Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Foreveram]

37 minutes ago, jono said:

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. 

You’re in danger of talking too much sense .

[ram59]

7 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

There does need to be a consistency in the application of penalties, not just the level of penalty but also the timing.

Birmingham 'suffered' a 9 point penalty towards the end of the 18/19 season, which blues fans continually moan about to me, but this was given towards the end of March when they were 12 points above the relegation zone and only an outside bet for the play offs. Although it dropped them close to the relegation places, their mid table form was sufficient to keep them up. This penalty didn't relegate them or prevent them getting into the play offs.

Sheff Weds were given their penalty at the start of the season and although it ultimately resulted in their relegation, they at least had all season to do something about it.

The scandal of Derby last season was that the EFL were trying to punish us post season and not give us any chance of avoiding relegation.

Punishments must be consistant and must be issued by a certain date or passed over to the following season.

[jono]

28 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

You’re in danger of talking too much sense .

? I do get very serious about certain  things. It’s the way I am made. Things like this get my goat and I turn full on grumpy old goat. ? 

In the end the EFL is a democratic body elected by its members and supposed to represent its electorate in a just manner.

The best recognised democratic process always has 3 key elements 

Legislature

Executive

Judiciary 

The legislature is the EFL: it’s electorate .. it’s members……  It makes the laws on their behalf.

The executive enforces the laws .. it’s the police … or officers appointed by the executive with suitable terms of reference.

The judiciary  becomes involved when laws(rules) are breached

It is an absolute fundamental that the legislature and the executive do not meddle with, put pressure on or interfere with the judiciary …That is the way to a failed state, government tapping up judges, leaning on them blah blah  .. By commenting publicly they put tacit pressure on the judiciary .. Offside EFL.  …. If you don’t like the judgment then you should have made different laws that were better put together, less open to interpretation. If the EFL didn’t like a judgment then it’s only action should be to modify the law for the future. That is the only mandate it has….. So, They were “regretful”  or “disappointed” .. in that case the fault lies entirely at their door. The words of the  law were their responsibility. By commenting they simply show that they drew bad laws 

Pompous Jono lecture over … (Thank you Norman Ilett my long dead History teacher .. you were a grumpy odd bod but taught with clarity, balance and honesty ) 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

38 minutes ago, ram59 said:

There does need to be a consistency in the application of penalties, not just the level of penalty but also the timing.

Birmingham 'suffered' a 9 point penalty towards the end of the 18/19 season, which blues fans continually moan about to me, but this was given towards the end of March when they were 12 points above the relegation zone and only an outside bet for the play offs. Although it dropped them close to the relegation places, their mid table form was sufficient to keep them up. This penalty didn't relegate them or prevent them getting into the play offs.

Sheff Weds were given their penalty at the start of the season and although it ultimately resulted in their relegation, they at least had all season to do something about it.

The scandal of Derby last season was that the EFL were trying to punish us post season and not give us any chance of avoiding relegation.

Punishments must be consistant and must be issued by a certain date or passed over to the following season.

Don't forget that the EFL tried to impose Wednesday's penalty on them at the end of the 19/20 season when they didn't have time to make up the points

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Don't forget that the EFL tried to impose Wednesday's penalty on them at the end of the 19/20 season when they didn't have time to make up the points

And the IDC was having none of that..and decided to "postpone its effect until next season when the onus will be on the club to redeem its position on the playing field".

 

Yet EFL were stil trying to relegate us retrospectively in 2020/21. Do they never learn?

 

[jono]

54 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And the IDC was having none of that..and decided to "postpone its effect until next season when the onus will be on the club to redeem its position on the playing field".

 

Yet EFL were stil trying to relegate us retrospectively in 2020/21. Do they never learn?

 

It’s a based on its own self interest rather than on the interests of its membership . Do they all  really see it’s actions as reasonable, decent, proportionate and what they desire from a governing body ? In my opinion  It’s a puppet to the voices with the most influence. The Premier League, The Gibsons, the highly paid Jobsworths. The sort of emissions that come out of the EFL are at the level of the Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail and the like, who just love a mob that can be whipped up at will. Awful organisation. 
 

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

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

Well again clearly wrong as in 2017/18 we sold Ince and Hughes so couldn't have made a loss of £8.11 m, or a loss at all.  We bought Wisdom Hudd and Davies and Jerome I think, all much less than we got in transfers in. . total spend on transfers  was much less than £8 million even without transfer fees received.

Edited October 14, 2021 by PistoldPete

[mice_elf]

58 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well again clearly wrong as in 2017/18 we sold Ince and Hughes so couldn't have made a loss of £8.11 m, or a loss at all.  We bought Wisdom Hudd and Davies and Jerome I think, all much less than we got in transfers in. . total spend on transfers  was much less than £8 million even without transfer fees received.

Transfermarkt don't have us down for a Transfer LOSS of £8.11m for 2017/18 but a PROFIT of £8.11m -
that's why GoC put us down as +£8.11m for 2017/18 :-

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/Derby-county/alletransfers/verein/22
 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Well again clearly wrong as in 2017/18 we sold Ince and Hughes so couldn't have made a loss of £8.11 m, or a loss at all.  We bought Wisdom Hudd and Davies and Jerome I think, all much less than we got in transfers in. . total spend on transfers  was much less than £8 million even without transfer fees received.

Might be me being silly here, but doesnt a + sign indicate a profit?

[europia]

1 hour ago, jono said:

It’s a based on its own self interest rather than on the interests of its membership . Do they all  really see it’s actions as reasonable, decent, proportionate and what they desire from a governing body ? In my opinion  It’s a puppet to the voices with the most influence. The Premier League, The Gibsons, the highly paid Jobsworths. The sort of emissions that come out of the EFL are at the level of the Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail and the like, who just love a mob that can be whipped up at will. Awful organisation. 
 

Sounds not unlike the the current UK govt. 

[Ramslad1992]

45 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Might be me being silly here, but doesnt a + sign indicate a profit?

[Ghost of Clough]

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Well again clearly wrong as in 2017/18 we sold Ince and Hughes so couldn't have made a loss of £8.11 m, or a loss at all.  We bought Wisdom Hudd and Davies and Jerome I think, all much less than we got in transfers in. . total spend on transfers  was much less than £8 million even without transfer fees received.

As the others have corrected you on, that was an £8m profit.

Accounts, however, have Ince in 16/17 and Weimann in 17/18. You also forgot about Lawrence in, Christie and Russell out.

[PistoldPete]

7 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

As the others have corrected you on, that was an £8m profit.

Accounts, however, have Ince in 16/17 and Weimann in 17/18. You also forgot about Lawrence in, Christie and Russell out.

Doh! Well yes then thats much more like it compared to Woodley Rams figures.

 

And of course we shoudln't forget compo for Lampard and Co, plus Rowett too.

[Woodley Ram]

12 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Doh! Well yes then thats much more like it compared to Woodley Rams figures.

 

And of course we shoudln't forget compo for Lampard and Co, plus Rowett too.

Not my figures, but one from a transfer website. It is strange that different websites have different figures. of course these do not include money paid to former managers and money received for former managers such as Lampard. 
 

The one thing it does show is that we had the one big spend year not just for transfer spend but high wages and that was our issue. Both sets of figures show that apart from that one year the spend more or less nets out. 
 

this will all help with the appeal. I have always thought we should appeal but feel more comfortable with the possibility of winning it

[PistoldPete]

7 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

Not my figures, but one from a transfer website. It is strange that different websites have different figures. of course these do not include money paid to former managers and money received for former managers such as Lampard. 
 

The one thing it does show is that we had the one big spend year not just for transfer spend but high wages and that was our issue. Both sets of figures show that apart from that one year the spend more or less nets out. 
 

this will all help with the appeal. I have always thought we should appeal but feel more comfortable with the possibility of winning it

Ok not blaming you Woodley .. whatever your source I think it is very wrong … and most importantly the only big spending year was 2015/16 not 2016/17.

so our big transfer spending days are over 5 years ago.. even though it did give us some legacy issues with high wages for a few years after that.

[jono]

10 hours ago, europia said:

Sounds not unlike the the current UK govt. 

I think it is something that affects all governments over time, which is why we have elections. To remind them who is really in charge. 

[Woodley Ram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Ok not blaming you Woodley .. whatever your source I think it is very wrong … and most importantly the only big spending year was 2015/16 not 2016/17.

so our big transfer spending days are over 5 years ago.. even though it did give us some legacy issues with high wages for a few years after that.

I wish other clubs would look at our spend as they think we have been tanking it for years which is not true. I think our debt is probably no bigger than others in the Championship and significantly smaller than some (Reading, Stoke etc). They are angry that we sold the stadium for more than a lot of them did and don't understand the amortisation thinking we had been residual values at the end which is not true it was always 0. they think that our overspend/debt is bigger than every ones which is not true.  

Mel gambled and in football terms is not a rich man, I think that in the end he could see his fortune dwindling away. Of course a lot of that would not be accessible.

A lot of misinformation out there.  It is taking the focus from others that should have larger FFP problems. For instance Stoke's Covid write off is ridicules and  haven't Fulham deferred the payment on Wilson so they don't pay anything this year.    

 

[RammingStone66]

19 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I wish other clubs would look at our spend as they think we have been tanking it for years which is not true. I think our debt is probably no bigger than others in the Championship and significantly smaller than some (Reading, Stoke etc). They are angry that we sold the stadium for more than a lot of them did and don't understand the amortisation thinking we had been residual values at the end which is not true it was always 0. they think that our overspend/debt is bigger than every ones which is not true.  

Mel gambled and in football terms is not a rich man, I think that in the end he could see his fortune dwindling away. Of course a lot of that would not be accessible.

A lot of misinformation out there.  It is taking the focus from others that should have larger FFP problems. For instance Stoke's Covid write off is ridicules and  haven't Fulham deferred the payment on Wilson so they don't pay anything this year.    

 

I think the Wilson payments are delayed for 2 years. If you don't want clubs running up debts then allowing them to defer payment on players for a few years seems like a silly idea because someone will exploit it eventually

[Woodley Ram]

14 minutes ago, RammingStone66 said:

I think the Wilson payments are delayed for 2 years. If you don't want clubs running up debts then allowing them to defer payment on players for a few years seems like a silly idea because someone will exploit it eventually

So if we did a deal with PSG, Real Madrid and Barcelona so that we bought a load of their fringe players deferred payment for 3 years with an option for them to be bought back that would be legal? we could play all of them as they would not be loans but would effectively only be paying their wages as they would be bought back for the same cost after 3 years......mad    

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]