Derby County

[Bristol Rob]

Just now, Slippin cider said:

Blues 2 up …. 

Is this the Embargo Derby?

[Slippin cider]

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

Is this the Embargo Derby?

The very same …

[Mr Popodopolous]

Reading bits and bobs on Twitter, I dunno if it's a noisy minority but Derby fans do seem to consider that officials/refs are against them.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As an aside, unsure why, two clubs especially, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday didn't look to take their medicine at a better time for them.

Two cases, where fighting constantly isn't always wise.

Sheffield Wednesday take a deduction on the chin in 2018/19 with full contrition, transparency and cooperation. Derby in 2019/20 when initially charged and clearly not going up- better than Embargo upon Embargo, Charge upon Charge surely- take the hit, accept no Promotion in Year X and then look to rebuild steadily, perhaps in Derby's case, under new owners while the club still at this level.

[Davefevs]

Derby fan getting salty that Troy Deeney getting mentioned more than Wayne Rooney.

Jeez, they are hypocritical.

[Baba Yaga]

They had something like 67% of the ball against Birmingham but from what I saw it was painfully slow build up and apart from Lawrence it doesn't seem like there is much in way of goals in the team. Also looks like they can be pressured into making a fair few mistakes at the back. 

I have never really cared for Derby but there is something about an underdog story that makes me want to root for them just a little (their players and coaches I mean, nothing to do with their owners and fans). But if they get a points deduction this season I think they are definitely relegated.

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Derby fan getting salty that Troy Deeney getting mentioned more than Wayne Rooney.

Jeez, they are hypocritical.

Hypocritical, incapable of irony or just not very bright?

Given they think there is a conspiracy against them by the EFL and referees my money's on the latter.

[Mr Popodopolous]

@chinapig

Do you ever read DCFCfans? It's interesting stuff, though I've been quite hard on that forum in the past, which I won't go into tbh but some still seem to believe that the Accounting Policy deemed not in accordance with FRS 102 is in fact the EFL making things up/getting things wrong. Not in so many words but they believe their Accounting Treatment is in fact right, some of them- yet a guy who claims it has according to him, between 20-25 years Audit and Accounting Experience...shame the League Arbitration Panel didn't agree! Differences in interpretation perhaps...don't see the EFL giving ground however, unsure how they can.

There has been a victim mentality/narrative on there in recent times though, which is at odds with the reality- well yes and no because in a sense they are victims- but of an owner who is bad/inept/reckless or even just plain old stubborn as hell!

13 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

They had something like 67% of the ball against Birmingham but from what I saw it was painfully slow build up and apart from Lawrence it doesn't seem like there is much in way of goals in the team. Also looks like they can be pressured into making a fair few mistakes at the back. 

I have never really cared for Derby but there is something about an underdog story that makes me want to root for them just a little (their players and coaches I mean, nothing to do with their owners and fans). But if they get a points deduction this season I think they are definitely relegated.

See what you're getting at, but a club with a multi million Bielik and Lawrence still on the books to name 2...and despite everything youngsters such as Knight, Sibley and Buchanan who have considerable promise on the books, then Byrne and Marshall- the latter two sound odd but remember how Wigan surged post Christmas 2019 up to and even including admin, under Cook- they not only beat teams but started hammering them, playing them off the park going from doomed to midtable prior to the -12 - they plundered both in Summer 2020 when Wigan into admin through a freak event, then a Jozwiak who featured v England and joined for multi millions.

There is tbh- only IMO of course- a case to say that Derby should have a reasonable chance of survival, subject to injuries and depth issues of course- plus of course the great unknown ie the deduction or non deduction.

13 hours ago, chinapig said:

Hypocritical, incapable of irony or just not very bright?

Given they think there is a conspiracy against them by the EFL and referees my money's on the latter.

Some conspiracy eh!

Last 2 games, when the ref missed Forsyth's well wasn't so much tackle as on the Forest players- *ahem*- tackle albeit he got the retrospective 3 match ban from the FA and Lawrence leading with the elbow vs Birmingham, it merited a free kick only. Latter could be elevation or accidental, Shearer after all liked an elbow IIRC but if ref saw it- talking the Lawrence challenge- no ban possible surely.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Will add a bit more.

Accounting wise...multiple links to ponder as to whether Derby's apparent (source: Kieran Maguire) £30m claim is within FRS 102, let alone P&S Regs or not.

The extra Profit could well have been something else, maybe the difference between Depreciation between Cost and Revaluation methods as opposed to the £30m...ie lop that off the Carrying Value. EFL won't accept it willingly I'm certain but..

https://www.accaglobal.com/lk/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-reporting/technical-articles/pl-concepts.html

https://annualreporting.info/reclassification-adjustments/

https://fincyclopedia.net/accounting/r/reclassification-adjustment

One of these links is listed in $ which throws me, another is IAS 16 which could well differ materially to FRS 102.

https://www.accaglobal.com/my/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-reporting/technical-articles/profit-loss-oci.html

https://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias16

https://www.accaglobal.com/lk/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-reporting/technical-articles/pl-concepts.html#No-OCI-and-no-reclassification

Then.

This Revaluation Reserve was transferred in 2018 on disposal to Profit and Loss Account- as in the cumulative Profit and Loss Account as opposed to the annual one- even with it included, it was -£42m...surely you cannot cherry pick one Reserve like that?

As for the Sevco 5112 Accounts, even were you to add that £30m into those- these consolidated Accounts were active from 2015/16 to present but most recent Accounts to 2017/18 ie June 2018- even were you to add it in, then the cumulative P&L would still be negative ie below zero...again the whole cherry picking question.

This was the Revaluation Surplus ie the remaining Revaluation Reserve at time of disposal and the possible basis of Derby's claim about the extra Profit on disposal.

This thread also calls into q the claims of an extra £30m Accounting Treatment wise...

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/frs-102-other-comprehensive-income

...As do the EFL's own Regulations and how it could be recognised- where is the place to put it?? The possible bit about Depreciation differences maybe one avenue but then Depreciation is of course excluded from the overall loss for FFP so?

Plus 

A problem here is that this is for the division below but in theory could add a bit of clarity.

I think we know what the answer to 2.10 would be!  2.9... "For the avoidance of doubt any revaluation reserves do not qualify for inclusion". 

Accumulated Profit basically I believe is Retained Earnings- Derby's is negative no? Let alone the exclusion of Revaluation Reserves for EFL purposes- wonder if that clause was written with anyone in mind?

There are so many arguments against it seems.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This was the Revaluation Surplus ie the remaining Revaluation Reserve at time of disposal and the possible basis of Derby's claim about the extra Profit on disposal.

Unfortunately you are looking this from the wrong end.

FRS102 allows you to value property on a 'cost basis' or a 'valuation basis'.

When Derby started using FRS102 for the first time they decided to use a 'valuation basis' and therefore carried across the £30m relavuation reserve.  However they first used FRS102 for the 2016 accounts, which is the eraliest year that they have to restate their accounts for the EFL.

So the question is - "Having initially used a 'revaluation basis' can they change to a 'cost basis' when restating the accounts.  The reversal of the reserve on a cost basis will be a prior year adjustment in 2015.  If this is a valid adjustment then the profit on disposal in 2018 will be enhanced by the lack of a revaluation reserve.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

Unfortunately you are looking this from the wrong end.

FRS102 allows you to value property on a 'cost basis' or a 'valuation basis'.

When Derby started using FRS102 for the first time they decided to use a 'valuation basis' and therefore carried across the £30m relavuation reserve.  However they first used FRS102 for the 2016 accounts, which is the eraliest year that they have to restate their accounts for the EFL.

So the question is - "Having initially used a 'revaluation basis' can they change to a 'cost basis' when restating the accounts.  The reversal of the reserve on a cost basis will be a prior year adjustment in 2015.  If this is a valid adjustment then the profit on disposal in 2018 will be enhanced by the lack of a revaluation reserve.

 

Kieran Maguire was coming at it from a mistaken angle then?

In other words, from what you say, Purchase Price remains the same but Revaluation Reserve disappears from the Carrying Value? Carrying Value - Revaluation Reserve=New Carrying Value. Proceeds -  Carrying Value=Profit or Loss on Disposal.

As far as I can see, the policy in 2016 and 2017 ie into FRS 102 remained as Revaluation.

They surely cannot go back and Restate retrospectively that policy.

Bit I've looked at briefly too (only briefly tbh) is Deemed Cost FRS 102 Valuation etc. Strikes me as possible double counting to Profit from Revaluation Reserve. 

Anyway if it's only applicable to 2018 accounts then the period that begins 2018/19 sees that vanish.

EFL just need to keep the Embargo and Rule 16.20 in play for a long time to come, if it goes to an IDC that can take months, good luck buying in Jan. Policy of maximum pressure seems a good starting point.

[Hxj]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Carrying Value - Revaluation Reserve=New Carrying Value. Proceeds -  Carrying Value=Profit or Loss on Disposal.

Agreed.

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They surely cannot go back and Restate retrospectively that policy.

They have been asked to restate the accounts, and due to a timing fluke ....

 

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Anyway if it's only applicable to 2018 accounts then the period that begins 2018/19 sees that vanish.

It won't help them for 2015/16 or 2016/17 seasons, and it will only help them for 2018/19 to 2021/22 if it's permissible.

I did ask a couple of auditors I know, who both rolled their eyes and said, "I'll get back to you when I have some spare time ..."

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 hours ago, Hxj said:

Agreed.

They have been asked to restate the accounts, and due to a timing fluke ....

 

It won't help them for 2015/16 or 2016/17 seasons, and it will only help them for 2018/19 to 2021/22 if it's permissible.

I did ask a couple of auditors I know, who both rolled their eyes and said, "I'll get back to you when I have some spare time ..."

One day I'll get the multiquote feature of the same post right but yes until then...

Agreed.

Hmm, still think good grounds not to accept for P&S purposes.

This bit I am confused on- would the Profit on disposal actually be applicable in the season following the disposal?? I assumed that if permissible- if- then it would go in the year of the disposal, 2017/18. Ergo it has dropped off by now, with 2017/18 being the year of disposal and enhanced profit, therefore 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 with 2020/21 combined average being applicable.

Along with the disposal, it drops off as the Asset no longer on the books...? What I'm trying to say is surely enhanced profit in same year as the disposal?

Might be worth delving into further because...

The rep from Club's Auditor ie Smith Cooper, Andrew Delve or James Delve might provide different advice to the Club eh.  Funny how Derby's auditor up to from IIRC 2013/14 to 2016/17 and then the new guy from 2017/18 to present- funny how they have the same surname?

Edited September 13, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

May as well take a look at the relevant Accounting policies in terms of the extra £30m or not- from 2015/16 to 2017/18 though I will also include 2014/15 for illustrative purposes.

On that note, I think the guys before Mel Morris a) From the look of it, left that club in a useful position and b) Surely had no issues with compliance- expect they behaved impeccably in that regard. Mistakes are possible of course but the problem with Derby is quite clearly their owner and perhaps hierarchy, although that clearly shouldn't exempt them from anything.

The Club

2014/15

This was the last year prior to FRS 102- and prior to the owner but FRS 102 probably more important.

Dunno if it's worth noting, but also mentions the historical cost convention as modified by the revaluation of certain tangible fixed assets- by which it must mean Pride Park.

Quote

"Freehold buildings known as the iPro Stadium held at valuation based on the depreciated replacement cost of the property".

The depreciation policy as well.

Global Derby- the parent company until the takeover, also has the same policies FWIW.

2015/16

This was the first year of FRS 102.

Some of this could be unnecessary but as we can see, Policies were basically the same- "historical cost convention as modified by the revaluation of certain tangible fixed assets"- it features again. A possible difference is Land ie Land not depreciated but then it wasn't then either, could bump up the value a bit.

Confirmation of the Transition to FRS 102.

The policies were basically retained on transition and no alterations of the relevant bits were required.

2016/17

Hmm, slight difference in wording here...change from "historical cost convention as modified by the revaluation of certain tangible fixed assets" to "historical cost convention modified to include certain items at fair value".

Excluding freehold property eh?

Sounds like carrying value might equal fair value here.

Ah yes, these are the freehold buildings- Pride Park. In 2017, Accounts that were released in Spring 2018, no indication of impairment had been noted.

2017/18

Interesting, although this was changed in the year itself of the disposal...and there is zero reference to Pride Park or the prior category- zero reference as to why the policy has changed and the categorisation has changed...it appears to be classed as Leasehold property and improvements yet FRS 102 states that certain consistency of policy plus disclosures are required.

Cake and eat it territory yet again??

The Sevco 5112 policies on Year 1, which coincidentally is the start of FRS 102- they are basically the same, save for...

No need seen for Fair Value adjustments...ergo Vendors' book value was seen as equivalent on acquisition to Fair value to the group...the entirety of the Tangible Fixed Assets were therefore on acquisition seen as £55,601,000.

There was no Fair value adjustment on takeover, on acquisition.

Policies were the same in 2016/17 as well as 2017/18.

Although...

"Excluding freehold property" differs here.

There is also no Revaluation Reserve on Sevco 5112 Limited from day one, but given the club technically owned the stadium and was incorporated into consolidated I wonder how big a difference that makes.

Overall, it seems hard to justify IMO, let alone for FFP...

[Hxj]

17 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This bit I am confused on- would the Profit on disposal actually be applicable in the season following the disposal?? I assumed that if permissible- if- then it would go in the year of the disposal, 2017/18. Ergo it has dropped off by now, with 2017/18 being the year of disposal and enhanced profit, therefore 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 with 2020/21 combined average being applicable.

So was I!  It should have read 2017/18 to 2020/21

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, Hxj said:

So was I!  It should have read 2017/18 to 2020/21

 

Thanks- this is the bit that slips out of the narrative of discussions by their fans on it, or often can anyway- even if that sees them right to 2018 and up to 2020/21, it slips out and is replaced by a loss of whatever size as starting point in 2018/19.

You might also be interested to know that, as with last Jan when the charges first materialised, some of their fans are suggesting that perhaps the club should seek injunctive relief- but I'm unsure whether that's permitted under the system.

The system that all clubs are bound by, so I must assume they are one of them, that sign up to and have signed up to this.

All from here...

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/b3cd34c726c341ca9636610aa4503172/regulations-season-2021-22-final.pdf

Unless I've misread something fairly sure Section 44 of the Arbitration Act covers it..."exclusion extends to any rights that would otherwise arise under:" Included in that is, yes we've guessed it, Section 44...anyway they'd have to go through the initial IDC before even reaching this stage surely- "Membership of the League shall constitute" tells me that they have to go through the system as it is with only challenges under Section 67 and 68 a possibility once it reaches the LAP.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's a view that's gaining traction on there among a few- was hoping to edit that post but ran out of time...one or two say "walk away from this process and go down the Court route"- pretty sure it doesn't work like that!!

Likewise, going to the CAS- it's not impossible I guess but it feels like significant barriers would exist.

95.1.2 feels quite pertinent- from the same link above.

In further good news, if things are still dragging then it appears that they might have maxed out professional standing even if Jagielka and Baldock leave on expiration of contract. Gives the EFL a little more leverage.

1 start or sub appearance at the relevant levels or in the relevant competitions=Professional Standing but excluding the Chorley game.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

some of their fans are suggesting that perhaps the club should seek injunctive relief

No chance of court action.  The membership rules expressly prohibit it.

However DCFC could institue a dispute with the EFL with the objective of requiring the EFL to lift the Transfer Embargo, assuming of course that the EFL are playing silly. See rule 95.2.   I'm really surprised that given the weight of the DCFC case, or at least the amount of hot air expended on it on DCFCFans that they haven't come up with this solution.

I wonder why MM and the super duper legal teanm haven't either - makes you wonder if they really have been caught out badly.

Oh and they are still whining on about the accounts being approved by the EFL - the rest of their views make more sense if the two decisions haven;t even been read!

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Hxj

[Port Said Red]

Their players must be finding out what their new salaries are about shouldn't they? That could be interesting.

Alan Nixon

@reluctantnicko

Derby County. Players turn up for training fearing the worst after Morris comments. Have summit and then ALL handed contracts. Names on but no figures of wages. Need to be signed by tomorrow midday to play at weekend. Beyond words

10:26 AM · Aug 5, 2021

1.9K

228

Share this Tweet

Edited September 15, 2021 by Port Said Red

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 hours ago, Hxj said:

No chance of court action.  The membership rules expressly prohibit it.

However DCFC could institue a dispute with the EFL with the objective of requiring the EFL to lift the Transfer Embargo, assuming of course that the EFL are playing silly. See rule 95.2.   I'm really surprised that given the weight of the DCFC case, or at least the amount of hot air expended on it on DCFCFans that they haven't come up with this solution.

I wonder why MM and the super duper legal teanm haven't either - makes you wonder if they really have been caught out badly.

Oh and they are still whining on about the accounts being approved by the EFL - the rest of their views make more sense if the two decisions haven;t even been read!

 

Yep agreed- a few are suggesting the CAS as opposed to the domestic courts here, but again it strikes me as being incompatible with the membership rules.

That's an interesting idea...although I wonder if Regulation 16.20 is the one here, or indeed if the fact that HMRC obligations appear to be outstanding might trump aspects of the other cases.

They along with SWFC used Nick De Marco on this, unsure if he's involved at this moment- Geldards appear to be the clubs lawyers in general, they're not a small firm as far as I can tell though tbh I have little knowledge of their work etc.

The funny thing is that their take on there, I used to slate but actually appears to have more criticism than the fanbase at large- have read that there are very few anti Mel Morris chants at games...as a % you'll probably get more critical discussion on there, but I reckon a lot of their fans ie the wider fanbase, see the club as the victims here. Perhaps a greater % than on DCFCFans!

On a side note, was interested to read that Kazim-Richards is claimed to be back by after the October International break...

...Interested because one of the reasons for Baldock getting dispensation to sign was a long term injury! Reference to an operation too- of which there is no sign. I wonder if the EFL would have a view here if he's back 6 weeks, 2 months or maybe longer ahead of schedule and they signed Baldock at least in part due to this.

They also appear to have classed a number of their Players- those that would be deemed as Players of Professional Standing- as Under 21's. Even though that particular Regulation when under Embargo has no age limit as far as I can see. That drops to 16 between windows as per the Embargo Reporting Service, the Professional Standing bit.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Jerseybean]

Sky are reporting a nine point deduction for Derby with immediate effect, not confirmed as yet. 

[Davefevs]

Plus 3 suspended too.

Plus they need to be under a business plan too, but that hasn’t been agreed.  Puts them bottom, below Forest.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Plus 3 suspended too.

Plus they need to be under a business plan too, but that hasn’t been agreed.  Puts them bottom, below Forest.

I expect that the Business Plan could  be fairly easy to calculate.

Whatever their remaining Headroom either if it's aggregate 3 year loss or adjusted if both reset to £13m + Allowable Costs due to a breach in the prior years- they can spend that, be it on fees, loans or similar...

Perhaps there would be an Upper Wage Cap...the 3 suspended feels like it could mean a few things, I'd say a good way for 3 suspended could be to have it tied to the Business Plan ie 9 now and in March/April if Business Plan breached or if further overspending when the Projections sent in, 9 > 12 just like that.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

EFL Statement - EFL statement: Derby County - News - EFL Official Website

"In response to ongoing media speculation, the EFL wishes to clarify that discussions with Derby County in respect of outstanding Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) matters are continuing and no decision has yet been reached.

On 2 July 2021, an Independent Disciplinary Commission found in favour of the EFL in respect of its challenge to the Club’s policy on amortising player registrations.  The Club received a £100,000 financial penalty, a reprimand as to its future behaviour and ordered to submit revised accounts for the years ended 30 June 2016, 2017, and 2018.  

In an attempt to resolve all remaining issues with the EFL in regard to its P&S submissions the Club provided the EFL with information prior to last month’s deadline and this remains under review by the League’s Executive.

In any disciplinary matter, the EFL will always consider whether it can be concluded by way of an Agreed Decision as per EFL Regulation 85.  An Agreed Decision, which is subject to independent ratification, is deemed appropriate in circumstances which justify the conclusion of an effective and equitable resolution without a referral to a Disciplinary Commission.

There are no timescales for this matter to be concluded and the League will not be providing any further comment at this time."

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

EFL Statement - EFL statement: Derby County - News - EFL Official Website

"In response to ongoing media speculation, the EFL wishes to clarify that discussions with Derby County in respect of outstanding Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) matters are continuing and no decision has yet been reached.

On 2 July 2021, an Independent Disciplinary Commission found in favour of the EFL in respect of its challenge to the Club’s policy on amortising player registrations.  The Club received a £100,000 financial penalty, a reprimand as to its future behaviour and ordered to submit revised accounts for the years ended 30 June 2016, 2017, and 2018.  

In an attempt to resolve all remaining issues with the EFL in regard to its P&S submissions the Club provided the EFL with information prior to last month’s deadline and this remains under review by the League’s Executive.

In any disciplinary matter, the EFL will always consider whether it can be concluded by way of an Agreed Decision as per EFL Regulation 85.  An Agreed Decision, which is subject to independent ratification, is deemed appropriate in circumstances which justify the conclusion of an effective and equitable resolution without a referral to a Disciplinary Commission.

There are no timescales for this matter to be concluded and the League will not be providing any further comment at this time."

 

Hmm, no reference to 2019 and beyond or could that perhaps have been the additional info? Restatement of those 3 seasons causes a knock on effect for a lot of seasons, FFP periods.

"No timescales"- that's positive, means that the EFL can't be bounced into making excessive concessions against a ticking clock?

Despite what I said in Paragraph 1 however, I have to assume that any possible EFL-Derby settlement would incorporate the whole period ie 2015/16 to 2020/21 and include limits to keep in line for 2021/22.

On the timescale bit, I'm torn between 'Justice delayed is justice denied' and 'Justice rushed is justice crushed'. If it drags they can just see their takeover but more pertinently the chance of any new signings drag especially as they could be up to 23 of Professional Standing by Jan even with contracts of Jagielka and Baldock expiring.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I could be being unfair here, but wow if true.

Steve Nicholson is the local journo for Derby- everyone has one, he's our Gregor basically.

it's a Q & A- again all normal- but he appears to be asking the fan if Birmingham had a Business Plan imposed?? 

The fan says it's unprecedented and totally new and the journo- you know the one from a position of greater knowledge- appears to be asking the fan about Birmingham's situation.

You'd kinda hope journos would have a significantly better grasp of their brief when it comes to a major story or potentially major story involving the club that they cover...

In answer to his Q. Yes- yes they did!

Edited September 16, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I could be being unfair here, but wow if true.

Steve Nicholson is the local journo for Derby- everyone has one, he's our Gregor basically.

it's a Q & A- again all normal- but he appears to be asking the fan if Birmingham had a Business Plan imposed?? 

The fan says it's unprecedented and totally new and the journo- you know the one from a position of greater knowledge- appears to be asking the fan about Birmingham's situation.

You'd kinda hope journos would have a significantly better grasp of their brief when it comes to a major story or potentially major story involving the club that they cover...

In answer to his Q. Yes- yes they did!

I guess he might not have been asking a question, but the question mark being slightly tongue in cheek.  Unlikely though, think I’m giving him too much credit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess he might not have been asking a question, but the question mark being slightly tongue in cheek.  Unlikely though, think I’m giving him too much credit.

That could be true, I will caveat my post a bit...a suitable answer though would have been "Yes, in order to ensure not only compliance in the present season but in future seasons to come". Joke or not, it was a bit of an odd answer- certainly didn't clarify anything in any case.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Seems that there's a call for a protest on Dcfcfans. Perhaps tomorrow.

Against which party?

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38278-protest-against-the-right-people/

Draw your own conclusions as to which party they deem to be the 'right' people.

@downendcity @Hxj @chinapig @Davefevs

Unbelievable their take tbh. Rick Parry should resign or the FSA should get involved, or the PFA for restraint of trade all mentioned in recent days.

Problem is, I see precious little chance of sympathy from other clubs or fans of those clubs, especially those at this level or punished via FFP.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems that there's a call for a protest on Dcfcfans. Perhaps tomorrow.

Against which party?

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38278-protest-against-the-right-people/

Draw your own conclusions as to which party they deem to be the 'right' people.

@downendcity @Hxj @chinapig @Davefevs

Unbelievable their take tbh. Rick Parry should resign or the FSA should get involved, or the PFA for restraint of trade all mentioned in recent days.

Problem is, I see precious little chance of sympathy from other clubs or fans of those clubs, especially those at this level or punished via FFP.

Credit DCFC27 for sticking his/her head above the parapet. He/she seems to get it. This is his/her post on that thread.

"Whichever way we dress it up we broke the rules... he bent over backwards to avoid FFP so is it a massive surprise they want us punished... We had to work out an accounting process to work around the rules and sell our stadium so that we could make the signings we have. Ultimately he tried to cheat and he's embarrassed the club and the fans. We'll probably go into league one on the back of his ownership so ultimately I don't blame fans if they want Mel out. Whilst I don't doubt his intentions and commitment to Derby County he has monumentally failed!"

Unfortunately, I suspect this will be a pretty loan voice among the cacophony of fans shouting loudly about Derby being the victims and the EFL being the villains. There have been many failures by the EFL as far as the implementation, application and policing of it’s own ffp rules is concerned,  and the feeling that offending clubs have been too easily able to “get away” with it. I wonder how much  Derby fans' chagrin is because they feel hard done by, because the EFL have been diligently following through their investigation into the club’s affairs as far as ffp rules are concerned, when they thought that they had “got away with it” with the sale of Pride Park? 

 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Credit DCFC27 for sticking his/her head above the parapet. He/she seems to get it. This is his/her post on that thread.

"Whichever way we dress it up we broke the rules... he bent over backwards to avoid FFP so is it a massive surprise they want us punished... We had to work out an accounting process to work around the rules and sell our stadium so that we could make the signings we have. Ultimately he tried to cheat and he's embarrassed the club and the fans. We'll probably go into league one on the back of his ownership so ultimately I don't blame fans if they want Mel out. Whilst I don't doubt his intentions and commitment to Derby County he has monumentally failed!"

Unfortunately, I suspect this will be a pretty loan voice among the cacophony of fans shouting loudly about Derby being the victims and the EFL being the villains. There have been many failures by the EFL as far as the implementation, application and policing of it’s own ffp rules is concerned,  and the feeling that offending clubs have been too easily able to “get away” with it. I wonder how much  Derby fans' chagrin is because they feel hard done by, because the EFL have been diligently following through their investigation into the club’s affairs as far as ffp rules are concerned, when they thought that they had “got away with it” with the sale of Pride Park? 

 

 

 

Credit to DCFC27 for sure. A lone voice yet a decent handle on things.

Yep agreed, plenty will cast it as a Victims and Villains scenario. It will have happened with other clubs ie Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday but surely not to this level. Then again perhaps was because their cases didn't drag as long.

Yeah agreed, EFL have in the past been slack, slow and incompetent in this regard. I sense a sea change this Summer onwards however. The fixed asset loophole has belatedly been shut, the Embargo Reporting Service delivers more transparency. Quite encouragingly the EFL update suggested yesterday that there was no upper time limit on the process. It should if necessary take as long as it takes.

Think a lot of these issues stem back to Shaun Harvey's tenure...and talking of the stadium sale he actually sped up the process to return to later ahead of the summer window. He left a mass of problems for his successor!! Not just FFP but in general buy certainly FFP wise.

For balance, took a quick look at the Sanctioning Hearing which ordered restated accounts and it suggested that Derby accepted it for this purpose but still held the view that their amortisation method was accurate etc.

Agreed too, a lot of the fans are probably dismayed that the EFL are doing a thorough job. Remember 'EFL on strings'?

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems that there's a call for a protest on Dcfcfans. Perhaps tomorrow.

Against which party?

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38278-protest-against-the-right-people/

Draw your own conclusions as to which party they deem to be the 'right' people.

@downendcity @Hxj @chinapig @Davefevs

Unbelievable their take tbh. Rick Parry should resign or the FSA should get involved, or the PFA for restraint of trade all mentioned in recent days.

Problem is, I see precious little chance of sympathy from other clubs or fans of those clubs, especially those at this level or punished via FFP.

After much thought I shall join the protest by writing to Parry demanding an amendment to the rules as follows:

1.0 Nothing in these rules shall apply to Wayne Rooney's Derby County on the grounds that they used to be good decades ago when Brian Clough was their manager and on the additional grounds that neither their owner nor their fans are capable of reading and/or understanding the rules anyway.

I'm sure all right minded fans, and the owners of all EFL clubs will join me in urging this change in the interests of justice for a club admired by fans the world over.*

*though the last point is disputed by a famous League 2 club so may need to go to arbitration.

[Clevedon Red]

 

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, Clevedon Red said:

 

Bring it on.  Minus 12 points automatically (unless they go down anyway in which case it’ll apply next season).

They’ll still have to comply with FFP too.

Mel Morris - what a man

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

-12 for administration and potential additional-9 for efl breaches? Any ideas.

Yep.  So the 9 could relegate them, and then they’d be minus 12 next season.  Double whammy, but like a double whammy of selling a stadium to “yourself”.

[Lanterne Rouge]

6 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/09/derby-county-board-of-directors-statement-17th-september-2021

 

It's all covid fault. Take them to the cleaners.

What a statement. Always the victims!

[GrahamC]

Only need to worry about 2 places now..

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

I'm confused. Won't they lose -12 now?

Administration is totally separate to the EFL Charges.

[Sweeneys Penalties]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Administration is totally separate to the EFL Charges.

12+9

 

[chinapig]

So it's down to:

1. Covid

2. The EFL

3. Definitely not financial mismanagement by Honest Mel Morris.

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

[Robbored]

BBC are reporting that Derby will lose 12 points.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

What a statement. Always the victims!

So the Administration Team will be in effect selling the club as a League One club.  There’s little chance they’d get enough points (say 70) to offset a 21 point deduction.  The aim of any new owners will be to either try to get enough points to avoid minus 12 being carried into next season next season, so probably still need circa 60 points.  Tough ask.

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

BBC are reporting that Derby will lose 12 points.

Automatically yep.  But they still have the other EFL charges….this is not one or the other.

[Dolman_Stand]

So they basically have one foot in League Two for the 23/24 season, what an absolute shambles that a club as well supported and significant as Derby can find themselves in that situation. I hope this only further highlights what a fantastic owner we have in Steve Lansdown.

[BetterRedthanBlue]

This would be separate to the EFL deduction wouldn't it? So realistically they could lose in excess of 15 points.

My only concern is the EFL will back down because of the administration deducting points.

[Lanterne Rouge]

8 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

Even the derby fans are up in arms.

I`ve just had a look on their forum and to their credit most of the posters know exactly where the blame lies and it`s not with the EFL.

[View from the Dolman]

Special programme coming up on BBC Radio Derby at 9pm: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_derby

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 minute ago, BetterRedThanBlue said:

This would be separate to the EFL deduction wouldn't it? So realistically they could lose in excess of 15 points.

My only concern is the EFL will back down because of the administration deducting points.

This. They`ve gone into admin and are hoping that the EFL will say they`ve been punished enough. Hope not though.

When was the last time a club at Derby`s level went into admin? It must be many years now.

[View from the Dolman]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So the Administration Team will be in effect selling the club as a League One club.  There’s little chance they’d get enough points (say 70) to offset a 21 point deduction.  The aim of any new owners will be to either try to get enough points to avoid minus 12 being carried into next season next season, so probably still need circa 60 points.  Tough ask.

Are you sure the 12 points could be carried over? That only appears to be possible if the deduction happens after the fourth Thursday in March from my reading of the EFL regulations.

 

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I`ve just had a look on their forum and to their credit most of the posters know exactly where the blame lies and it`s not with the EFL.

They've changed their tune then, until now it's been an evil conspiracy against their poor little club/giant of the game.*

*delete as appropriate.

[cityexile]

Forest fan grabbed the monkeys paw and wished ‘just put us ahead of Derby’...

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Are you sure the 12 points could be carried over? That only appears to be possible if the deduction happens after the fourth Thursday in March from my reading of the EFL regulations.

 

Yes, someone corrected me re that.  Thanks.

So basically Mel thinks the best way of selling is to take a 21 point deduction so whoever takes over will know they are taking on a League One club with no pending points deduction.  Bet the fans don’t love him anymore!

[And Its Smith]

Personally I take no pleasure in news like this. The fans aren’t at fault at all and it’s them that suffers the most. 

[Dolman_Stand]

2 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

Hope they go bust.

Why?

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Personally I take no pleasure in news like this. The fans aren’t at fault at all and it’s them that suffers the most. 

In the spirit of fair competition, they cheated the rules.  they got found out.  Of course I feel for the fans, not as much as Wycombe fans though.  But I have great pleasure that the cheating club will get their just desserts eventually through the EFL charges when they get put through.  Even through this Morris is trying to play the game by adding administration in because he knows 9 points might be tough to overcome.

[Dolman_Stand]

4 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

Cheats.

And they've been caught and will be sanctioned, I wouldn't want to see any club go bust personally as no fan deserves to lose their club (even Rovers)

[NcnsBcfc]

Reminds me a bit of Luton Town years ago.

Didn't they get hit with -30 point deduction in L2.

Only just missed out from being relegated to non league by a couple of points as well.

With no salary cap in operation. Maybe L1 is the best place for Derby to sort their finances out.

It certainly looks like it's worked out for Sunderland, Portsmouth, Bolton and others. They've all been able to find new owners a lot easier away from the rigours of FFP.

Very difficult in the championship to get yourself out, if you're in a financial hole.

I'm sure they'll be back in the next few seasons, financially refreshed again.

 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Reminds me a bit of Luton Town years ago.

Didn't they get hit with -30 point deduction in L2.

Only just missed out from being relegated to non league by a couple of points as well.

With no salary cap in operation. Maybe L1 is the best place for Derby to sort their finances out.

It certainly looks like it's worked out for Sunderland, Portsmouth, Bolton and others. They've all been able to find new owners a lot easier away from the rigours of FFP.

Very difficult in the championship to get yourself out, if you're in a financial hole.

I'm sure they'll be back in the next few seasons, financially refreshed again.

 

Yep, definitely Lg1 is the place to be with new owners, with different FFP rules to the Champ.

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

no fan deserves to lose their club

In which case don't act as cheerleaders for a cheating owner as he puts your club in danger. I might have some sympathy if they had protested as Morris tried every trick in the book to cheat FFP but instead they thought it was all terribly clever and funny.

Edited September 17, 2021 by chinapig

[And Its Smith]

8 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

And they've been caught and will be sanctioned, I wouldn't want to see any club go bust personally as no fan deserves to lose their club (even Rovers)

Wouldn’t bother feeding the Troll 

[Pugofwar]

On 17/07/2021 at 09:42, Pugofwar said:

More odd behaviour from Derby, shutting off a guaranteed steam of income. Administration looming perhaps?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/derby-county-tickets-lockdown-covid-24547868.amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

Called it! 

[Red Army 75]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In the spirit of fair competition, they cheated the rules.  they got found out.  Of course I feel for the fans, not as much as Wycombe fans though.  But I have great pleasure that the cheating club will get their just desserts eventually through the EFL charges when they get put through.  Even through this Morris is trying to play the game by adding administration in because he knows 9 points might be tough to overcome.

Exactly. **** um 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Marco the red said:

Transfer embargo of 2 years

Yeah, just seen that….

I didn’t know Administration came with a transfer embargo too.  Not heard that before.  Guessing Wigan only signed free transfers due to “senior players” rules?

[Pezo]

5 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Personally I take no pleasure in news like this. The fans aren’t at fault at all and it’s them that suffers the most. 

I agree its rough on the fans the only thing is most of there fans didn't seem to have a problem with it and even now seem to be in complete denial. 

[Wiltshire robin]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, definitely Lg1 is the place to be with new owners, with different FFP rules to the Champ.

I’ve seen people say this a few times before . Is it a big difference compared to the champ?

[Davefevs]

Just now, Wiltshire robin said:

I’ve seen people say this a few times before . Is it a big difference compared to the champ?

Yes, owners can invest money into the turnover figure whereas in champ they can only cover losses.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php

[INCRED]

Well at least that reduces our chances of being relegated this season with it looking like an East Midlands double relegation. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Spare a thought for the poster who started this thread. It`s a crying shame @havanatopiadidn`t live long enough to see justice served.

[BetterRedthanBlue]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, just seen that….

I didn’t know Administration came with a transfer embargo too.  Not heard that before.  Guessing Wigan only signed free transfers due to “senior players” rules?

Tbf derby signed Jagielka, Baldock, Morrison, Davies and I think one other because they didn't have any players basically and those are all under EFL agreed terms.

[Red Army 75]

2 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Spare a thought for the poster who started this thread. It`s a crying shame @havanatopiadidn`t live long enough to see justice served.

Absolutely. Nice touch 

[Davefevs]

I can only guess @Mr Popodopolousis either shithousing on the Derby forum or having the biggest w*** ever.