via Lampard compensation and play-off final loser's gate receipts. So the upfront fee for Bielik was potentially more than covered. 

We also had much cheaper loans-in that season than 2018/19, and reduced the wage bill considerably as 35 players of various ages and status were either released/transferred (23) or loaned out (12) either for the whole season (eg : Carson) or half a season (eg : Bennett).

As a net result, I don't think it would be hard to make a case for saying that, after failing to win promotion at the last gasp, the club took steps to cut their cloth accordingly, whilst securing one quality young player as an investment (which he surely would have been but fur two unfortunate injuries?)

Not disagreeing.  I forgot about the Lampard and Rowett compensation (although we had to pay other people off  (Cocu and Keogh). Also the fee for Gordon and the three that went to Man Utd. I agree we did take steps to reduce wages and debt and have done since 16/17, never mind the playoffs. It was the spending that year (16/17) and the wages that has hurt us. Its not an issue to have less money incoming than the Gumps and Bristol City.

Other supporters think we overspent every year which is not true. The Gumps, and Bristol City have managed to get a few really big fees in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

DCFC

20/21 +7m

19/20 - 9m

18/19 + 2.2m

17/18 -1.1m

16/17  -26.3

The Gumps

19/20 +2m

18/19 -23.6m

17/18 +10.3m

16/17 +18.3m

17/18  + 7.5

Middlesbrough break even and Bristol City (they had some big sales) made £25m in that period 

so our transfer business has not been sustainable, where as the other 3 have.

player sales

DCFC according to Transfermarkt:

20/21 = +£3.78m
19/20 = -£6.16m
18/19 = +£0.43m
17/18 = +£8.11m
16/17 = -£0.91m

NFFC:
20/21 = +£0.73m
19/20 = +£8.78m
18/19 = -£23.61m
17/18 = +£8.86m
16/17 = +£12.73m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Like the consistency of 3 clubs being charged with failing P&S for the 3 years to 2018.

Birmingham penalised in 19/20
Sheff Weds penalised in 20/21
Derby almost certainly penalised in 21/22

Don’t know the answer, there are so many variables : is there an agreed decision, is there an appeal, are there interventions by other clubs that impact timing ??? Certainly the lack of transparency and independence needs to be addressed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2021 at 09:22, PistoldPete said:

If you compare other regulators , I don’t know of any comparable behaviour. 
 

if the legal advice is your case against Derby is weak, why would you express your disappointment about that? 
 

Derby is a member of the Efl , indeed a founder member . They shouldn’t be so obviously trying to do us down… in fact they shouldn’t be trying to do us down at all.

Exactly ...The rules ... that all members signed up to, gives authority to independent panel to adjudicate , To Judge !

The EFL should not be expressing an opinion on a verdict, it should  be the honest broker supporting the decision of its own panel. It should be defending its referee if you like. 

It should not have a view outside that set of rules.  .. It should be following its own procedures and then accepting them. We are asked every week to accept a referees decisions, but we are obviously partisan so we have a right to moan. That is not the case with the EFL . Gibson can moan, other members can moan, that's grist to the mill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.