The Administration Thread

[Mucker1884]

7 hours ago, KirkIreton said:

Stop this to topic, it is a collection of half baked nonsense Stand up and support the Rams tomorrow and always

There are threads out there discussing match day support... for tomorrow's* game and/or in general. 
There will be at least one demanding we turn up tomorrow* en masse, and turn PPS into a sea of black & white, wave our flanges, and suck the ball into the net.
There was absolutely no need for your off-topic post in here!  Absolutely no need, I say!  ?

 

 

*OK... It's today now, but that doesn't get you off the hook!  

[kevinhectoring]

14 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

The way I see it, this is absolutely NOT the time to be easing up on these clowns. Their actions this week yet again compromise the club's chances of survival in the Championship and as long as they continue to act in this fashion, we must keep boots firmly on their throats.

For some extraordinary reason EFL are reading and responding to the messages. EFL’s work on this saga is far from done, so the channel to Parry’s office is a real opportunity for fans to influence how the club is treated in the coming weeks. So it’s a shame so many of the messages to Parry are spleen venting unguided missiles. We’d benefit the club if we could coordinate the emails and make them more focused 

[Ghost of Clough]

7 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

£5m is the max allowance which goes through unverified by the EFL. In other words, any club can put the max down in their P&S submissions and the EFL won't check.

Any club can apply to have a bigger allowance, but they need evidence to support the application.

Just to clarify, this information is direct from Parry.

If Derby feel they had a right to claim for £15m in Covid losses in the 20/21 season, the administrators had the ability to do so.

[PistoldPete]

51 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

For some extraordinary reason EFL are reading and responding to the messages. EFL’s work on this saga is far from done, so the channel to Parry’s office is a real opportunity for fans to influence how the club is treated in the coming weeks. So it’s a shame so many of the messages to Parry are spleen venting unguided missiles. We’d benefit the club if we could coordinate the emails and make them more focused 

It's not the quality of the messages to Parry that are concerning me. It's the quality (or lack of it) of the responses from Parry that is very concerning indeed.

[Dimmu]

Just skimmed through maybe 50 pages and here's my summary: 

- We have one atypical case of Stockholm syndrome 

- FFS EFL 

- Note to R. Parry: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

[PistoldPete]

15 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Had a similar response to my email to which I have responded as follows, with Margaret Beckett again CC'd:

Dear Mr Parry,

You infer that bar Derby County, every club in the country adheres to straight line amortisation policies – this is simply not true and it’s staggering that you would suggest as much. In 2015/16 Aston Villa were relegated from the Premier League, which allows a P & S loss of £105 million over three years, which then tapers down to £39 million over three years in the EFL Championship. It was therefore in Villa’s interests to put as many costs into their 2015/16 accounts to be absorbed by their Premier League P & S limit. Villa achieved this by charging an extra £79.6 million as a cost in the expense for impairment of the stadium and players (labelled ‘intangible assets’ in their accounts). No investigation was deemed necessary and no sanctions applied. There are too many other instances to list so I simply offer this particular one to illustrate that where the juggling of player values is concerned, there is one rule for Derby and another for everyone else.

If, as you claim, this amendment has been introduced ‘so there is no room for doubt’, does this not clearly infer there was doubt at the time the policy was in use? And given this has now been highlighted as a rather grey area, do you still maintain the sanctions applied are fair and fitting? Might I also ask what the EFL stance is on club’s selling their debts? Likewise, the pricing of players moving between clubs under the same ownership? The fact is that the EFL has spent over 2 years and no small amount of member club funds bringing Derby to task when a simple amendment, akin to that applied this week, could have been made as early as 2018 along with a request that Derby adopt a straight-line amortisation policy from thereon out.

It is also worth pointing out that the EFL, who claim to have ‘several accounts monitoring practices in place’ was made aware of the fact Derby County were using the ERV amortisation policy in 2018, yet chose not to bring this up with the club itself until 2020 by which time the relevant P & S period had closed. Had you not delayed the process until the 3-year period had elapsed, Derby would have been in a position to address the P & S threshold breaches through player sales or other means. Waiting until 2020, when the EFL was itself under threat of litigation from Middlesbrough FC, meant that Derby were not afforded any opportunity to bring either their accounting practices or their FFP overspend into line. With these facts in mind, I ask you again, do you still maintain the sanctions applied to Derby are fair and fitting?

Frankly, if the EFL is to retain even a shred of credibility, the sanctions applied to Derby County need to be reviewed immediately as the punishments far outweigh the ‘crime’. Failure to do so would result in the not unfair assumption that the current EFL board has brought the League into disrepute and that as such, those in question ought to be considering whether or not their positions remain tenable.

=====================================================================
The way I see it, this is absolutely NOT the time to be easing up on these clowns. Their actions this week yet again compromise the club's chances of survival in the Championship and as long as they continue to act in this fashion, we must keep boots firmly on their throats.

We fight to the end!

 

 

Just one part of Parry's disingenuous response .. a hypothetical £10m player who has £8 million written off in his final year.

Well of course that would never happen. I don't think derby have ever spent £10m on any player for a start .. Bielik is quoted at that figure but I think would be including add ons.

Anyway his value now per transfermarkt is £4.5 million. Derby's method didn't ignore the fact that the player's value had depreciated so if we had paid £10 million he would now be at less than half what we paid for him even if we were using our old method.. so maybe below what the straight line depreciated value would be.  

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/krystian-bielik/profil/spieler/287247

If on the other hand Bieliks value had held up and he was worth £8 million now, I have no doubt he would have been sold.  In reality, as distressed sellers and given he has only just recovered from another long term injury we wouldn't even get the £4.5m, but then we are into issues such as impairments which is what many other clubs try selectively only when it suits them,  and as you say 86HI totally gives the lie to Parry's assertion that all clubs use straight line depreciation. 

 

[CBRammette]

56 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

For some extraordinary reason EFL are reading and responding to the messages. EFL’s work on this saga is far from done, so the channel to Parry’s office is a real opportunity for fans to influence how the club is treated in the coming weeks. So it’s a shame so many of the messages to Parry are spleen venting unguided missiles. We’d benefit the club if we could coordinate the emails and make them more focused 

Isnt that what the official supporters groups and team derby do? I quite like the thought of mr parry or his likely underpaid assistant/unpaid intern trying to politely reply to unguided missiles constantly through the weekend as long as they are vaguely polite and not just abusive. If/After we are safe this shouldnt stop we need to constantly keep the efl's role in this highlighted and wage a campaign highlighting every ?thing they do until they are finally gone. We need to prepare a proper dossier of their actions joining with fans groups from Sheff Weds, Bury, etc and ensure they cease to exist and that the main players are not anywhere near any newly formed body. We must keep pressure up on MPs regarding implementation of the results of the review. Their role over the last 2-3 years must never be forgotten or forgiven. I dont swear generally but relish singing **** the efl. We must fight to their end also

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, Dimmu said:

Just skimmed through maybe 50 pages and here's my summary: 

- We have one atypical case of Stockholm syndrome 

- FFS EFL 

- Note to R. Parry: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Sums it up. Is Stockholm syndrome your diagnosis for Kevin?

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

For some extraordinary reason EFL are reading and responding to the messages. EFL’s work on this saga is far from done, so the channel to Parry’s office is a real opportunity for fans to influence how the club is treated in the coming weeks. So it’s a shame so many of the messages to Parry are spleen venting unguided missiles. We’d benefit the club if we could coordinate the emails and make them more focused 

I think they're responding because unlike yourself, they don't regard said correspondence as spleen-venting, unguided missiles at all. It seems that possibility has eluded your thinking completely which in all likelihood, will surprise very few DCFC forum members, if any at all.

Since you've raised the 'issue', perhaps you might wish to consider why it is that they are happy to engage with us spleen-venters while you, a purported DCFC supporter sit idly by doing nothing more than making blithe assumptions on their behalf and patronising the entire forum in the process.

[Norwichram2]

5 hours ago, Indy said:

In your analysis of us “falling foul of FFP”, I think you’ve simplified it so much that you’re either deliberately misrepresenting the situation, or you genuinely don’t understand the implications of the latest EFL statement. 

Please can we get this Middlesbrough troll off the site. He is having a field day winding people up. He has stated his views, now let him be gone....

[PistoldPete]

6 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I think they're responding because unlike yourself, they don't regard said correspondence as spleen-venting, unguided missiles at all. It seems that possibility has eluded your thinking completely which in all likelihood, will surprise very few DCFC forum members, if any at all.

Since you've raised the 'issue', perhaps you might wish to consider why it is that they are happy to engage with us spleen-venters while you, a purported DCFC supporter sit idly by doing nothing more than making blithe assumptions on their behalf and patronising the entire forum in the process.

Now that is spleen venting. 

Anyway guys, there's a football match on today so I'm on the match thread from now on. 

[kevinhectoring]

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

It's not the quality of the messages to Parry that are concerning me. It's the quality (or lack of it) of the responses from Parry that is very concerning indeed.

You are kidding I hope. 

[Norwichram2]

4 minutes ago, Norwichram2 said:

Please can we get this Middlesbrough troll off the site. He is having a field day winding people up. He has stated his views, now let him be gone....

I mean Borowill not Indy obvs!

[Indy]

21 hours 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. 
 

That’s true. Also, someone at the EFL looked at what we were planning and said that the amortisation process, whilst compliant, ran the risk of stockpiling bigger losses that would need dealing with at a later date - which sounds like they understood it perfectly!

 

Basically, they gerrymandered the “misleading notes” charge to give themselves a get out when asked why they approved the method over all those years, and to give Boro a pretext to pursue us directly as part of the back room deal they had in place. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. 

[kevinhectoring]

22 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I think they're responding because unlike yourself, they don't regard said correspondence as spleen-venting, unguided missiles at all. It seems that possibility has eluded your thinking completely which in all likelihood, will surprise very few DCFC forum members, if any at all.

Since you've raised the 'issue', perhaps you might wish to consider why it is that they are happy to engage with us spleen-venters while you, a purported DCFC supporter sit idly by doing nothing more than making blithe assumptions on their behalf and patronising the entire forum in the process.

Perhaps they might have promised MPs or Ministers they would respond. What an opportunity for us. We should be sending focused and concise messages that will move the dial when it comes to the business plan discussions. Not spleen venting unguided missiles 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

12 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Perhaps they might have promised MPs or Ministers they would respond. What an opportunity for us. We should be sending focused and concise messages that will move the dial when it comes to the business plan discussions. Not spleen venting unguided missiles 

What would your message to them be Kevin? 

[Curtains]

10 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Perhaps they might have promised MPs or Ministers they would respond. What an opportunity for us. We should be sending focused and concise messages that will move the dial when it comes to the business plan discussions. Not spleen venting unguided missiles 

Are you ok mate .

The forum as a whole is doing its best to represent DCFC in difficult times. 
 

 

[Curtains]

To be honest duck the EFL .

 

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

What would your message to them be Kevin? 

I assume something along the lines of 'you're doing a great job guys, keep up the good work (and ignore the spleen venters)'

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Curtains said:

To be honest duck the EFL .

Damn right.

Had they just been applying their rules then I would have no problem and would be aiming my anger at MM.

However, the way they make the rules up as they go along, move the goalposts and so blatantly lie, makes them deserve everything that is being thrown their way.