The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

ut then that buffoon Parry took over, instructed an academic who according to the IDC lacked common sense. The

You think Parry selected Professor Pope?Rather than his legal team in conjunction with their barrister... ? Sounds very unlikely 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 minute ago, Steve Buckley’s Dog said:

I am getting some bizarre replies from Parry today. Can anyone fathom this:

‘If we’d changed the rule to say clubs don’t have to use straight line amortisation I could understand the confusion but nothing has changed.’

But there wasn’t a rule to say they had to! Surely something has changed - it’s a new rule!

I think overall, there is a good case for Derby to have had ZERO points deducted for FFP breaches and possibly ZERO for administration (if force majeure is used for COVID). While there is definitely industry accountancy standards that should be adhered to, the fact that the EFL failed to stipulate that there is only one method acceptable and the punishment for not using that would be to resubmit accounts is a failure by the EFL. If COVID is classed as  a force majeure and will prevent other teams being sanctioned for failing FFP, I stand by my other post that Derby could have a good argument not to have been docked the 12 points for entering administration. However, if all accountants signed off on Derby's accounts and there was nothing in EFL rules to say that Derby would be guilty of malpractice, Derby really have been treated very harshly. 

It is pleasing to see a lot of fans even of other clubs waking up to the EFL's constant changing of goalposts and problems with its regulations that has forced Derby to resubmit accounts when there is a strong argument that they didn't need to, try and get these rule changes in quickly to cover their mess, fail to act fairly and impartially in the case of DCFC because of Gibson's threats. I don't think the Derby 'cheated' argument really washes anymore when everything is analysed. 

[Day]

50 minutes ago, David said:

His reply:

Just my thoughts on this now I have digested it.

I feel there is a shared frustration with regards to Steve Gibson, as the claim was made under the arbitration regulation 95, despite 4.4 they could not simply dismiss it without potentially opening themselves up for further threats of legal action from Middlesbrough against the EFL.

They felt they had to try and get us through arbitration where the claim was made or make a settlement, it was also why they were so reluctant to rule on the football debt issue as the claim had been made prior to administration, this is where clarity and precedent would have been made.

The clarity that Rick Parry would like could not have been found had he just said to Middlesbrough sue us then, this would have been between club and league, had they been found guilty then it would have exposed the EFL for the shambolic why they have ran the leagues.

This is why they have gone for us on the amortisation retrospective punishment, one it clears the EFL and also allows Boro to go for us, note the tribunal verdict which pretty much encouraged them to do so.

I did ask one further question, it was personal one to try and clear up a disagreement with a member on this forum on bilateral contracts.

Found it interesting that he felt Middlesbrough had no right to make a claim against Liverpool under football rules where bilateral contracts exist, unless this is new and was not in place prior to the Ziege and Tevez claims.

 

[Ram-Alf]

21 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

That Kevin needs pulling up, no doubt about it.  I am surprised he can see the TV with all those legal documents and text books piled up on his coffee table.

Kevin gets a relative to watch his books

Kevin read a book on how to watch TV while studying football law

Kevin looks up on how to decide how players play when watching on a TV screen

Kevin couldn't find what he was looking for concerning footballers so goes to the library

Kevin is tired now

 

[Steve How Hard?]

The thing bothering me is if Rick Parry has all this spare time to answer the emails from Derby fans, what does he actually do there at the EFL headquarters? 

We know he spends a vast amount of time looking for different ways to punish DCFC. Fair play to him if he spreads his time equally amongst all the other clubs. He must barely have time to sleep. 

[Mucker1884]

[Animal is a Ram]

 

[Donnyram]

13 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.

It will of course say in the small print that these new allowances will not apply to any clubs currently in Administration ?

[Indy]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

I think the working professionals at EFL at the time  understood perfectly and even advised us there was a risk of a big write down in the final year, quite rightly urging caution. But then that buffoon Parry took over, instructed an academic who according to the IDC lacked common sense. The academic just assumed we were using non zero residual values, without actually considering the possibility that we didn't actually mean that. Ok, DCFC's fault (or their auditors fault to some extent in using the wrong technical term) but even so, use some common sense.

Exactly. As soon as I read that the EFL assumed we were using non-zero end of contract values, I thought that must be wrong. The Bosman ruling is universally known and I couldn’t believe Derby would be so stupid as to assume something that was obviously false - and they weren’t. It seems incredible to me that, if the EFL thought that, they didn’t just pick up the phone and say “I must’ve misunderstood this bit”.

[S8TY]

After reading some of Parry's replies from a very well written message from David it's even more apparent now that Gibbon is a stain on the game we love!

Taking everyone to court, Suing everyone it seems , he really is no good to football whatsoever and to make it worse manipulates the so called governing body .....Its all about court hearings etc etc...This man should not be involved in the game we love....he is without doubt one of the most loathsome characters I've ever seen in football....and the game would be better off without him involved in it !!

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

There is a feeling amongst most fans we have been unjustly treated by the EFL and rightly so there is lots of evidence to show we have been treated disproportionately, particularly with regard to the barriers placed in the way on exiting administration with the way Boro and Wycombe claims have been handled, and to a lesser degree the P&S where while we were retrospectively challenged and punished due to the EFL facilitating a vendetta from a particular club, it doesn’t escape the fact we moved large amount of amortisation and sold the stadium to get around FFP rules. On re-stating the accounts we were over spending limits in several years enough for a 17 point deduction under the rules, some Alleviation was applied for being retrospectively punished and potential we would’ve made different business decisions and the punishment was reduced to 9, at least that will be the EFLs argument and personally while annoying we’ve been pursued retrospectively due to peer pressure from other clubs (ironically with parachute payments at the time) and while we should question the influence certain clubs have on the EFL board, we should have been punished and 9 points is about right under the rules.
 

The Narrative from most fans of other clubs is this Derby being victim here is nauseous, we dont have any sympathy and we’re justifying the actions of Mel which weren’t in the spirit of the game. We’ve won fans with how the team have gone about things and the amazing backing in recent games, and many are appalled at the way the EFL has handled our administration which should be our main beef, we won’t convince anyone on the FFP argument.

That all being said, all we want is fairness. We should’ve been punished, but then so should Boro for selling off tax, so should Watford and Forest for transfer dealing between clubs it owns. None of that is in the spirit of the game either. Stoke shouldn’t be allowed to write off a load of costs due to Covid, if the league have now got together to apply some alleviations because a chunk of clubs will fail FFP then those same alleviation’s should be applied to our points deduction and we should get 1-2 points back based on the numbers shared by GOC. If this doesn’t happen then this once again smacks of inconsistency from the EFL, and further evidence of the mob rule existing in the EFL that needs an independent regulator to stamp out.
 

I agree with pretty much of all of this.

The FFP boat has sailed. We lost the case and no right of appeal. (Itself an injustice as Efl were able to appeal but we weren’t) .

Derby were wrong to adopt the amortisation method they did. It was reckless and symptomatic of the risky attitude of Morris. It was not against any rule but was probably an attempt to get around FFP. 
 

Derby though have been the scapegoats for Efl trying to deflect from its past failings and to justify its own existence. Efl control the narrative through the media which is probably why most fans of other clubs think as they do, plus they are biased. As are we of course.

I would love us to do the talking on the pitch. Can we though? Jags is big loss and our defence looks leaky without him. Anyway the fact we are even with a shout after all this crap is amazing.

[PistoldPete]

20 minutes ago, Indy said:

Exactly. As soon as I read that the EFL assumed we were using non-zero end of contract values, I thought that must be wrong. The Bosman ruling is universally known and I couldn’t believe Derby would be so stupid as to assume something that was obviously false - and they weren’t. It seems incredible to me that, if the EFL thought that, they didn’t just pick up the phone and say “I must’ve misunderstood this bit”.

And what’s worse EFL then used that to say we misled them. If they were misled into thinking as they did they were misled into thinking we we’re massively non-compliant. Why on Earth would we do that deliberately? 
 

thankfully the IDC saw right though that allegation from EFL, absolutely shameless as it was. 
 

[i-Ram]

35 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

 

Sorry Animal, or @David, I can't open this to see what it says. Can you offer the detail in another format? Thanks

[kevinhectoring]

42 minutes ago, S8TY said:

How can you seriously question someones work rate off of the ball when you're not actually at the game ??

Just confirms you do talk some drivel I'm afraid 

Well  help me cut out the drivel then. I’d rank our lads in terms of intensity like this

KnighT, Tommo, Plange, Joz, with TL usually some way behind. Usually 

What’s your view?

it’s not a barren debate, the one about intensity because our recent winning streak was imho in part due to the phenomenal work rate of JK Tommo and Plange . Klopp and Pep require that from 11 players and I think that approach is in Rooney’s dna

 

[Animal is a Ram]

10 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Sorry Animal, or @David, I can't open this to see what it says. Can you offer the detail in another format? Thanks

Looks like he deleted the tweet because of an incorrect @. @David you might want to edit it in the Daily Updates thread too ?

Edited February 18, 2022 by Animal is a Ram

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And what’s worse EFL then used that to say we misled them. If they were misled into thinking as they did they were misled into thinking we we’re massively non-compliant. Why on Earth would we do that deliberately? 
 

thankfully the IDC saw right though that allegation from EFL, absolutely shameless as it was. 
 

The issue was with our use of the term "residual values" in the account's notes.  That term implies that an item has some intrinsic value once it's has fully depreciated.  So if we were actually using residual values, then we would have been assigning a value to players beyond the end of their contracts.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The issue was with our use of the term "residual values" in the account's notes.  That term implies that an item has some intrinsic value once it's has fully depreciated.  So if we were actually using residual values, then we would have been assigning a value to players beyond the end of their contracts.

Which we were punished for with the £100k fine. Estimated Recoverable Value (ERV) was a term created during disciplinary proceedings

[Gaspode]

9 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I agree with pretty much of all of this.

The FFP boat has sailed. We lost the case and no right of appeal. (Itself an injustice as Efl were able to appeal but we weren’t) .

Derby were wrong to adopt the amortisation method they did. It was reckless and symptomatic of the risky attitude of Morris. It was not against any rule but was probably an attempt to get around FFP. 
 

Derby though have been the scapegoats for Efl trying to deflect from its past failings and to justify its own existence. Efl control the narrative through the media which is probably why most fans of other clubs think as they do, plus they are biased. As are we of course.

I would love us to do the talking on the pitch. Can we though? Jags is big loss and our defence looks leaky without him. Anyway the fact we are even with a shout after all this crap is amazing.

I'm not so sure - the EFL yesterday publicly admitted that their was no rule to set out how we had to calculate our accounts - hence the reason they've now brought in one to insist on a straight line method. There was therefore nothting behind their demand that we resubmit our accounts in a different format other than an unspoken understanding that doing so would hurt us.....

In addition, did we lose the case? - were we formally charged with breaching aafter we resubmitted the accounts or were the admins simply told that we would be in breach and that thery would therefore be better off negotiating an agreement? If the latter, we have a pretty good case to tell he EFL that the agreement is invalid as it was based on falsehoods and lies and therefore they need to (in light of yesterday's decisions on P&S and Covid) review the punishment and come up with something more acceptable....

[duncanjwitham]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Which we were punished for with the £100k fine. Estimated Recoverable Value (ERV) was a term created during disciplinary proceedings

Well yes, but the term we used in the accounts does suggest that we were giving values to players beyond the end of their contracts.  So it's probably unfair to criticise the EFL for coming to that conclusion.

[DavesaRam]

On 17/02/2022 at 10:28, Ghost of Clough said:

One of these:

Oh, one of those. Seen ‘em but had no idea what it was called.

Is your name a play on a similar sounding name?