Jump to content

Have Derby County been treated unfairly by the EFL


Curtains

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Did Mel have any other option !

Unless he had a spare £50m+ burning a hole in his back pocket, I suspect not.  It was a matter of time until HMRC or MSD came calling for what we owe them.  And having the stadium and training ground repossessed by MSD possibly would have put us in a worse position.

In terms of the EFL, there's no doubt we were badly treated.  Having the ground valued by a guy that knew nothing about valuing sports stadiums.  The amortization charge off the back of an "expert" who literally did not know the rules he was supposedly an expert on. Points deductions for offences under rules that were subsequently changed to make sure other clubs didn't break them.  Various demands that the administrators break the law or they'd kick us out of the league.  Rewriting administration law on a whim to benefit the  parasite clubs.  An apparently harsher enforced business-plan than any other club has been forced under.  I could go on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Curtains said:


Transfer deadline day and clubs spending what they like !

Lets face it Derby troubles started with the appeal by the EFL over Amortisation and ground sale 

Forgive Jean Smart GIF by HBO Max

With you Curtains. It was a gross injustice that has led us to here. This sums up my view on it.

I hope very bad things happen to all the people at the EFL involved or who stood idly by and didn't stop the wrongdoing on the part of their organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

In the grand scheme of things yes.

But Mel putting us in to admin was the real killer.

Looking forward to seeing how the next club in our position gets treated...

Yes will be interested to see if other clubs take unilateral action now that Wycombe and Boro have set a precedent in law. This for me was the shameful part of the entire story, in that the EFL facilitated it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PistoldPete said:

It’s in the rules that we have to follow a business plan. Doesn’t say what it is though. If we have a good chance of promotion wouldn’t it be good business to bring in a striker? 

We've agreed a business plan. There's money in our transfer kitty. Why not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the EFL rules preventing DCFC from extending the contracts of Academy professionals on low wages and offering professional contracts to players turning 17 robbed DCFC of sufficient players to run functioning teams below 1st team level, put additional strain on those youngsters left behind, presented bargains to clubs that we owed nothing to, and potentially robbed unsecured creditors from receiving further funds over and above what any prospective owner was willing to pay (eg : if DCFC had been able to extend Ebosele's  contract on the proviso that any profit from a future transfer was split in an agreed proportion between the club and unsecured creditors, it would at least have meant potentially more money for creditors and no unearned bargain for Udineseford. It would also have meant that, in the event that the club was liquidated, the EFL would have been able to claim higher compensation from any club wishing to acquire their registrations). Their short-sighted rule also, in the case of Ebosele, meant that his Irish club missed out on a healthy sell-on fee. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curtains said:


Transfer deadline day and clubs spending what they like !

Lets face it Derby troubles started with the appeal by the EFL over Amortisation and ground sale 

I thought Derby's troubles started when MM started spending what he liked!  ?

 

And as for agreeing to the business plan, my understanding is it's the other way around?  DC compiled the plan, EFL agreed to it?

OK, he may well have had a dozen attempts before they finally agreed, and the EFL may well have had him over a barrel, but still.

We all knew this was coming, and the main man was at least willing to accept it, if not strictly happy with it.  Good on him, I say.  The alternative doesn't bear thinking about!

Let's see what the summer brings, and hope things improve (once reviewed), but even if not, we can have no complaints.  The 2 year plan is in place (Subject to a review", supposedly?)

Just a shame that it is DC being shackled, and not DC.  He doesn't deserve it... but he did volunteer for it.  Thank God for DC though, eh?  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Yes efl are bunch bankers anything try keep us down it really really unfair that we cant sign players on small fees or at least a couple of players on fees.

They had the club over a barrel, agree and you survive or disagree and you die. With a binary answer, what would you have done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I think the EFL rules preventing DCFC from extending the contracts of Academy professionals on low wages and offering professional contracts to players turning 17 robbed DCFC of sufficient players to run functioning teams below 1st team level, put additional strain on those youngsters left behind, presented bargains to clubs that we owed nothing to, and potentially robbed unsecured creditors from receiving further funds over and above what any prospective owner was willing to pay (eg : if DCFC had been able to extend Ebosele's  contract on the proviso that any profit from a future transfer was split in an agreed proportion between the club and unsecured creditors, it would at least have meant potentially more money for creditors and no unearned bargain for Udineseford. It would also have meant that, in the event that the club was liquidated, the EFL would have been able to claim higher compensation from any club wishing to acquire their registrations). Their short-sighted rule also, in the case of Ebosele, meant that his Irish club missed out on a healthy sell-on fee. 

 

This is the main bit that I feel aggrieved by. Just a ridiculous situation all round. 

The rest of it is just a product of coming out of administration. Play with feathers, you get your arse tickled - and the club under the last ownership played with far too many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

I thought Derby's troubles started when MM started spending what he liked!  ?

 

And as for agreeing to the business plan, my understanding is it's the other way around?  DC compiled the plan, EFL agreed to it?

OK, he may well have had a dozen attempts before they finally agreed, and the EFL may well have had him over a barrel, but still.

We all knew this was coming, and the main man was at least willing to accept it, if not strictly happy with it.  Good on him, I say.  The alternative doesn't bear thinking about!

Let's see what the summer brings, and hope things improve (once reviewed), but even if not, we can have no complaints.  The 2 year plan is in place (Subject to a review", supposedly?)

Just a shame that it is DC being shackled, and not DC.  He doesn't deserve it... but he did volunteer for it.  Thank God for DC though, eh?  ?

Didn’t Mel just back his Managers .

Devil and deep blue sea .

Fans wanted signings as well remember 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...