The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

 

What utter baalocks. "Since amortisation was introduced?" What sort of crap is that ? Was that written by a child who has got hold of Parry's phone?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

We will get nowhere with this joker. Terrible response. The problem with all this us that the EFL pretty much has nobody to answer to. 

Hopefully the government replace them sooner rather than later but who knows. UTR 

[Gone]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

 

I think as many of us as possible should email him asking the same questions, this absolutely stinks. 

[deano180]

19 minutes ago, David said:

 

Every club in the country has used the straight line club apart from one who used the other method that was not outlawed in the rules, that's better P rick Parry.

Edited February 18, 2022 by deano180

[FlyBritishMidland]

15 minutes ago, David said:

 

That’s a typical patronising response from RP.  I’d like to see his evidence of “every club in every country” statement.  It will be interesting to read the amended wording because the press release states clubs should use the straight line method and not shall which have different contractual meanings.  It’s like if Mrs FBM says that she thinks I shouldn’t go to the pub, but I do.  She didn’t say I shall not or will not go ?!!

[RAM1966]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

Hi David,

Could you ask him if he is going to review our points deduction punishments as these changes clearly favours our rivals and if not explain the fans will be pressing the Administrators to place an appeal in based on retrospective rule changes mid way through a season that disproportionately punish 2 clubs.....

Thanks 

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

Absolute vacuous twaddle. 

It would be more accurate to say that "it's cost an enormous amount of time and money to find an accounting opinion prepared to agree with our arbitrary pre-determined outcome". 

Parrys words "simple clarification so that there can be no room for doubt" essentially confirm your point David. That is, the clear implication was that there WAS doubt. So with that logical deduction, what is the basis for taking retrospective action? 

Complete drivel from a washed up self-serving buffoon without a shred of integrity. 

[Rich84]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

it was an agreed decision !!  We can't unagree it 

It was agreed within the framework of the rules at the time...... I doubt we will challenge it tbh and I'm hopeful we will survive by more than 2 points given a bit of the rub of the green (no more injuries or suspensions). So doesn't matter.

I did get the impression the EFL could have imposed a bigger points deduction due to our losses after re stating the accounts,  which again had to be questioned why not it is also a rule change to say straight line is a requirement..... but with agreeing not to challenge either the administration deduction the P+S one would be capped at -9. If true then we wouldn't want to have it re looked at anyway.

 

On another point, the EFL understanding of our policy, I thought I'd seen reports from pre investigation that they had said along the lines of, "ok, but won't this cause you a bigger issue down the line when you have to disproportionately write off more of the player values in the last year" which if yhey did, shows a clear understanding of our amortisation policy?

Edited February 18, 2022 by Rich84
Added a bit

[BathRam72]

Go public with the same letter and response. Useless twonk that he is 

[Rich84]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

he's shown his talent recently that's for sure. But I think Rooney wants a team of 11 men who give 110% and Tom doesn't. So once we are out of embargo, I don't think we should be afraid of losing him, in fact if he leaves it's easier for us to keep a lid on salaries

 

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

can't argue with his stats though I've not seen them. But his defensive work can be impressionistic and many of his challenges for headers would grace any production of Swan Lake

Obviously WR doesn't agree with your view of Lawrence considering he singled out his tactical change as the main cause for a poor display at Boro..... That change being to tell Lawrence NOT to put the miles in and stay high up the pitch rather than doing his normal defensive work!

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

Rick Parry’s email responses are always pathetic. I have a whole host of them now. He will always ignore points he knows he can’t answer. He thinks I have a ‘breathtaking misunderstanding’ of the EFLs attitude towards Derby County, or something like that. Still, filling his inbox is the least I can do and I urge everyone to do the same. It only takes 10 minutes and these people need holding to account. 

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Absolute vacuous twaddle. 

It would be more accurate to say that "it's cost an enormous amount of time and money to find an accounting opinion prepared to agree with our arbitrary pre-determined outcome". 

Parrys words "simple clarification so that there can be no room for doubt" essentially confirm your point David. That is, the clear implication was that there WAS doubt. So with that logical deduction, what is the basis for taking retrospective action? 

Complete drivel from a washed up self-serving buffoon without a shred of integrity. 

Come on , say what you really mean van moodhoover. 
 

and you are spot on by the way.

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

All clubs didn’t write off losses by transferring debt to a haulage company, except one. 

Did Rick miss that bit out of his reply? 

[Rich84]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

I'm assuming he didn't reciprocate the circulation with Margaret Beckett still on it then? 

The fact that 1 club does it differently within the framework of the rules does not mean it requires punishment, I'm sure there are lots of historical examples out there that didn't disqualify but meant rule changes.

Don't know enough sporting history but surely examples in motorsport would be plentiful, Tyrell were the only 6 wheeled F1 for instance, Audi or Lancia going 4WD in Rally, non wooden bats in cricket in early 80's,  the Fosbury flop in high jump, British cycling in the Olympics with streamlined wheels etc etc

Thinking more, in that response, he's clarified that we didn't 'break the rules' just that we were different, as his justification now..... 

[i-Ram]

11 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

£2.5m applies to the current season so has no impact of the penalties we've suffered. It does however give us (up to) an extra £2.5m budget for current and future periods.

The 2021 period includes averaged 19/20 and 20/21 losses. Im not quite sure if I've understood the statement correctly, but it's one of two scenarios.

1. £5m extra allowance in 20/21, results in £1.96m overspend becoming ££0.54m under the limit.

2. We used a £5m allowance rather than what the actual Covid losses were (£13m min, actual £15/16m estimated). The impact being £2/3m under the limit.

The impact on our deductions? Under standard P&S penalties, 2021 deduction should have been 3 points (out of a total 17). Given our reduced penalty, we're talking about 2 points unjustly taken off us.

Not only would 2 points back be nice, particularly if Reading were not equal/better beneficiaries, but Wycombe would have no argument that we had an overspending advantage in the season they are contending. Probably the reason the Admins (and the EFL) have been apparently less vexed by the Wycombe claim in the last week or two.

Edited February 18, 2022 by i-Ram

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

I don’t really have a problem with the claim that every other club is using the straight light method or the fact that they are no clarifying the rules (presumably to say they MUST use this method). 
The issues for me, and others that have already commented are:

Just because Derby stood alone and used a different method (whatever their motives for doing so were) didn’t make it wrong provided it wasn’t against in the rules. The fact that they are now “clarifying” them suggests they weren’t clear.

For me, this clearly indicates that Derby found a loophole and tried to use it to their advantage. The EFL are now closing that loophole. Standard practice dictates that you shouldn’t change rules/close loopholes and then retrospectively punish someone for what they did prior to that change being made.

[Ghost of Clough]

33 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

On another point, the EFL understanding of our policy, I thought I'd seen reports from pre investigation that they had said along the lines of, "ok, but won't this cause you a bigger issue down the line when you have to disproportionately write off more of the player values in the last year" which if yhey did, shows a clear understanding of our amortisation policy?

That's right. The only bit they didn't understand was with the final year, with them stating soemthing along the lines of believing non-zero values were used at the end of the contract.

I still find this hard to believe when within hours of the club being charged, I was giving examples of how our policy worked with zero residual value at the end of the contract.

[Rich84]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t really have a problem with the claim that every other club is using the straight light method or the fact that they are no clarifying the rules (presumably to say they MUST use this method). 
The issues for me, and others that have already commented are:

Just because Derby stood alone and used a different method (whatever their motives for doing so were) didn’t make it wrong provided it wasn’t against in the rules. The fact that they are now “clarifying” them suggests they weren’t clear.

For me, this clearly indicates that Derby found a loophole and tried to use it to their advantage. The EFL are now closing that loophole. Standard practice dictates that you shouldn’t change rules/close loopholes and then retrospectively punish someone for what they did prior to that change being made.

Agree totally.

As I also said a couple posts earlier, sport is littered with examples of individuals taking advantage of/or finding new ways to improve without penalty.

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's right. The only bit they didn't understand was with the final year, with them stating soemthing along the lines of believing non-zero values were used at the end of the contract.

I still find this hard to believe when within hours of the club being charged, I was giving examples of how our policy worked with zero residual value at the end of the contract.

Why were the Rams offering short contract extensions to players like Butterfield and Johnson, if it wasn’t to kick a residual value into another financial year?

[jono]

12 hours ago, Curtains said:

If they reinstate Readings point deduction we will struggle to stay up. 

I am sure they are thinking about it, but they would surely face questions from more than one side ? One thing for sure, if we overtake Reading before they do it and then they hit us, I can’t help feeling we might get support from outside our own echo chamber.