EFL actually want Derby to work and be sustainable

[PistoldPete]

11 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

The EFL gave up any pretence at impartiality when they were "disappointed" and found it "regrettable" when Derby were only fined for the accounts amortisation stuff. That is not the language of a professional body.

The mask slipped, small minded fearful men who are in thrall to Gibson, Parry and Maguire.

They were “disappointed “ that we dated to mention them not giving us the loan for the COVID that they said we weren’t eligible for … forgetting to mention the reason we weren’t eligible us because of their trumped up charges against us.

oh and then they were “shocked” we dared to appeal against the 12 point deduction.

as you say not very professional for any body to be sulking like that . 

[RoyMac5]

12 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

The EFL gave up any pretence at impartiality when they were "disappointed" and found it "regrettable" when Derby were only fined for the accounts amortisation stuff. That is not the language of a professional body.

The mask slipped, small minded fearful men who are in thrall to Gibson, Parry and Maguire.

Yes, commenting on the outcome of an independent appeal body in such a manner is highly suggestive of an agenda against Derby!  

[TheSlate]

12 hours ago, Cam the Ram said:

Derby - Hey, here's our accounts. By the way, we used an alternate method involving amortisation.

EFL - Hmmmmmm. It's unusual, but fine, we'll sign off on them.

*Years Later*

EFL - Lol, changed our mind, now they aren't ok.

 

Derby - We've sold our stadium and will add the profit to our accounts.

EFL - We don't like that, but it's not against the rules. We disagree with the valuation of the stadium however.

Derby - OK. Here's a valuation from an independent company who provide a similar figure.

EFL - Nope, we don't agree with the professionals, we'll begin disciplinary action. 

 

Independent panel - Derby didn't do anything wrong.

EFL - Meh, what do you guys know. We will appeal with a new independent panel.

New independent panel - We believe a 100k fine is appropriate for Derby's wrongdoing.

EFL - Nah, we don't like that, let's appeal. Oh and let's also try and relegate them after the season is finished.

 

Derby - Hey, we've renewed Jack Marriott's contract.

EFL - OK.

*6 months later*

EFL - Changed our mind. Marriott is free to leave. And no, you can't sign anyone to replace him, Waghorn, or any of the other players who left.

*Months later*

Derby - Please, we don't have enough senior players to even field a team, just let us sign some.

EFL - *Sigh* Fine, but only 4 or 5. And no more than 4.5k a week! And if you re-sign players like Davies or Wisdom they will take up 1 of those spots. 

 

Derby - Hey we're having some injury problems and would like to use a couple of young lads, but they'll then count as senior players. Can you be a little lenient with this?

EFL - Lol no. 

 

 

I'm really relieved the EFL are trying to help us and make us work. It's really nice to know they have our back.

POST OF THE YEAR.

[Day]

12 hours ago, Cam the Ram said:

Derby - Hey, here's our accounts. By the way, we used an alternate method involving amortisation.

EFL - Hmmmmmm. It's unusual, but fine, we'll sign off on them.

*Years Later*

EFL - Lol, changed our mind, now they aren't ok.

 

Derby - We've sold our stadium and will add the profit to our accounts.

EFL - We don't like that, but it's not against the rules. We disagree with the valuation of the stadium however.

Derby - OK. Here's a valuation from an independent company who provide a similar figure.

EFL - Nope, we don't agree with the professionals, we'll begin disciplinary action. 

 

Independent panel - Derby didn't do anything wrong.

EFL - Meh, what do you guys know. We will appeal with a new independent panel.

New independent panel - We believe a 100k fine is appropriate for Derby's wrongdoing.

EFL - Nah, we don't like that, let's appeal. Oh and let's also try and relegate them after the season is finished.

 

Derby - Hey, we've renewed Jack Marriott's contract.

EFL - OK.

*6 months later*

EFL - Changed our mind. Marriott is free to leave. And no, you can't sign anyone to replace him, Waghorn, or any of the other players who left.

*Months later*

Derby - Please, we don't have enough senior players to even field a team, just let us sign some.

EFL - *Sigh* Fine, but only 4 or 5. And no more than 4.5k a week! And if you re-sign players like Davies or Wisdom they will take up 1 of those spots. 

 

Derby - Hey we're having some injury problems and would like to use a couple of young lads, but they'll then count as senior players. Can you be a little lenient with this?

EFL - Lol no. 

 

 

I'm really relieved the EFL are trying to help us and make us work. It's really nice to know they have our back.

This is the perfect tl;dr for anyone unaware of the situation.

Although too many Leeds, Forest, Boro and the odd Bristol City fan like to blindly peddle the Derby cHeAtEd, KiCk ThEm OuT line with having no real idea of what exactly has happened.

[jono]

2 hours ago, The Key Club King said:

The problem with that is promoted clubs and small Premier League clubs will struggle to attract high quality players as there is a strong possibility of relegation and therefore a massive pay cut. Staying in the Premier League is harder than getting in to it and reducing small teams ability to attract players will make this worse and possibly lead to a more "closed shop".

It may help to use parachute payments only for existing contracts and not new ones but again, parachute payments do not significantly increase a clubs' chance of promotion after relegation. We all think that they do, logically they should help enormously, but they don't. The toxicity of relegation often means that big squads with Premier League quality players don't always do as well as they should. 

If you’re not careful we will all end up in tears thinking about those poor recently  promoted clubs and the equally wretched relegated clubs down to their last stale crust. 
 

reducing other teams chances of getting promoted because a handful of other teams are hugely subsidised, is far more toxic than the dilemmas facing those clubs with a hat full of money and how best to spend it. 

[ck-]

14 hours ago, Cam the Ram said:

Derby - Hey, here's our accounts. By the way, we used an alternate method involving amortisation.

EFL - Hmmmmmm. It's unusual, but fine, we'll sign off on them.

Isn’t the problem that we couldn’t show any evidence that the EFL actually did say this? Not a single letter or email. So it came down to our word vs theirs and we were always going to lose that - it’s pretty unbelievable that there is no written evidence if it genuinely was agreed. 
 

Now I suspect there might have been discussions, and the parties to those discussions may each have believed that they understood what had been discussed. But for it to not have been then written up and sent in as “Just confirming that this is what we discussed, and what was agreed”. doesn’t portray us in a good way competence wise.

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by ck-
Forgot to finish sentence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[PistoldPete]

6 minutes ago, ck- said:

Isn’t the problem that we couldn’t show any evidence that the EFL actually did say this? Not a single letter or email. So it came down to our word vs theirs and we were always going to lose that - it’s pretty unbelievable that there is no written evidence if it genuinely was agreed. 
 

Now I suspect there might have been discussions, and the parties to those discussions may each have believed that they understood what had been discussed. But for it to not have been then written up and sent in as “Just confirming that this is what we discussed, and what was agreed”. doesn’t portray us in a good way competence wise.

 

The Efl issued a public statement in March 2019 stating that the only club to have been found in breach of ffp rules for 3 year period period ending 2017/18 was Birmingham City.

So why would we not think our accounts up to then we’re not ok according to Efl?

and we made the disclosures of the amortisation policy in 2016. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume if there was anything wrong with that policy Efl would have said so before January 2020?

[Indy]

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The Efl issued a public statement in March 2019 stating that the only club to have been found in breach of ffp rules for 3 year period period ending 2017/18 was Birmingham City.

So why would we not think our accounts up to then we’re not ok according to Efl?

and we made the disclosures of the amortisation policy in 2016. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume if there was anything wrong with that policy Efl would have said so before January 2020?

I might be remembering this wrong, but I’m sure there was evidence submitted where the EFL representative who they explained the amortisation approach to emailed themselves notes on the meeting for their own reference.  And they said something along the lines of it seems unusual, but not actually prohibited, and therefore fine and that was agreed in the meeting.  

[ck-]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The Efl issued a public statement in March 2019 stating that the only club to have been found in breach of ffp rules for 3 year period period ending 2017/18 was Birmingham City.

So why would we not think our accounts up to then we’re not ok according to Efl?

and we made the disclosures of the amortisation policy in 2016. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume if there was anything wrong with that policy Efl would have said so before January 2020?

Because when you do something that is different to the norm, you make certain you’ve got evidence that it was agreed.

The EFL maintain they don’t go through each submission. Personally, I think that’s a ridiculous position for the EFL to adopt. No-one was asking for them to check every aspect of the calculation, but they should have had the capability to pick up on the broad approaches within the accounts. It speaks volumes to their competence that they couldn’t, even if we weren’t as clear as we could have been  

Our contention that they agreed with our submissions was based on their not objecting. But I still think it’s poor on our part that we can’t show any evidence that shows they explicitly agreed with our approach. Instead we are relying on the absence of a negative. That’s all I’m pointing out. 

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, ck- said:

Because when you do something that is different to the norm, you make certain you’ve got evidence that it was agreed.

The EFL maintain they don’t go through each submission. Personally, I think that’s a ridiculous position for the EFL to adopt. No-one was asking for them to check every aspect of the calculation, but they should have had the capability to pick up on the broad approaches within the accounts. It speaks volumes to their competence that they couldn’t, even if we weren’t as clear as we could have been  

Our contention that they agreed with our submissions was based on their not objecting. But I still think it’s poor on our part that we can’t show any evidence that shows they explicitly agreed with our approach. Instead we are relying on the absence of a negative. That’s all I’m pointing out. 

I think it was more than just an absence of a negative. Efl were very much in the loop on the stadium sale for example, asking for minor adjustments to the price to be included in the ffp results. Then suddenly 18months later saying they wanted £40 million off the price.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 hours ago, Ellafella said:

Superb quote from arguably the most prophetic book ever written. Imagine a boot stamping a face into the mud etc

Orwell was a brilliant writer, not just 1984 and Animal Farm, but his experinces of colonialism (Shooting an elephant), poverty (down and out in paris and london), the spanish civil war (Homage to Catalonia). Some wonderful esseys as well as novels.

I do frequently wonder how Orwell would view the current world, from the subtle controls of the west to the beligerent controls of the east *cough* China *cough* to the still prevelent poverty and injustice and so on.

Anyway, back to topic, I'm sure the EFL will be enjoying their rations of Victory gin as they survey their triumphant enterprise.

[Curtains]

EFL = Effing foolish lunatics 

[Mucker1884]

3 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

… any old arse biscuits…

 

 

I’ve been trying my damnedest to get that to fit the tune of “Any old iron”, and make it the obvious winner in the club anthem thread. 
But I’m buggered if I can get it to fit!

Curses!  Grrr!  Etc! ?

[ck-]

39 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think it was more than just an absence of a negative. Efl were very much in the loop on the stadium sale for example, asking for minor adjustments to the price to be included in the ffp results. Then suddenly 18months later saying they wanted £40 million off the price.

Totally agree on that one. I think our handling of the stadium sale was exemplary. 

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Orwell was a brilliant writer, not just 1984 and Animal Farm, but his experinces of colonialism (Shooting an elephant), poverty (down and out in paris and london), the spanish civil war (Homage to Catalonia). Some wonderful esseys as well as novels.

I do frequently wonder how Orwell would view the current world, from the subtle controls of the west to the beligerent controls of the east *cough* China *cough* to the still prevelent poverty and injustice and so on.

Anyway, back to topic, I'm sure the EFL will be enjoying their rations of Victory gin as they survey their triumphant enterprise.

Sounds like you are as big an Orwell fans as me @RadioactiveWaste. Have you ever stayed at Barnhill? I love all of his work...Shooting an Elephant is brilliant; as is The Road to Wigan Pier. His early stuff is okay (Keep the Aspidistra etc) but I like how his whole outlook was very much tied in to his early-life experiences...

[Ambitious]

On 29/10/2021 at 12:24, David said:

This is the perfect tl;dr for anyone unaware of the situation.

Although too many Leeds, Forest, Boro and the odd Bristol City fan like to blindly peddle the Derby cHeAtEd, KiCk ThEm OuT line with having no real idea of what exactly has happened.

I would say, however, the stadium sale was fine and done in the right way. 

Amortisation screams of kicking the can down the road shouldn’t have been entertained - not just for trouble it caused but because it would cause issues in years had we not been promoted, which we wasn’t. 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Ambitious said:

I would say, however, the stadium sale was fine and done in the right way. 

Amortisation screams of kicking the can down the road shouldn’t have been entertained - not just for trouble it caused but because it would cause issues in years had we not been promoted, which we wasn’t. 

I agree the amortisation thing shouldn’t have been done for the reasons you say.

But that doesn’t make it a breach of any rule, and I don’t believe it was in breach of anything. So the Efl charging us for it just smacks of them trying every which way they can to punish us. 
 

Throw enough mud and hope some of it will stick.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

On 29/10/2021 at 12:24, David said:

This is the perfect tl;dr for anyone unaware of the situation.

Although too many Leeds, Forest, Boro and the odd Bristol City fan like to blindly peddle the Derby cHeAtEd, KiCk ThEm OuT line with having no real idea of what exactly has happened.

Can we not our pen pal from OTIB on here for a day.  He seems to having gone full on Falling Down yesterday evening till 2 in the morning and he may spontaneously combust if we let him on here.  Even those on their forum seem to be concerned that we have 40 pages- 43 he's added  more since- and he's making them look like tits, so he may have to pack his accounts and find a new home.  Think he's embarrassing them a bit.   

[Ambitious]

48 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I agree the amortisation thing shouldn’t have been done for the reasons you say.

But that doesn’t make it a breach of any rule, and I don’t believe it was in breach of anything. So the Efl charging us for it just smacks of them trying every which way they can to punish us. 
 

Throw enough mud and hope some of it will stick.

I agree: the fact a standard amortisation wasn’t agreed in the rules SHOULD make it very difficult to punish us. Although, at the same time all Mel was doing was kicking the can down the road so it caught up to us eventually - EFL or not. 

[Oldben]

The efl is a membership organisation, not an auditor.

I've worked for auditors and accounting firms, and they are very professional in their approach.

They would not have recommended amortisation to Derby if it was wrong.

The efl said that was unfair to other football league members and we objected.

We'll find a way to punish you so no other team can use this perfectly legal tactic.

We give all the advantages to the clubs who have received parachute payments.

You other clubs better not do anything beneficial to you or we will investigate.

The efl imposed a salary cap on teams in league one, which the players opposed and sued to have removed.

Like any other membership or trade union, the efl will try to do what is best for its members, but that does not mean they are always the best qualified.