If Quantuma hadn't accepted the extra 9 points....

[Red Ram]

12 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

There was no right of appeal, unfortunately so bound to be a penalty for FFP even though it was a very dodgy decison by FAP  made by non-accountants. Nine points was very harsh and double counted with the 12 point deduction. Q's justification at the time was they were trying to move things forward quickly and needed certainty. Well that went well.    

We actually got of lightly with 9 points. We were in breach for 3 seasons out of 4 so technically the penalty could have been between 14 and 17 points if the EFL had applied the letter of the law...

[Gaspode]

1 hour ago, Red Ram said:

We actually got of lightly with 9 points. We were in breach for 3 seasons out of 4 so technically the penalty could have been between 14 and 17 points if the EFL had applied the letter of the law...

But only in accounts based on the amortisation rule that wasn't in place when we committed the 'offences' - think Morris suggested that using his method, we'd only slightly breached for one year.....

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, Red Ram said:

We actually got of lightly with 9 points. We were in breach for 3 seasons out of 4 so technically the penalty could have been between 14 and 17 points if the EFL had applied the letter of the law...

They could have given us a 50 point deduction and the result would have been the same!

[Carl Sagan]

IIRC Quantuma initially resisted it but the EFL said, "If that's how you want to play it, we'll simply postpone any hearing date indefinitely" meaning we couldn't get a buyer because the future situation of the club would be unclear.

The logic was to take the hit and move quickly to bring a new buyer in within the first few weeks. Which we all saw worked incredibly well!

[Gaspode]

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

IIRC Quantuma initially resisted it but the EFL said, "If that's how you want to play it, we'll simply postpone any hearing date indefinitely" meaning we couldn't get a buyer because the future situation of the club would be unclear.

The logic was to take the hit and move quickly to bring a new buyer in within the first few weeks. Which we all saw worked incredibly well!

This has been the EFL approach all along (effectively they said the same to Morris just before he put us into administration). Dreadful (and highly unprofessional) way for the governing body to behave…..

[PistoldPete]

On 11/06/2022 at 09:54, Red Ram said:

We actually got of lightly with 9 points. We were in breach for 3 seasons out of 4 so technically the penalty could have been between 14 and 17 points if the EFL had applied the letter of the law...

We were not in breach for any years .. until 2021. It's only because EFL redid the accounts retrospectively  on their preferred basis which wasn't mandatory at the time. They only changed the rules in February. 

 

Also the 9 points was double counting with the 12 points.. if (as EFL/ Maguire and co claim) Derby went into administration because of overspending), then we were  being penalised twice for the same thing.

[Grumpy Git]

On 16/06/2022 at 08:22, PistoldPete said:

We were not in breach for any years .. until 2021. It's only because EFL redid the accounts retrospectively  on their preferred basis which wasn't mandatory at the time. They only changed the rules in February. 

 

Also the 9 points was double counting with the 12 points.. if (as EFL/ Maguire and co claim) Derby went into administration because of overspending), then we were  being penalised twice for the same thing.

Exactly.

It's like a passing a speed camera doing 60 in a 60 limit, then two years later getting fined as someone arbitrarily thought that the speed limit on that road should have been 50.

[Tombo]

First thing we have to say is no buyer would touch us with a bargepole the longer the saga dragged on. We had to take our punishment and move on.

More importantly, maybe we could have got off the deduction on a technicality or had it reduced. However, we now know the extent to which we were being financially mismanaged and so we are guilty as charged deliberately trying to hide that fact from everyone.

The EFL made an example of us and were right to, to deter this sort of thing in the future.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Tombo
Typo

[1of4]

Quantuma should never have been put in the situation of accepting or rejecting the points deduction by the EFL. The punishment, if infact there was a case for any points deduction, should have been held in abeyance until the new owner took control of the club.

To keep other club's owners happy, the EFL saw the opportunity to impose the punishment, knowing there would by nobody at the club to raise any against it.

What the EFL did was underhanded and downright despicable. And highlights that those in charge of running it are not fit to do the job.

[Crewton]

3 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Quantuma should never have been put in the situation of accepting or rejecting the points deduction by the EFL. The punishment, if infact there was a case for any points deduction, should have been held in abeyance until the new owner took control of the club.

To keep other club's owners happy, the EFL saw the opportunity to impose the punishment, knowing there would by nobody at the club to raise any against it.

What the EFL did was underhanded and downright despicable. And highlights that those in charge of running it are not fit to do the job.

I think the feedback from interested parties to Q was that they wanted all extant issues resolving before they committed (PDs, Boro claim etc) and the EFL were saying that they wouldn't rush the disciplinary process if Q decided to go to an IDC - it was also possible that an IDC would impose a higher penalty, Q would appeal, progress would be stymied etc.

I think Q therefore took a pragmatic decision to at least clear one hurdle out of the way rather than leave the process in limbo for months. With hindsight, you might argue that limbo is exactly what we've had regardless, but I can see why they took the decision to settle with the EFL.

[kevinhectoring]

On 11/06/2022 at 09:45, ariotofmyown said:

You never know, some new competent owners might be able to sue the EFL for all this still?

The 9 points was an agreed decision so can’t be challenged.
 

The potential appeal of the 12 points was very difficult. Because the rules require it to be shown that covid was the SOLE reason we were insolvent. V unlikely to win that one

I’ve levelled plenty of criticism at q but on the points deduction I felt they did a pretty good job 

[Sparkle]

13 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The 9 points was an agreed decision so can’t be challenged.
 

The potential appeal of the 12 points was very difficult. Because the rules require it to be shown that covid was the SOLE reason we were insolvent. V unlikely to win that one

I’ve levelled plenty of criticism at q but on the points deduction I felt they did a pretty good job 

Read the title of the thread