The Administration Thread

[BramcoteRam84]

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.
 

[angieram]

3 minutes ago, David said:

His reply:

Better for who? Not better for Derby County! 

That reply at least seems to demonstrate he is as pissed off with Gibson as we are!

Edited February 18, 2022 by angieram
Add a bit

[Ghost of Clough]

46 minutes ago, David said:

My reply.

I understand I'm pissing in the wind with this, just want us to be treated fairly which I feel we are not.

With regards to the review of our points deduction, I looked at the judgment and it was a loss of £1.96m above the upper threshold for 20/21 where a £5m covid exemption was allowed. Last nights statement was £2.5m with immediate effect to the 21/22 season.

Wouldn't change the deduction at all would it @Ghost of Clough?

There are Covid allowances in 3 seasons

19/20 - max of £5m. In reality we'd be claiming £2-2.5m, so no impact
20/21 - max of £5m. Actual Covid losses would have been at least £13m, possibly even as high as £16m. This rule meant us failing by £1.96m, rather than being within the limit by at least £2m. Under the existing framework, this £2m overspend would have resulted in 3 out of the 17 points we should have been deducted. Proportionally speaking, this overspend would have actually accounted for 2 out of our 9 points deducted.
21/22 - max of £2.5m. No impact for the current season as we would have adjusted costs to ensure we stayed within P&S. However, other clubs (Bristol, Boro, Stoke etc) will be delighted as it means they either stay within the limits for the current season or means fewer cuts in the summer. The grievance I have is they had the opportunity to reduce costs in January but chose not to.

[Steve How Hard?]

27 minutes ago, angieram said:

This as a defence just doesn't make sense to me. If it took "a huge amount of time and money" to prove that we were wrong, the bloody rules weren't obvious in the first place, were they? 

With other loopholes, they have changed them retrospectively after clubs were found not guilty. 

But with Derby they just appealled until they got the result they wanted. 

The question now should surely be why did they spend such a huge amount of time and money on it?

And why do they need to change them if they were written correctly?

No agenda against Derby? Pah!

 

My thoughts exactly. He should have said it took a lot of time, effort and money to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He also fails to point out that we weren't in the wrong for doing it that way but merely for not making it clear we were using a different method. They did us on a technicality basically. 

I just love how every statement or reply the EFL make just makes them look more vindictive and digs themselves further into a hole. Parrys smugness will ultimately be his and the EFLs downfall. Keep up the good work Mr Parry. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Steve How Hard?

[Ram-a-lama fa fa fa]

59 minutes ago, David said:

My reply.

I understand I'm pissing in the wind with this, just want us to be treated fairly which I feel we are not.

With regards to the review of our points deduction, I looked at the judgment and it was a loss of £1.96m above the upper threshold for 20/21 where a £5m covid exemption was allowed. Last nights statement was £2.5m with immediate effect to the 21/22 season.

Wouldn't change the deduction at all would it @Ghost of Clough?

 

 

 

excellent email.

[i-Ram]

23 minutes ago, angieram said:

I don't mind usually but when someone is arguing so strongly about an aspect of a player's performance  that they can't actually assess from TV footage they need pulling up on it, imo.

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.

[Rev]

18 minutes ago, David said:

His reply:

He's bending for you David. 

This time next week he'll be asking you to Dinner.

[PistoldPete]

13 minutes ago, angieram said:

Better for who? Not better for Derby County! 

That reply at least seems to demonstrate he is as pissed off with Gibson as we are!

Exactly. Boro’s claim was without merit and there is some evidence though Kevin will not agree that club to club claims of the kind that Boro were trying are not allowed and certainly not welcomed by Efl. 
 

parry might have wanted that to be proven, but as you say a club in Derby’s position simply couldn’t afford the risk of some tricksy lawyer finding a way through and by some fluke winning the case. 

[BramcoteRam84]

Actually think now the EFL either need us to be relegated by a lot or survive. If we’re relegated by 1-2 points and we’ve not been given any points back then surely we’d have a case against the EFL? 

[Guest]

The EFL seem to like the phrase ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ not sure it adds anything apart from suggesting that what it refers to is badly written 

[Foreveram]

38 minutes ago, angieram said:

This as a defence just doesn't make sense to me. If it took "a huge amount of time and money" to prove that we were wrong, the bloody rules weren't obvious in the first place, were they? 

With other loopholes, they have changed them retrospectively after clubs were found not guilty. 

But with Derby they just appealled until they got the result they wanted. 

The question now should surely be why did they spend such a huge amount of time and money on it?

And why do they need to change them if they were written correctly?

No agenda against Derby? Pah!

 

It’s like VAR spending ten minutes to prove something that’s supposed to be clear and obvious.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

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.

There were a few ways we could have avoided the penalty for the 2021 period:

1. Actual Covid losses count, rather than a £5m cap.
2. If we were allowed to extend contracts to players, pushing amortisation charges into 21/22 (or beyond). We couldn't because of the embargo due to the EFL's appeal against the IDC.
3. Marriott's contract extension not being cancelled by the EFL and then selling him in the January window (or early summer). We couldn't sell him as we were in discussions with the EFL to get the extension accepted as late as June!

[duncanjwitham]

20 minutes ago, angieram said:

Better for who? Not better for Derby County! 

That reply at least seems to demonstrate he is as pissed off with Gibson as we are!

You could argue that the question is still open (i.e. can clubs claim from each other for loss due to P&S breaches), so in theory other clubs could still go after us for compensation (Leeds, for example - "we would have beat them in the playoff semi if not for their pesky overspending" etc).  In that regard, it would have been better for us to have our day in court and get a definitive answer that you can't do that. 

Obviously in pretty much every other regard, getting the active issues dealt with and moving on is best for us.

[Cam the Ram]

22 minutes ago, David said:

His reply:

Rick when he got to the part about Gibson selling tax losses, Forest's Olympiacos link and Watford possibly using Udinese to get Ebosele for free.

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

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!

[Foreveram]

36 minutes ago, angieram said:

I don't mind usually but when someone is arguing so strongly about an aspect of a player's performance  that they can't actually assess from TV footage they need pulling up on it, imo.

 

Alan Hinton would never track back and couldn’t head a ball or tackle, he must have been rubbish ?

[Ghost of Clough]

On 23/08/2021 at 10:05, Ghost of Clough said:

Something similar to this (pre-bosman)?

 

From the accounts:

 

The wording in their accounts changed slightly in 1992:

 

Then tweaked again in 1995:

 

Bosman kicked in the following year with clubs adopting the straight-line approach.

But Parry says "since amortisation was introduced every club in every country has used the standard straight line method ?

It also ignores the use of impairment to artificially bring amortisation charges into earlier periods to allow for greater future spending.

[S8TY]

50 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Fair question. I watch them all but not enough of them live. And if you’re looking at the TV feed it’s hard to know what’s going on off the ball. I will look at his stats - best comparison is probably TL and Joz when they are both wide and I’ll certainly eat my words if TL is ahead of Joz in terms of mileage 

But I maintain from my armchair that he rarely enjoys a heavy challenge unless he sees a goal scoring chance for himself (and not always then).
 

Some days (and moreso recently) he shows a sustained intensity throughout a game. To me it’s the difference in intensity game on game that is frustrating and my main point was: I think that means he’s far from WR’s ideal player 

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 

[LERam]

1 hour ago, David said:

My reply.

I understand I'm pissing in the wind with this, just want us to be treated fairly which I feel we are not.

With regards to the review of our points deduction, I looked at the judgment and it was a loss of £1.96m above the upper threshold for 20/21 where a £5m covid exemption was allowed. Last nights statement was £2.5m with immediate effect to the 21/22 season.

Wouldn't change the deduction at all would it @Ghost of Clough?

 

 

 

I bet you don't get such a thought out and well written response

 

Probably something along the lines of, no that isn't true blah blah blah we want the best for Derby 

Edited February 18, 2022 by LERam
Typo

[Steve How Hard?]

2 minutes 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!

Rick and his mate Trevor are busy again.