Have Derby County been treated unfairly by the EFL

[Tyler Durden]

23 hours ago, vonwright said:

I'm far from an expert but is it really fair to say 'the rules were retrospectively changed'? I thought it was more a case that a) we were the only club using our 'retained value' amortisation, and b) it had never been tested whether this fit the existing rules. I realise people use such accounting methods in other industries but wasn't the issue whether it was appropriate to do so in a footballing context?

I also tend to think that even if the EFL was wrong on this point, we were still in terrible financial trouble. Their ruling certainly didn't help, but they were right that the method we used his huge losses that were _not_ going to be recouped in the way our accountancy method suggested.

Yes would be fair to say this.

However it's obvious still at this juncture that some folks still cannot bring themselves to admit that the ruination of the club and its near disappearance was down to the stewardship of one person and one person alone.

[FlyBritishMidland]

On 04/02/2023 at 13:36, MadAmster said:

The rules were retrospectively changed to include banning the depreciation method. A method MM told them we were ging to use back in 2015. Why did it take them 4 years to decide there was something "iffy" with the method? The 12 point administration penalty was, using hindsight, inevitable as the debt was unsustainable and MM couldn't/wouldn't continue to pay for the mess he'd made. IMO we got screwed over with the other 9 point FFP penalty. We had stayed, very narrowly, within FFP limits by the depreciation method and the sale of the ground. To me, an advocate of natural justice, the EFL should have recognised their culpability in accepting the method in 4 years' accounts before finally deciding they didn't like it. They used a blanket, cover any and all eventualities clause that gives them carte blanche to take action if they believe something, although not specifically banned, gives a club an unfair advantage. What I feel they should have done was to have told us we couldn't use it anymore and that, either from the 20/21 season or the 21/22 season. We would have been the first club to survive a 12 point deduction. The whole thing would have been sorted much earlier, we'd still be a Championship side and Gibson wouldn't have liked the outcome. A definite win=win situation ?

The sale of the ground is an important bit.  Regardless of any amortisation method, within or outside the rules, retrospective rule changes and whatever else.  Our finances were in such a state that we had to rely on selling the ground.  If we hadn’t done that, we’d have breached FFP regardless of accounting approach.  And if we should have not had to rely on that.

And this had further complications once we were in administration as the deal for the ground had to be negotiated separately as it wasn’t part of the deal.  Many experts said the same and it was used as a reason why some administrators wouldn’t touch our case.  And all of that comes down to the actions of one man.

[B4ev6is]

1 hour ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

The sale of the ground is an important bit.  Regardless of any amortisation method, within or outside the rules, retrospective rule changes and whatever else.  Our finances were in such a state that we had to rely on selling the ground.  If we hadn’t done that, we’d have breached FFP regardless of accounting approach.  And if we should have not had to rely on that.

And this had further complications once we were in administration as the deal for the ground had to be negotiated separately as it wasn’t part of the deal.  Many experts said the same and it was used as a reason why some administrators wouldn’t touch our case.  And all of that comes down to the actions of one man.

But at the time it was outside the rules and in that case it should been dropped only gibson and coughthin had sour grabs being git back.

He kicked off so yes sir will change the rules stright away just for you.

[Warwick Ram]

I still find it amazing that David Clowes is effectively hamstrung because of Mel Morris’ mistakes.

The club owe debts become of Mel but he has walked away without carrying the bill for HMRC.

As long as David can prove her can fund the club and repay the debts then we should be able to sign players without conditions.

[Tamworthram]

12 minutes ago, Warwick Ram said:

I still find it amazing that David Clowes is effectively hamstrung because of Mel Morris’ mistakes.

The club owe debts become of Mel but he has walked away without carrying the bill for HMRC.

As long as David can prove her can fund the club and repay the debts then we should be able to sign players without conditions.

I really think it’s time we put some of topics to bed and moved on but, in response to your message: 1) it’s the club that owed HMRC (and other creditors) money not Mel (admittedly Mel’s mismanagement was the cause of the debt). 2) if the club didn’t have to abide by some kind of fairly strict business plan then there would the risk of clubs going into administration, wiping off debts, and re-emerging pretty much unscathed a la Leicester City (I’m not sure just a points deduction would be enough) and 3) whilst I have no sympathy for him, I’m pretty sure Mel left the club a far poorer man than when he bought it.

I hate the restrictions we’re under but find it hard to argue against them especially if, as some suggest, we are still running at a loss, but it would be good for the EFL to review at the end of the season.

[MadAmster]

20 hours ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

The sale of the ground is an important bit.  Regardless of any amortisation method, within or outside the rules, retrospective rule changes and whatever else.  Our finances were in such a state that we had to rely on selling the ground.  If we hadn’t done that, we’d have breached FFP regardless of accounting approach.  And if we should have not had to rely on that.

And this had further complications once we were in administration as the deal for the ground had to be negotiated separately as it wasn’t part of the deal.  Many experts said the same and it was used as a reason why some administrators wouldn’t touch our case.  And all of that comes down to the actions of one man.

The ground sale was what convinced me we were in the deep and sticky, financially. With the sale of the ground we made a £14M profit that season. Sounds good until you realise that, without, we'd have made a loss of £66M... Thanks Mel.

[Crewton]

FFP rules should never have been implemented without buy-in from the Premier League and the integration of the rules across both the PL and the EFL. The fact that teams could be promoted and then effectively sit on the other side of an impregnable fence, flicking the V's at the EFL regulators is a sick joke. For the EFL then to come out and say, as they consistently did when investigating the behaviour of every one of the miscreants - QPR, Leicester, Wolves, Watford, Bournemouth - that there was "no intention to deliberately mislead", but saved their most damning criticism for DCFC, is the most nauseating aspect of all.

Yet they wondered why Mel Morris decided to find loopholes to exploit????

Bunch of ***** the lot of them.

The greatest triumph for me will be if/when we one day overtake some or all of the clubs who "got away with it".

[B4ev6is]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I really think it’s time we put some of topics to bed and moved on but, in response to your message: 1) it’s the club that owed HMRC (and other creditors) money not Mel (admittedly Mel’s mismanagement was the cause of the debt). 2) if the club didn’t have to abide by some kind of fairly strict business plan then there would the risk of clubs going into administration, wiping off debts, and re-emerging pretty much unscathed a la Leicester City (I’m not sure just a points deduction would be enough) and 3) whilst I have no sympathy for him, I’m pretty sure Mel left the club a far poorer man than when he bought it.

I hate the restrictions we’re under but find it hard to argue against them especially if, as some suggest, we are still running at a loss, but it would be good for the EFL to review at the end of the season.

I personal think that we are running at a profit and with roadrider are back suggest we now able to run them and pay for use of them. If we were running at loss then they would have not been brought back.

Efl saying we give derby a clean slate but yet give all thse stupid restrictions so clearly still punishing us now we been treated  badly but yet been allowed get away with it.

We need remained that what efl have done to us and keep pressure on them.

[ram59]

23 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

The ground sale was what convinced me we were in the deep and sticky, financially. With the sale of the ground we made a £14M profit that season. Sounds good until you realise that, without, we'd have made a loss of £66M... Thanks Mel.

Your figures aren't quite correct there, the figure that counts was the the sale price of the ground less the old book value, still would have been a loss of around £30m though.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

I personal think that we are running at a profit and with roadrider are back suggest we now able to run them and pay for use of them. If we were running at loss then they would have not been brought back.

Efl saying we give derby a clean slate but yet give all thse stupid restrictions so clearly still punishing us now we been treated  badly but yet been allowed get away with it.

We need remained that what efl have done to us and keep pressure on them.

It's time to put the complaining and protests behind us and get on with backing the team, management and the owner as they try to take us back up the EFL. They're doing pretty well so far.

[rsmini]

I’m surprised nobody has started a Man City financial thread yet after todays news. 100 alleged breaches since 2009 

[B4ev6is]

5 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

It's time to put the complaining and protests behind us and get on with backing the team, management and the owner as they try to take us back up the EFL. They're doing pretty well so far.

Look keep pressure on them why should be allowed to get away with what they have done to us.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Look keep pressure on them why should be allowed to get away with what they have done to us.

Sometimes you can protest too much and then people stop listening altogether because it's boring and there are are more important things to do - like getting promoted. COYR

[Foreveram]

15 minutes ago, rsmini said:

I’m surprised nobody has started a Man City financial thread yet after todays news. 100 alleged breaches since 2009 

They have, it’s on the football forum.

[Reggie Greenwood]

16 minutes ago, rsmini said:

I’m surprised nobody has started a Man City financial thread yet after todays news. 100 alleged breaches since 2009 

In the Football section of the forum 

[B4ev6is]

14 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Sometimes you can protest too much and then people stop listening altogether because it's boring and there are are more important things to do - like getting promoted. COYR

They ripped all academy apart selling all best young player for peanuts.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

They ripped all academy apart selling all best young player for peanuts.

That was the administrators, Quantuma, not the EFL. It was to raise money to keep the club in existence at the time. It's done now, can't be undone and we are now rebuilding the academy.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Brailsford Ram

[B4ev6is]

Come off it

Efl even said that they wanted admin to sell more players to bare bones and even selling players under his very nose.

 

[MadAmster]

53 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

I personal think that we are running at a profit and with roadrider are back suggest we now able to run them and pay for use of them. If we were running at loss then they would have not been brought back.

Efl saying we give derby a clean slate but yet give all thse stupid restrictions so clearly still punishing us now we been treated  badly but yet been allowed get away with it.

We need remained that what efl have done to us and keep pressure on them.

The club will be running at a profit. Full(ish) ground (25K+) for home games bringing in the money. Not allowed to pay transfer/loan/agent's fees although I do agree with the last one. Clubs shouldn't pay agent's fees. Players have a contract with their agent, DCFC doesn't. The agent represents the player. Players should pay their agent, not the club.

Roadrider. The contact address to get seats is with Skills coaches. I think Skills are running the service. The club is merely letting fans know the service is available. I may be wrong, however...

The restrictions are in the 2 year business plan DCFC wrote and EFL accepted. I'd like to think they might look at how we've been "responsible" and "good boys" this season and ease them restrictions a little but I won't be holding my breath.

[MadAmster]

Just now, MadAmster said:

Clubs shouldn't pay agent's fees. Players have a contract with their agent, DCFC doesn't. The agent represents the player. Players should pay their agent, not the club.

 

I will expand on my thoughts on agent payments. Again, if I am wrong on this please feel free to educate me.

The agent represents the player and will get a % of the player's wages for that representation. Nothing wrong there IMO. They provide a service and should get paid for that service.

However, it is commonplace that clubs also pay the player's agent. I find it simply wrong that an agent bills both sides of the agreement.

If a club asks an agent to source this or that player then a fee to the agent is justifiable.